Topic: So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official? - page 3. (Read 6089 times)

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

But it is broken.

You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value.

What would Satoshi do?
I haven't seen that discussed yet?

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think.  A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact).  Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction.  Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. 
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

But it is broken.

Why does it need to hardfork when it is not broken?

Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately.

What's the problem then?
Why is he being a d*ck?

As far as I understand, that has already happened.

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...

According to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/
the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin.
There will be Gavincoin/Bitcoin pairs at the exchanges and there will be a split not only in the community and developement team but in mining and blockchains aswell.
When the Gavincoin fork takes effect there will be a Bitcoin blockchain (old) and a Gavincoin blockchain (20MB fuckery). Both will at least for some time coexist and people will trade these coins against each other.

What will be the longterm effects on investors sentiment from this?
What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing?
Will the price go in half? What are possible scenarios how this could play out?

How are you personally planning on reacting to this?

I know i buy fiat and altcoins to sit it out. Like to hear your opinion. Will you be blackmailed into using Gavincoin or will you continue to use Bitcoin core?
Or will you exit entirely or buy altcoins instead?

Love to hear some opinions especially from those who aren't supporting this whole Gavincoin fork madness.

The funny thing is watch all these "against the 20MB blocks" still be here once the transition happens ...

That's bad. It's a disaster for the development of bitcoin. It's a bad things to give a single person too much power to effect the development of bitcoin .

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?

I believe you'd actually get double the coins.

So basically if folks just stfu and let Gavin do his thing you'll have your coins on the 1mb and on the 20mb.

You save the 1mb coins and dump the free 20mb coins.

Gavin has been making his round for months lobbying the main services who have a iron grip on the market.  The coins that can be used at Coinscam (coinbase) and other services like that will be "White Bitcoins" and the side of the coin is "Black Bitcoin".  #Bitcoin-assests and a number of other folks will use the Black Bitcoins.  It will take more P2P to use Black BTC and White BTC you'll need to suck the governments dick.

As far as "safety hodling"... if you have profitable coins at this point and really care about the fiat value of your coins I'd probably take the fiat.  There's no way even Greece banks are more fucked than this.

People need to understand that Bitcoin is an altcoin and these Developers are all altcoin developers.  Period.

Don't trust Gavin, don't trust Satoshi and don't trust anyone... Think on your own, ask questions and contribute.

*tips hat*
(feel free to straighten me out where I fucked up)

Just having a quick read through all of this thread & I don't think we've got anything to worry about.
This Gavincoin sounds like a load of shit.
He's probably just trying to create panic to put pressure on people to agree with him & enable us to increase the blocks size.
Basically he's pissing on his territory.

One question I do have though is if this pretty awful scenario was to transpire we'd all be safe HODLING what we have atm any way, we wouldn't lose coins we have in cold storage?
Thanks in advance.

What do other people think?


If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen