Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 12. (Read 9367 times)

To be clear, by holding back the fork, Core is preventing the vote.  If we fork, then the true voting can occur. 

Not forking - is the problem. 

In Satoshi's view, a fork is very readily available everyday.  Anyone can fork and forking is good.  Now, the fork action is prevented because of collusion of miners and Core.  With no fork, no consensus. 

So you get what we have right here.  I don't like it any more than you do.  But, that's the way Maxwell wants it, so he gets it. 

Hard forks are necessary and good and they operate to permit everyone to vote on a best system.  Avoiding forks destroys Bitcoin.   

Fork the son-of-a-bitch. 

The only way Maxwell can keep control despite the very large number of people that want large blocks is by preventing the fork by spreading forking FUD and convincing the miners to stay.  He was successful.  Now, we have a system where Maxwell rules - not consensus rules.  It's not Bitcoin any longer.  It's MaxwellCoin

Honestly, who gives a flying fuck about Ethereum?  Ethereum has a totally different protocol and shouldn't be compared to what the Bitcoin devs are doing, or proposing they should do, with an upcoming hard fork.

Exactly. It seems that there is no rush from the devs to do anything, and the fact that Blockstream would be hurt by the fork (probably) would definitely present some kind of correlation going on between them and the devs. There is just no reason why the devs shouldn't be worried about the functionality of bitcoin and to improve it as much as possible, rather than worried about politics, miner threats, and so on.

Do you think the hard fork will go smoothly? I assume your argument is about the XT hard form scenario unless I'm mistaken. But in my opinion it would be better to be cautious and prudent before making major changes in Bitcoin. Look at what happened with Ethereum. What if the same thing will happen again with Bitcoin's hard fork. Then what is supposed to be a champion of cryptocurrencies would now become a failed experiment in consensus. It will be laughable. The core development team should not risk anything that will destroy Bitcoin.

FTFY. That's the point -- a miner-induced hard fork is leveraging users' fear of being on the "minority chain." It leverages an apparent monopoly on hashpower (confirmed transactions) to make users' decision for them. Users will migrate whether or not they agree to the changes out of fear of economic loss.

The only ethical way to hard fork is to allow support to amass organically. That means forking without miner coordination. If users truly do consent to the fork changes, they will migrate to the new system. Miners will follow based on rational incentive.

But using miners to provoke the fork in the first place turns Bitcoin's incentives on its head. Hash power follow users. Not the other way around.

With bitcoin not being forked I'm starting to lose all the confidence I once had in crypto and BTC as the original crypto coin, now talking about forking and making decisions about the E-cryptosystem which revolves around BTC.
We should even make the decision making procedure a consensus operation.

Exactly! This is easy to say when you have 100k market cap but if you really switch things on their head and you affect $10b worth of assets in the world you're going to pay for it. I can just see the headlines: WWIII because of bitcoin hard fork. Maybe a bit dramatic but we'd talking about people's livelihoods at this point. It's not just a random shitcoin.

Yes, it's about all bitcoin users, but the majority of Bitcoin users will follow that chain which has the greatest consensus among developers and miners. So the argument is to some degree redirected to its starting point. In fact a "provocation" of a hardfork is only seen as a provocation if it proposed by a minority without consensus among the other miners and developers. Clearly it's rational for miners (and even more so for pool operators) to seek consensus on a sustainable solution. It makes no sense to mine on a minority chain.

In my opinion it's very important to have broad consensus (90% or more) when a hardfork occurs. Controversial hardforks have significant destructive potential not only by splitting up the community and thereby the wealth allocation on each coin but especially by undermining trust in future developments. So the psychological effect is even more far-reaching. Without unity, Bitcoin might quickly loose its perception of being a safe haven. People might feel that it's unsafe to store their funds with the currency, because another fork (with further value depreciation) might be just around the corner.

ya.ya.yo!

and now you know why im sick of devs flatly refusing to even code anything for core (well luckily luke is/should be doing it)  and try their best to throw anything not core (many different implementations) off the bus (now it seems blockstream employee are trying to throw luke off the bus too). because that is a route to centralize users, by only having one implementation.. which then has a ripple effect of only one implementation for miners and merchants.

meaning devs becoming the controllers of consensus and everyone has to bow to their wishes

To be clear, the issue is not consensus of miners and devs. The issue is consensus of all Bitcoin users, which includes miners and presumably also includes devs. But the stakeholders in a hard fork are much more diverse than simply miners and devs. Miners ought to be following users out of rational incentive to mine the most highly valued chain. Miners shouldn't be provoking a hard fork themselves -- this is seen by many as an attack on users (attempting to leverage hash power to force users to migrate networks).

Hard forks only work when a majority of the community is willing to change over to whichever chain they agree to use; if they don't agree on using the same one then everyone just gets confused and it is more detrimental than beneficial if everyone is splintered across multiple chains.

If the miners and devs can reach a consensus then we can switch, but until then there isn't much that can be done.

How could we ever know that we have 99% support behind a fork? There's no way to measure it. No amount of node voting, coin voting or miner voting can establish that. More to the point, if we are talking about processing power, hash rate of ETH:ETC was 99:1 at one point. Still, the network split. People really underestimate the risks. There is literally no way to ever know how a hard fork will resolve. It's impossible to know.

WOW, you just called Satoshi a bitch...that's blasphemous!


Not true, most people using bitcoin use a service like Coinbase so the transition would be seamless. So much negativity!

"We'll do it live!!!"

though it seems lauda is waking up.. things need to be pointed out

a consensual hardfork (95%) is where 95% have already said yes, already reviewed the code.. meaning there is no shock, no surprise, meaning the movement across after activation is simple

i like how he tries to push that hard forks are bad.. but he slips in the little things subtly, although they are important..
eg "without consensus/reverting events"

this is because even in a surprising controversial fork. orphans will make the weaker minority die off. bitcoin is a big industry and any delays to block solving due to lack of hashpower, which leads to a fee war to get first place in next block, make it unaffordable to use aswell as slow, which renders businesses inefficient if they continue to use the weak chain.. will make decisions to move to the stronger chain real simple and fast.
alot faster than ethereum

again reviewing the code can be done pre-fork. many implementations have had hard fork code released for the last year... and a fork hasn't even happened yet. so in a concensual hard fork. the code is pre-reviewed and 95% are ready and waiting for the move.

but if the controversial fork added code to block the orphan events, and was an entirely new rule no one reviewed, and had things that ensured the weaker fork survived by auto blocking stronger fork nodes by default and tweaking difficulty (as lauda hinted removing the reverting events by forcing them not to talk to each other to not revert to a single chain). then even now bitcoiners would still make an easy decision to go with one direction. simply because bitcoin is actually useful

if merchants dont accept it, it theres a fee war and if the difficulty is tweaked to be at risk of 51% attack.. people wont use it. the minority would move quickly..

ethereum is not a good comparison because ethereum is useless in the real world.
so there is no clear choice which is better because both Ether's are useless.

A fork would drive 95% of the people away because thy don't know how to handle that situation.
After the way the ether fork turnd out, even a lot of the smaller traders would resign from the cryptomarket.
You would create a few whales with lots of coins that nobody wants anymore.
I think if sombody wants to seriously harm bitcoin, a hard fork is most likely the best way to achieve that.

As we've observed with ETH, hard forks can go terribly wrong when rushed. A minority is enough to keep another chain alive. This sets a very bad precedent, both by forking without consensus/reverting events and by rushing a HF. In addition to that, a rushed HF would render a LOT of custom implementations invalid pretty quickly. Do you even realize how 'long' it takes for companies to both update, test and deploy new software to their whole infrastructure.

---

I'm not saying I'm anti-HF in general, however I'm against irrational decision making with a very limited view point. I think that a HF, with a grace period of 6 months may be plausible and would likely not be against it (dependent on the change-set of course).

seems people are still smoking the contention pipe.

in a consensual fork. there is no second chain.. it dies in the land of orphans.. and only one chain remains which the majority have agreed to before the rules even updated so no one suffers as the decision was made before activation..

once you wake up that no one has proposed a contentious hard fork and that core is trying to cause contention by refusing to add consensual hard fork code.. then you will see passed the haze and the clarity of day

already happened
NXT was bitcoin 2.0
Monero wants to be BitcoinB(sidechain)
Liquid wants to be Bitcoin X (central exchange reserve coin)

When you have fuckall coins, it is easy to make reckless statements like this. The Core developers have ALL the risk on them, if this fails.

They have to consider every little thing, to make sure a hard fork will not cause some vulnerability. We have seen what happened to other

Alt coins, when Air heads decide to hard fork for stupid reasons. We {holders of coins} are happy with slow progress, if it secure our coins.

Yeah great idea, lets take Bitcoin which has billions of $ investment and split it in two and see what works.  like seriously did you go to school?