Pages:
Author

Topic: How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork - page 2. (Read 2357 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.

Gavin & Mike settled on it because it's a chinese lucky number for "prosperity". True story!
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.

People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"

But if we followed that logic in extremis, every git commit would get put to the "electorate". Useful development couldn't take place under those conditions, simple misunderstanding could hold back vital or urgent changes that would be effective. Divisive, corrosive top level designs might end up under serious consideration....


Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 252
I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.


This echo's Hearn's experience that investors want a 'benevolent dictator' management structure so that shit can get done.  Another reason to fork the thing already and give this segment what they want.  Then we can all just move forward.


It is thus ironic that Hearn has caused investors to reconsider Bitcoin.

Not that I'm a fan of what the Core devs are doing either; they need to get their shit together too, but at least they're not trying to push blacklists and backdoor IP bans, which would jeopardize fungibility and decentralization, two pillars upon which bitcoin derives it's value in the real world.

Yet what else do investors, especially affluent investors, desire, besides scalability? Consistency and stability in the protocol, thereby making meaningful risk analysis possible.
A hard fork is anything but stable. It has been accomplished in the past without issue, however the previous hard forks were not caused by a hostile takeover of the protocol.
Among all Bitcoin luminaries, I can think of few that would be worse than Hearn in the role of 'benevolent dictator.'
Karpeles would be worse, I suppose.
Gavin was actually doing a decent enough job until Hearn whispered sweet nothings in his ear.

If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.


This echo's Hearn's experience that investors want a 'benevolent dictator' management structure so that shit can get done.  Another reason to fork the thing already and give this segment what they want.  Then we can all just move forward.

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 252
I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.
This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.

legendary
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276

A successful fork could set the precedent for
1) Governments to Fork the ledger and slap their own KYC/AML infrastructure on top of it. This includes purchasing & running mining equipment for this fork.
2) Companies to fork the ledger in order to provide some integration like tvbcof mentions above about Xtcoins/Google wallet.

I'm fully expecting this to be the trajectory for XT/BIP101/whatever in the case of a fork.  We'll have our work cut out for us to avoid having it be the trajectory for Core one way or another.  Part of why I would like to see a fork is that I think the pressure to integrate crypto into mainstreamland will be relieved by having XT(-like) systems to escape through.

My dirty little secret is that I could see XT being quite successful as it moves through it's evolution and I probably will not completely split and liquidate my entire stash of them.  I myself even have use for a solution which has all the bells and whistles that the large corporates can tack on, and I have no philosophical or operational problem with paying my taxes...and my BTC are demonstrably clean.

I will also mention again that it's mostly us freaks who even consider KYC/AML/Taint/etc to be a bad thing.  Back in the real world, and even in significant pockets of the crypto-enthusiast space, these ideas are fairly obvious and fairly good.  That was my take-away from the San Jose conference a few years ago.

I'm seriously doubting why alts need to exist even though I own some.
I'm supportive of this as long as it is done in a technically sustainable way. (eg. BSP Bitcoin Separation Protocol as mentioned above)
It's definitely a good idea to take a position sooner rather than later and this could create some excellent profit opportunities when the fork(s) happen.

Could be.  I would only recommend it to those who are highly clever...but then that's the only group I mentioned Bitcoin to in the first place.

sr. member
Activity: 289
Merit: 252
bagholder since 2013
A successful fork could set the precedent for
1) Governments to Fork the ledger and slap their own KYC/AML infrastructure on top of it. This includes purchasing & running mining equipment for this fork.
2) Companies to fork the ledger in order to provide some integration like tvbcof mentions above about Xtcoins/Google wallet.

I'm seriously doubting why alts need to exist even though I own some.
I'm supportive of this as long as it is done in a technically sustainable way. (eg. BSP Bitcoin Separation Protocol as mentioned above)
It's definitely a good idea to take a position sooner rather than later and this could create some excellent profit opportunities when the fork(s) happen. I encourage all Bitcoin users to educate themselves on constructing transactions now to take advantage of these events.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Bitcoin has forked before and the other one died, correct?

Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.

Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.

If there is enough support for the fork (70%+ ?), then the other one will die fast because the "only real party in town" is winning?
If they have a few users "like MySpace still does", who really cares?

Nobody has provided anything more than an assertion that a slightly stronger fork would kill off a slightly weaker one, much less do so 'fast'.  If you wish to try to justify that hypothesis, please do.

WRT MySpace, different situation entirely.  The two extremes on the philosophical spectrum ('rock solid distributed security' vs. 'be everything to everyone') offer vastly different capabilities to serve vastly different use-cases.  The world is expansive enough to support multiple of these forks.

legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1040
A Great Time to Start Something!
Bitcoin has forked before and the other one died, correct?

Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.


Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.

If there is enough support for the fork (70%+ ?), then the other one will die fast because the "only real party in town" is winning?
If they have a few users "like MySpace still does", who really cares?
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Endorsed.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276

Transplant from another thread:

...
network... The payment processors and the exchanges fuel the market for Bitcoin. Should we not support the side with no personal interest? Where is the 3rd alternative?

An amicable fork of the code AND of the blockchain.  Just let both (or all) sides move into the future and riding on their own 'longest valid chain' and the strength of their ideas, participants, and philosophies.

Yes, people who already had a footprint in the pre-fork chain 'win second prize in the beauty contest', but it's not like early-birds never catch a break.  No harm done to those who come later...they simply have more choices in the market and can choose a philosophy which is succeeding at giving them what they want.


IMO this is the most probable end game scenario. I would be curious of your definition of an "amicable" fork though.

I just mean agreed to and transparently communicated to the userbase.

 - Mike and Gavin state their case and their vision and their plans.

 - Other players (esp, so-called 'core') do likewise.

 - All sides agree not to attack one another, at least during a choreographed disengagement.

This would allow a framework upon which tertiary players (on-line wallets, miners, vendors, etc) could formulate and communicate their own strategies with minimal harm done to the userbases.  It would also lesson the problem we will certainly be having with scammers and others trying to exploit a messy situation.  Such attacks will target innocent end-users since they are the least able to defend themselves.


Maybe someone should write a BSP (Bitcoin Separation Proposal) for this.

legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276

So you would buy Bitcoin XT if it was a separate coin?  I probably should have said there is zero demand for that.
The only people that support it want the XT supporters to 'go away'.  The big block supporters and people who want
to run XT -- none of them want a separate coin.

I want XT supporters to 'go away', but send me money for my XTCoins which I obtained pre-fork.

I might even find reason to obtain XTCoins if XT were implemented as a sidechain.  The most likely reason I could see for wanting some is that XT might be what Google Wallet supports.  I don't actually have a Google Wallet, but I might get one if I got 'cash back' for buying shit advertised on one of their properties or something.

sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
Two separate chains is a very realistic possibility and gets more likely as time goes by. Both sides are becoming more entrenched in their positions and refuse to back down. The arguments are getting more heated and angry and personal.


Its is now also an issue of ego/influence/pride for any side to back down.
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
If XT forks ...

A split is almost certain to occur as some people will not accept Gavins/Hearns coin.

Some segment of people will stay on the Bitcoin core chain which will mean it will have economic value.

So miners will mine it because there is profit to be made.

Service Providers will provide services because there is money to be made.

This is not winner takes all.

Looking at History, the Sunni/Shia split, the Protestant/Catholic, Catholic/ Orthodox etc split were not winner take all. This does not have to be.
It might not be in the economic interest to have a split. When humans argue tho, they often do things that are not in their economic interest. That is the history of the world. Civil wars exist.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)


I do.  Doesn't matter that much what I want though; separate coins are inevitable if XT forks the blockchain.  Or BIP101 for that matter.  I envision a strong possibility that there will be way more than two as people jumping on the bandwagon and exploit the confusion.



So you would buy Bitcoin XT if it was a separate coin?  I probably should have said there is zero demand for that.
The only people that support it want the XT supporters to 'go away'.  The big block supporters and people who want
to run XT -- none of them want a separate coin.
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)


I do.  Doesn't matter that much what I want though; separate coins are inevitable if XT forks the blockchain.  Or BIP101 for that matter.  I envision a strong possibility that there will be way more than two as people jumping on the bandwagon and exploit the confusion.

legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Yeah I started a thread about something similar the other day:

Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12223435

Although I think it would be better just to fork it now and try to build a following rather than the way they are going about it.

There is zero support for that idea.  I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin.

(On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies
signed a join statement supporting it as well.)

Pages:
Jump to: