Pages:
Author

Topic: Hardfork = Mitosis - page 7. (Read 5736 times)

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 21, 2016, 03:48:28 AM
#30
OMG ethereum forked and now it's worthless...

In my eyes it is, i simply cannot trust a currency that can be manipulated at will, its no different than fiat.

We should avoid this at all cost in bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
July 21, 2016, 03:41:45 AM
#29
OMG ethereum forked and now it's worthless...
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
July 20, 2016, 05:09:37 PM
#28
I doubt there can be many causes where both coins after hard fork could co-exist. Most likely the losing side just joins the wining side, or just sell offs because it fits its interests better than basically turning to irrelevance with their smaller and very soon unsupported chain by all the services and exchanges.

I talking about the most likely situations like 80-20 or 70-30, actually close to 50-50 should happen very rarely. But the upcoming ETH fork is nice example, and I dont expect much drama, the coin wont split to two about equally succesfull coins, but instead only one coin going to exist after a while, at least thats my prediction. If Im right, it proves there is no worry doing hard forks, quite opposite as it can move the coin forward and restore people trust.

Huh?  The ETH HF already happened and it is a 90-10 still....
sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
July 20, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
#27
I doubt there can be many causes where both coins after hard fork could co-exist. Most likely the losing side just joins the wining side, or just sell offs because it fits its interests better than basically turning to irrelevance with their smaller and very soon unsupported chain by all the services and exchanges.

I talking about the most likely situations like 80-20 or 70-30, actually close to 50-50 should happen very rarely. But the upcoming ETH fork is nice example, and I dont expect much drama, the coin wont split to two about equally succesfull coins, but instead only one coin going to exist after a while, at least thats my prediction. If Im right, it proves there is no worry doing hard forks, quite opposite as it can move the coin forward and restore people trust.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
July 20, 2016, 04:30:19 PM
#26
After the ETH HF, still anybody wants to fear-spread?

Yes , BTC market cap is 10x higher, still. So why not wait with the HF until we reach parity?

 Huh
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
July 18, 2016, 06:02:39 PM
#25
Sorry to be blunt, but a hard fork is nothing whatsoever like mitosis, there is no 50/50%, money doesn't automatically get divided in half and this is about as far from what happens in nature as you can get.  There are risks with both hard and soft forks.  Neither is without its flaws and to pretend otherwise is asinine.  By all means speculate and raise concerns, but don't scaremonger.
legendary
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1087
July 18, 2016, 05:58:28 PM
#24
surely it's 100% to do with why a hard fork is taking place? if it's because of a technical glitch or disaster then there's zero risk of any type of divergence as everyone's vested in following the functioning fork.

if it's because of the core/classic stuff, the majority already has to be in place for it to happen. the loser's gonna wither in no time at all apart from weird little bunches of holdouts. if the majority choose to go down that road then there's no way they're popping back any time soon.
hero member
Activity: 994
Merit: 544
July 18, 2016, 05:42:07 PM
#23
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
July 18, 2016, 02:25:15 PM
#22
A hard fork can be seen as a phase separation like a liquid turns into a gas on heating up.

if a decent intensive variable is reached the status change is immediate and no liquid is left in a sudden.

For a soft fork there can be spots left in different stati - It is a mess!
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
July 18, 2016, 11:03:34 AM
#21
and unfortunatelly, there are a lot of people buying eth just because of the hardfork... as if it was a good thing.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
July 18, 2016, 09:22:03 AM
#20
now your dreaming.

consensus is where its deemed safe.

eg. 75% is just a warning bell, a kick up the back side.. to shout in people ear that things will change

but miners wont physically make bigger blocks unless they are sure of 2 things
1. their blocks wont orphan where it matter most. meaning they get to spend their reward when it matures
2. acceptance (private trade /exchange) where people happily accept funds shown on the chain.

stop imagining things and stick to reality.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
July 18, 2016, 09:20:26 AM
#19
So you call yourself a "Free Market Capitalist" but you are afraid of a free market?  Wow, I'm impressed.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

FYI, the only way both forks would continue on is if a subset of miners kept mining each fork.

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.
Free market has talked and has said that don't want the Classic shit anywhere near Bitcoin. Classic developers are complete amateurs and we can't let morons take control of the most important ship ever. Leave the best developers (Core devs) do the job and stop trying to be smarter than you are.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 18, 2016, 08:18:46 AM
#18

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.


Maybe yes maybe not.

If Classic gets 50% of users, and they decide to still roll out the hardfork, just to prove their point, that would be very bad. And I can imagine them doing that.

But then again what is consensus? If 90% of miners agree, but then later they backstab eachother?

They will fight and bitcoin splits.It will stabilize at 50-50%, that is the equilibrium state.



So the only way bitcoin will win is to not fight.

Any amount of fighting will only destabilize bitcoin.



legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
July 18, 2016, 08:07:57 AM
#17
Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).


Yes it would cause chaos, and in the end both chains would lose to Litecoin or other coins, and bitcoin would be over.

I doubt people would reach a quick consensus in a few days to save bitcoin, so a hardfork would definitely ruin bitcoin.

We shall see what will happen to ethereum (grab your popcorn), and we will have experimental evidence, not just trollings around here.

silly silly silly..

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.
put it this way. miners are not going to make bigger blocks at 50%, 60%, 70% or even 80% due to risk of the network orphaning their hard work..

technically they could make bigger blocks at the 75% "warning period". but they are smarter then that.

what will happen logically realistically and practically.. is that at 75%(block flag consensus) there will be a big social push to tell people that things are going to change. and get people prepared. miners have time to upgrade (25% remaining) but it will wait for 95% of the entire network(nodes) before miners would risk making bigger blocks.

the 75% threshold is just a neon sign of the miners.. based on blocks with flags... simply put, a glowing big fat sign to warn people of changes.. but miners wont push bigger blocks until they see the USER node count (view able on bitnodes) showing a high upgrade count

the 75% is about blocks..
the 95% is about compatible nodes.

2 distinctly different things
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 18, 2016, 07:54:20 AM
#16
Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).


Yes it would cause chaos, and in the end both chains would lose to Litecoin or other coins, and bitcoin would be over.

I doubt people would reach a quick consensus in a few days to save bitcoin, so a hardfork would definitely ruin bitcoin.

We shall see what will happen to ethereum (grab your popcorn), and we will have experimental evidence, not just trollings around here.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
July 18, 2016, 07:45:12 AM
#15
Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).

There is no need to worry about that. If the longest chain is 75% of the total hashing, miners will will converge.
Your percentage is trivial. I wouldn't consider 75% consensus.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
July 18, 2016, 06:20:19 AM
#14
FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.


Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.


I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

So we have now 15.7 million bitcoins available roughly which represent 10.6 billin $ and 670$ price

In a hardfork, we will have 31.4 million bitcoins, each of them real ones, representing 10.6 billion (- the money leaving in the panic).

Therefore the price of each coin will now be ~335$. If the the chains converge into 1, then you lose your money if you sold the winning chain, so you are exposed to 50% risk.

If both chains survive, then you have to install the new software of the 2nd chain to be able to use it, and it will severely disrupt bitcoin economy.

Imagine all the merchants and bitcoin sites now will have to decide which bitcoin to accept.

It will be total chaos. So we should try to avoid this shit.

if consensus is reached.. its reached. any attempt to cause more controversy after that point should be laughed at

LOL there wont be 31.4million bitcoins unless core starts IP banning 95% of the network to keep the 5% chain alive and waits atleast 6 months for the 5% chains difficulty to drop to allow fluid block creation at a reasonable time for that insecure chain..

core is creating the controversy and will need to create more controversy for your "second chain" survival to exist.

imagine the risk of 51% attacks on a chain with only 5% hash power.. the many issues that the 5% chain would have..

well i can think of 10 reasons why the remaining 5% would move to the 95%.. rather than pushing the controversy further.

screw it.. lets list them
1. weak insecure chain easy target for 51% attack
2. only confirming a block every 3hours 20 minutes (20 blocks average time) containing only ~2500tx
3. tx fee sky rockets with 50,000tx left in mempool (2500 per 10 minutes for 3 hours) fighting to be next in line for a space of only ~2500
4. only 5% of services accepting these delayed blocks
5. takes 6 months to sort out difficulty
6. segwit doesnt fix the capacity/bottleneck fixes everyone was hoping for (reference point 2 and 3) yet the 95% chain is
7. segwit doesnt fix the tx fee discount everyone was hoping for (reference point 3) yet the 95% chain is
8. peoples funds get accepted into blocks. but the recipient declines their existence and does not honour refunds due to wrong chain
9. node count at 250 nodes(5%) compared to 4750(95%)
10. nodes crash due to mempool overflow

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 18, 2016, 06:14:00 AM
#13
FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.


Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.


I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

So we have now 15.7 million bitcoins available roughly which represent 10.6 billin $ and 670$ price

In a hardfork, we will have 31.4 million bitcoins, each of them real ones, representing 10.6 billion (- the money leaving in the panic).

Therefore the price of each coin will now be ~335$. If the the chains converge into 1, then you lose your money if you sold the winning chain, so you are exposed to 50% risk.

If both chains survive, then you have to install the new software of the 2nd chain to be able to use it, and it will severely disrupt bitcoin economy.

Imagine all the merchants and bitcoin sites now will have to decide which bitcoin to accept.

It will be total chaos. So we should try to avoid this shit.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
July 18, 2016, 06:11:26 AM
#12
I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

lol if your transaction will be confirmed by the 95% chain.the hopes of you re-transmitting it and successfully getting it relayed by the 5% of nodes in another chain is hard.. to the only pool that is on the other chain.. well.. thats hard too. and then that pool adding it to a block with only 5% hashpower.. even harder.

the only possible way would be to ban IP addresses to ensure the 5% only connect to each other to avoid relay rejections issues.
so thinking about it.. the only people banning IP's to ensure they only talk to the 5% chain just to try keeping it alive.. well thats core! (controversy creators)


legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1023
July 18, 2016, 05:53:49 AM
#11

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.


I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.
Pages:
Jump to: