Topic: Possible bitcoin split/Fork (Read 503 times)

'2mb blocksize' is less storage and bandwidth than '1mb base 4mb weight'
its literally simple maths: upto 2mb or upto 4mb..

thats the hypocritical thing.. core are actually the big blockers.. they want 4mb of data.. the strange thing is. by limiting the base to 1mb the total growth of serialised (complete) transactions is only 1.8mb capacity. but that then lets them fill the remaining 2.2mb of buffer space with non tx data. such as arbitrary codes for other features. EG you can fill that space with an invoice or write a book, or a reference to some mundane data..

meaning lets say 1mb block ~2500tx
1mb base 4mb weight ~4500tx (1.8mb bloat)
1mb base 4mb weight ~4500tx + arbitrary bloat code data (4mb bloat)

meaning core wants 4mb of data but still only ~4500 transactions (not legacy transaction, it has to be new segwit tx's to get that level)
yet nearly everyone else sees the logic of 2mb ~5000tx.. and later 4mb ~10000tx  of legacy transactions

but hey seems segwit it being ploughed through anyway. so the next logical consensus is
2mb base 4mb weight
so that segwit still functions but we can then presume to have ~9000tx ... but im sorry core, no spare space for them non essential codes to bloat up. thus keeping the blockchain lean and clean and used for transactions (which they wont agree to(facepalm))

as for the question of BU.
BU has been ACTIVELY running since last year. so has bitcoinj, xt, classic and many others.. these have not demanded a 14 day flag and 14 day grace to be active by christmas.
BU has just been open for anyone to use and if at some point 95% of nodes have a similar open consensus of dynamic blocksize increase and it reaches 95% agreement.. then it triggers the miners to also do a 95% flagging event. (giving more time for nodes to get more then 95%)
and then a grace period (giving even more time for nodes to get more than 95%). so by the time it actually activates the percentage of nodes already upgraded will be well over 95%.

unlike core, change rules first then get nodes to upgrade second. thus rendering the nodes not full nodes without choice, and then rush to regain their full node status and have to move funds from legacy keypairs to segwits HD seeds, auditing funds and merchants changing their customers deposit addresses and double checking it all worked out fine (facepalm)

im not even sure why 15th november was even picked.. most people know it would/should have been a block number.. however by using a date instead, highlights a rush schedule based on human concepts of a calendar/deadline. rather than a natural flow based on technicals

again for the last year anyone can run BU, classic, xt, bitcoinj etc etc, test it, review it, play around or just run it..
but core.. hmm.. only a few days old and they are begging for christmas activation, requiring trusting the devs

Isn't it possible to start the process now by running Bitcoin Unlimited? I do not see why there is a problem except that some supporters of the hard fork are in such a hurry for bigger blocks because they think the users will increase. Bigger blocks will also open a door for other problems like the storage problem and the bandwidth problem.

splitting the chain has never been an option by those wanting a to upgrade bitcoins blockchain capacity.

the option is >95% mutual consensus to activate, meaning >95% stay on a single chain and the other <5% are left no longer being a node if they choose not to be part of the network. if 95% choose to go for it, it activates meaning by the time its actually running more than 95% of nodes are happily ready. and by more, i mean the other 5% have had time to make their decision too

it is however core that refused to be part of a consensus. and they have been very public to suggest other implementations should not use consensus and split off if they dont want to follow core. (not the other way round).
ethereum was an intentional split "--oopose-dao-fork" which gmaxwell (loves inventing buzzwords) calls a bilateral fork.
again no consensus upgrade intends to bilaterally fork.. apart from gmaxwell & his colleagues that dont believe in diverse open consensus.

core have been hard headed and trying to set themselves as the centralized leader of the bitcoin network. trying to push anything not core away from the bitcoin network and into the land of altcoins..
totally going against bitcoins consensus ethos.

they have used fake rhetoric such as
the stupidity of these rhetoric's is that there is no initial timescale for when 95% should be achieved when using consensus. AND it only upgrades IF 95% is achieved.
meaning people choose the consensus option in their own time, even years before and happily run their implementations before activation to do their tests and just use bitcoin happily. knowing it only activates when 95% of other people also agree.
and after activation only 5% need to decide if they want to be a full node.
rather than the other way around that cores softfork are proposing, where 20 pools make a decision and to activate first then, the nodes move over AFTERWARDS.

cores very own features DONT use network consensus. their features bypass the requirement of nodes to consent or to veto the change, where the change is blindly passed to the nodes. making them less than a full node. thus causing nodes to move to core features if they want to become a full node AFTER THE FACT.(no choice given)
laughingly other implementations who want a consensus upgrade have had implementations running live for over a year.
yet cores own features are not even at the point of flagging desire, but want it activated by christmas, which goes against the same core devs fake rhetoric of


all consensus upgrades are options to upgrade a single network of nodes (single chain of data). yet cores features are 3 different sets of data.
think of it like triplets. same DNA (blockheaders) but different lives
pruned nodes(not entire history)
legacy(entire history/nowitness)
segwit(entire historywitness)
which actually causes the 5500 nodes to not be less intercommunicatable with each other.
EG
a new user wanting to sync the entire history cannot connect to a prunned node.
a new user wanting to fully validate cannot connect to a legacy node because legacy wont have the signatures.

thus we will not have 5500 'full nodes' all with the same data and all helping each other but 3 clusters of mismatched nodes.
also there is a 4th level of node, branded fibre. that just relays data unchecked

in short when segwit activates there will be less than 1400 full history, full validation, fully interconnect-able nodes on the network

but hey.. ignore security, ignore decentralization, ignore consensus, ignore bug risks.. and "trust" just a few men and their 90 unpaid spell checking interns,
who want to separate the nodes into clusters.
who want to make legacy nodes not be full nodes in under 2 months.
the hypocrisy of core has been too loud yet many people ignore the technicals and prefer blind trust.

I don't usually write on forums but something like this seems a bit important.

Bitcoin has had a ton of news the past year due to ups, downs, and discussion on 'improvements.'  I think people are excited that Bitcoin is doing so well, and so are other cryptocurrencies as a reaction.  I noticed miners are fighting over forking, and improving particular features for ensuring its a long term viable option for their own currencies, and business online.

I do not agree though with forking, or splitting into a second coin.  I do not think people have really considered the idea that they might kill bitcoin which is already pretty easy to damage.  Its pretty early to assume that Bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies can take such a hit.  I think its safe to assume that if Bitcoin dies, or has any major issues within the next couple of years then it would affect all cryptocurrencies in whole.  This in turn would mean that people would be less likely to trust any currencies online for the foreseeable future.

If you consider the stock market and how simple it is for a stock to suffer from news, then you can see how simple it is that these fights are literally going to hurt Bitcoin without any extra effort from the outside.  How can anyone believe that splitting a coin into two by possibly hurting peoples money thats already invested into those coins with no real concept of the extent of damage is actually improving?  I hope people are considering that there could be people who already do not want Bitcoin to succeed that may be involved in small, or whole.  I am not going to go into the possible conspiracies but on the other hand its simple to be accidental as well.

I've read segrevated witness, and understand what forking would entail.  I know segregated witness is a bit more 'complex' than the initial setup, although isn't Bitcoin a bit comlpex to begin with?  I am not saying its the right direction.  Options are available such as using reputable companies that may have some coins in store for processing 'short term' or 'quick' payments and then writing to the blockchain in bigger numbers.  This would undermine the security, and could turn into another hack of a vault.

Increasing the blockchain is going to ensure Bitcoin users have to hold more GB on their hard drives, and thus sooner or later like the inevitable will require more people to move to thin clients like Electrum.  If you use segregated witness then it is not different than increasing the blockchain though.  It is essentially doing a very similar thing.  It doesn't require a fork though.  In the end.. both are viable options but one will work with the clients currently on the network.

I researched a lot further into bitcoin and noticed that the max clients per day was surfing around 5500.  This is exceptionally low considering a network worth 6 billion and thousands of people using it.  5500 is similar to a joke IMO, and I am curious how companies who have invested $100m is not throwing up their own clients just to ensure protection across the network, regardless of them mining..  Bitcoin has major problems without dealing with forking, or people fighting over what to do next.  Personally I think the main concern should be stabilizing the network to fight against a possible real attack on the network.

In the end.. don't ruin cryptocurrencies for the world over arguments on the best direction.  Maybe other options are easier, or not but if you split the coin say good bye to currencies for another decade that aren't involving major banks..  Maybe you guys should focus more on ensuring Bitcoin's viability with what its currently dealing with.  With millions going into mining every month and 5500 total clients:  I don't know what you guys are focusing on?  $5/shells, etc... Anyways.. just a point of view.