How 21mil limit is enforced | Bitcointalksearch.org

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: Gabi on March 22, 2013, 01:59:37 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gabi on March 22, 2013, 01:35:17 PM

Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

I just wanted to clarify for new users that if you fork an already existing chain (as opposed to starting from scratch like litecoin), the history of both chains will be exactly the same, but they will diverge from the point of the fork forward. In other words, if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

Yup. And the new chain will NOT need 100% or 51% to be used. It will become Bitcoin2, unrelated from Bitcoin

Thats the peaceful way of doing it. The offensive way would be to use the same address space, communication ports and protocol. Making the old network essentially useless in the process.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Gabi on March 22, 2013, 01:35:17 PM

Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

I just wanted to clarify for new users that if you fork an already existing chain (as opposed to starting from scratch like litecoin), the history of both chains will be exactly the same, but they will diverge from the point of the fork forward. In other words, if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

Yup. And the new chain will NOT need 100% or 51% to be used. It will become Bitcoin2, unrelated from Bitcoin

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1025

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 01:20:12 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 01:19:07 PM

You are mistaken. As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user. If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%. If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain.

What distinguishes a hard fork is that they never reconverge. The single user would be on the longest chain, according to his rules of validity. That there are other chunks of data out there that someone else considers to be blocks, and that there may or may not be more chunks or more people is not important. That chain will never overwrite his chain. The two chains will never converge.

And in reality, it won't be one guy.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 21, 2013, 10:22:40 PM

- snip -
Note that any bitcoins that exist before the split will essentially be duplicated, giving owners of those bitcoins a duplicated amount of bitcoins on each system.

Quote from: ?? on ??

- snip -
if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

There appears to be an echo in here.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: Gabi on March 22, 2013, 01:35:17 PM

This 100 or 51% thing is wrong in case of a hard fork. Hard fork=bitcoin and litecoin. Do litecoin need 100 or 51% or something to work? Nah

This is what I've been saying. It only takes a single user to fork the chain. You don't need 100%, you don't need 51%.

If you want to use the existing chain history (and therefore existing bitcoins), and you don't want to fork the blockchain, the only way to do it is if 100% of all users (not just miners or hashing power, but all users) all switch to the new software with the new rules. Anything less than that causes a fork in the blockchain.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 01:32:36 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 01:20:12 PM

- skip -
Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain. Grin

Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

There is no need to "be the longest chain" if the blockchain forks. Each fork is its own chain. They co-exist and nothing is shared between them. There is no merging of the chains or "longest chain wins" between them. This is why Litecoin doesn't care if its chain is longer than Bitcoin's chain.

I really need to learn not to respond to trolls. I've made it clear that you are misleading people in this conversation. I won't correct you in this thread again. If you want to continue to post false information, I'll assume that the explanations I've given are sufficient to prevent the uneducated from believing the stuff you toss in here.

The difference is the ledger, the same as the original BTC. And that the old chain couldn't operate while being hijacked by miners who support ditching the block reward reduction.
It's the same thing as the supposed increase as the block size.

Gabi

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1008

If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat

This 100 or 51% thing is wrong in case of a hard fork. Hard fork=bitcoin and litecoin. Do litecoin need 100 or 51% or something to work? Nah

Quote

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain

And? The forked chain is no more the original chain, it is something totally different, like the litecoin chain. Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 01:20:12 PM

- skip -
Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain. Grin

Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

There is no need to "be the longest chain" if the blockchain forks. Each fork is its own chain. They co-exist and nothing is shared between them. There is no merging of the chains or "longest chain wins" between them. This is why Litecoin doesn't care if its chain is longer than Bitcoin's chain.

I really need to learn not to respond to trolls. I've made it clear that you are misleading people in this conversation. I won't correct you in this thread again. If you want to continue to post false information, I'll assume that the explanations I've given are sufficient to prevent the uneducated from believing the stuff you toss in here.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 01:19:07 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 01:14:15 PM

- snip -
This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
- snip -

You are mistaken. As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user. If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%. If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain. Grin

Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 01:14:15 PM

- snip -
This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
- snip -

You are mistaken. As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user. If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%. If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 01:09:40 PM

Quote from: tysat on March 22, 2013, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Because you were, as is ElectricMucus.

There is a reason his "Ignore" button is Dark, Dark, Yellow.

You were a big contender too as I remember it BTCX. Grin

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 01:08:21 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

No. You are misrepresenting the facts. In what way is it 51% to change the number of bitcons minted? Do you even know what you are talking about?

This concerns future bitcoins. Nobody is talking about increasing the number previously mined coins. This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
Of course the consensus now is that they shouldn't be called bitcoins then. But what do they, in the future care what our motives were, now?

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: tysat on March 22, 2013, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Because you were, as is ElectricMucus.

There is a reason his "Ignore" button is Dark, Dark, Yellow.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

No. You are misrepresenting the facts. In what way is it 51% to change the number of bitcons minted? Do you even know what you are talking about?

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: tysat on March 22, 2013, 12:43:31 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Right,
Perhaps unrelated but as it seems prices have gone up so much people start making stuff up to keep it going.

tysat

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1004

Keep it real

Quote from: ElectricMucus on March 22, 2013, 12:24:05 PM

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 10:12:58 AM

Quote from: kjj on March 22, 2013, 10:08:28 AM

Quote from: auzaar on March 22, 2013, 01:34:37 AM

Quote from: Gabi on March 21, 2013, 08:57:45 AM

Of course, since it is a software, if everyone decide to change something it is possible. But of course it would be a hard fork Wink

The limit is enforced by the client, a block wich does not respect the rules would be rejected Wink

Why it would be hard fork if everybody agreed?

Because the software that I'm running now will never accept a subsidy under the new rules. If a block comes in that satisfies your rules, but not mine, my software will reject it as invalid. Since yours will accept it, the chain will split in two at that point, and never ever ever converge.

You aren't paying attention. The statement (and question) was regarding if EVERYONE agreed and decided to change. If you refuse to change, then EVERYONE didn't agree.

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: kjj on March 22, 2013, 11:18:32 AM

- snip -
But discussions of universal consent are pointless, except as an exercise in rhetoric, since at least one of us is already on record as non-consenting.

Sure, but there's no guarantee that some government entity won't force you to stop running the old version (either through incarceration or execution).

Wink

kjj

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1025

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: kjj on March 22, 2013, 10:42:26 AM

- snip -
But, if we put aside the silly notion of everyone agreeing, and get pedantic about it, it is still a hard fork because bitcoin is software. Software does what it does, it doesn't care what anyone thinks. Even if you agree to the change, it is still a hard fork because any old software running will enforce the rules it knows, not the rules you agree to. So to prevent a hard fork requires more than merely that everyone agree, it also requires that everyone replace their software, and then never allow the old code to run any more.

The old software will never be compatible with the new software. We could even get philosophical and say that the hard fork exists once the new software is created, even if the length of one of the tines is zero (that is, even if no one actually runs the old software).

We are now in agreement on the matter. At this point the only debate is on the definition of the term "fork". If we are discussing a software fork (such as the Red Hat fork that created Fedora), then I'd agree that a change that increases the limit is a "fork" regardless of how many people use it. On the other hand, if we are talking about a blockchain fork (such as happened between the 0.8.0 Bitcoin-Qt and earlier versions), then I'd say that if you could get unanimous consent, there would not be a "fork".

That isn't so much a debate as a decision. The term has multiple meanings, and we are broadly in agreement on the consequences for each of the relevant meanings. I say broadly only because it still takes more than consent to swap out all of the software; mere agreement won't prevent the (chain) fork, action is also necessary.

But discussions of universal consent are pointless, except as an exercise in rhetoric, since at least one of us is already on record as non-consenting.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: DannyHamilton on March 22, 2013, 11:08:46 AM

Quote from: kjj on March 22, 2013, 10:42:26 AM

- snip -
But, if we put aside the silly notion of everyone agreeing, and get pedantic about it, it is still a hard fork because bitcoin is software. Software does what it does, it doesn't care what anyone thinks. Even if you agree to the change, it is still a hard fork because any old software running will enforce the rules it knows, not the rules you agree to. So to prevent a hard fork requires more than merely that everyone agree, it also requires that everyone replace their software, and then never allow the old code to run any more.

The old software will never be compatible with the new software. We could even get philosophical and say that the hard fork exists once the new software is created, even if the length of one of the tines is zero (that is, even if no one actually runs the old software).

We are now in agreement on the matter. At this point the only debate is on the definition of the term "fork". If we are discussing a software fork (such as the Red Hat fork that created Fedora), then I'd agree that a change that increases the limit is a "fork" regardless of how many people use it. On the other hand, if we are talking about a blockchain fork (such as happened between the 0.8.0 Bitcoin-Qt and earlier versions), then I'd say that if you could get unanimous consent, there would not be a "fork".

i've never liked the term "fork" be it hard or soft. its confusing since technical ppl seem to have a certain definition for it vs non technical ppl's understanding.

i think "chain split" might be a better term.

DannyHamilton

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 4658

Quote from: kjj on March 22, 2013, 10:42:26 AM

- snip -
But, if we put aside the silly notion of everyone agreeing, and get pedantic about it, it is still a hard fork because bitcoin is software. Software does what it does, it doesn't care what anyone thinks. Even if you agree to the change, it is still a hard fork because any old software running will enforce the rules it knows, not the rules you agree to. So to prevent a hard fork requires more than merely that everyone agree, it also requires that everyone replace their software, and then never allow the old code to run any more.

The old software will never be compatible with the new software. We could even get philosophical and say that the hard fork exists once the new software is created, even if the length of one of the tines is zero (that is, even if no one actually runs the old software).

We are now in agreement on the matter. At this point the only debate is on the definition of the term "fork". If we are discussing a software fork (such as the Red Hat fork that created Fedora), then I'd agree that a change that increases the limit is a "fork" regardless of how many people use it. On the other hand, if we are talking about a blockchain fork (such as happened between the 0.8.0 Bitcoin-Qt and earlier versions), then I'd say that if you could get unanimous consent, there would not be a "fork".

Topic: How 21mil limit is enforced (Read 2305 times)