Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 5. (Read 9367 times)

This is another straw-man attempt again. Nobody was even arguing for this, nor does this refute any of the points that I've made.

the sad history is: some bank(or union of banks) will create a alt and this alt will rule the world, people are slaves of banks right now and always will be

core releasing a 2mb+segwit CONSENSUS version =
-snip-

wake up lauda stop with the twisted mindset to scare people

1) Security risk of a DOS due to quadratic validation problem.
2) No hard fork experience.
3) High risk of damaging merchants and businesses that do not manage to update in time (if the activation parameters are improper such as with Bitcoin Classic).
4) Higher storage cost.
5) Higher bandwidth cost.

---

Even if we disregard the 4 latter, the primary issue is still the security risk.

^ this here is the mindset of why bitcoin could lose utility.
yes thats right im talking about function, im talking about using actual bitcoin to buy actual products

in short they dont want to expand bitcoin, instead use an altcoin that has the desired capacity and make bitcoin no longer a functional currency and just an investment

we all know gmaxwell and lauda+chums want monero to rule supreme

and its funnier that they say its us wanting capacity growth purely for the value increase
while they are trying to get monero value to increase by baiting people over to it and turn bitcoin into just an pump and dump reserve.

(every doomsday and argument they can shout out about others is usually exactly what they want themselves)
EG
"big blockers" has been proven to now be the term for the core team, 4mb bigger then 2mb afterall

Other than a mindless fearr of a hard fork, give me 1 solid reason based on logic against a block size increase.

If there is anyone to blame it is the proponents of the hard fork, because they initiated a network split. There is nothing to be done about it. Miners will mine any chain which it is rational to mine on; there's no way to stop miners from securing either chain. And whether it's rational for miners depends on users; there is no way to force users to use one client or the other.

So if users remain on the original chain, the network will likely split and we will permanently have multiple incompatible networks/blockchains. It doesn't matter which chain has more work (POW) because the two networks cannot communicate with one another.

controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.

that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.

You should look up the meaning of "consensual"....it relates to "consent". The "majority" as you say cannot "consent" for the minority. Consensual means every user agrees, not tyranny of the majority.

Orphaning is irrelevant here---why would you even mention it? If a hard fork gains the majority of hash rate, the minority just stays on the weaker chain. They can't even see the "longer chain" because it's invalid according to their consensus rules. They just ignore it. Two separate blockchains. This is why there is no such thing as a "majority rule consensual hard fork".

But you're not advocating finding separate houses, you're casually arguing for the right to evict the legitimate owners and burn the house down.

So what happened to that Bitcoin fork that was slated to activate in April? Much excitement on bitco.in if I recall. Funny, no one seems to be talking about it.

Why don't you fork? Is it because that fork failed, and now you must try to lobby miners to leverage their hash power to force a split?

The market can't change the rules of the network. This is a matter of fact. The market could migrate to a different network with different rules. Could you point me to the protocol documentation that suggests changing the consensus rules is "one of its fundamental and most important principles?" Perhaps something from the whitepaper? The whitepaper only talks about the possible need to enforce new rules (and incentives) if needed. That suggests soft forks, not consensus break.

Yes, just fork already. I'm tired of hearing about it---you're not going to convince the people who have not budged for the last year. Splitting the network could have disastrous consequences for users and custodians, but the blood will be on the hands of those that initiated the split.

The only way the "market" can truly express itself right now is by moving away from Bitcoin, that is exactly what is happening right now, Bitcoin is losing market share. Splitting the blockchain actually gives the market a much clearer choice, when that happens we will see where the value will flow.

The market can change the rules of the Bitcoin network, that is one of its fundamental and most important principles, I have already explained why I think that is the case in this thread.

We do not need to convince you, you can not stop the hard fork from happening regardless of what you think. You are correct in saying that because of people like you a hard fork by a non Core client would guarantee that the chain will split, I entirely agree, and since nobody can stop a minority from initiating a hard fork the split has become inevitable.

Which is exactly why I think a split has become inevitable, I can respect your position, how come you can not respect mine? We can just go our separate ways, in peace and tolerance.

There is nothing you can do to stop the split from happening except for compromise. You keep asking how come we have waited this long to initiate the hard fork? It is out of courtesy and respect, and it is in the hope that we can find compromise and agreement so that we can move forward together as one, splitting the chain is a measure of last resort. But it has come to this, we have radically different ideologies on what we think Bitcoin is and what it should become. Therefore it does make sense for these different groups of people to go their separate ways.

It sounds like you are just hand-waving, repeating tired cliches and really saying nothing at all. This seems like a theme with the pro-fork crowd. "The market this, the market that..."

But the market seems generally opposed to a hard fork---that's the overall sentiment on social media, the forum, slacks and mailing lists....backed by nodes and miners.

Perhaps it's more important to note that the market can't change the rules of the Bitcoin network---it can only switch to a new network with new tokens. In the process, you'll probably split the community into multiple blockchains.

A lot of people (like me) oppose hard forks on principle in the context of a consensus ledger. You're not going to convince us.

You can push bandwagon propaganda about the inevitable victory of your chain if you want (that's the most common approach)....

but you will split the network and people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

lol.. you have no clue... time you done your own bench tests. oh heres a hint, when u go on IRC to be spoonfed from ur pals.. ask them to link you real info.. i know u love asking people to link info.. and because its coming from your friends you wont argue and put your fingers in your ear when you get it

You and people like you are really gullible. Nobody is talking about "16 MB real-world" data tomorrow. I'm talking about malicious data that could ifinitely DOS the network. The 1 MB block size limit prevents this, a 16 MB block size limit does not.

BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..

BU assumes everything is going to be a fairy tale and everyone is going to create 16 MB worth of nice, and sigop friendly transactions.

Because I am invested in Bitcoin none of my arguments are therefore valid? This is a strange thing to say to me, if anything being invested in Bitcoin aligns my incentives to do what is best for Bitcoin.

Maybe instead of constantly attacking with me ad hominem you should argue rationally with me and not resort to such manipulative tactics.

So according to you, your counter argument to what I have said here is that Ethereum is a mutable shit coin and that all that matters is "Distance-to-Vitalik". If that is your complete argument we can leave it at that, people reading this can decide for themselves what they think is more correct.

You are saying that I must be either a troll, shill or an idiot. And you are claiming that this is not ad hominem or character assassination and that you are being completely objective and rational by saying this.

If you think that the split in Ethereum's chain was not a bad outcome then you are gravely mistaken. Who would want for it to split like that resulting with another chain that is now competing with your own. You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

There is more at stake here because the whole Bitcoin economy is relying on the stability of the network to keep it going. If they do a hard fork and then the network splits then they are risking destroying that economy and the value of the coin itself. I am certain a lot of people WILL look for someone to blame.

Thank you for explaining that. What you've described is the 'cherry picking fallacy'.

That's why you're heavily biased. Just the fact that you aren't willing to admit this to yourself, makes most of your arguments plummet into water.

Not an argument. Stop crying out to "ad hominem" to defend flawed positioning and argumentation.

This is very well an argument as it describes the lies that the shitcoin was built upon, which later turned into a mutable chain.

This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain, I have noticed many Bitcoiners equate these two things as if they where the same thing, it is not, this is mostly likely because they are thinking of this event in Bitcoin terms when there are some very important differences in the design. It was only possible to return peoples funds because it existed within a smart contract, something that would not even be possible within Bitcoin.

Blockchains are not protected by precedent or social convention like you might think but hard cryptography and game theory mechanics. In regards to the transactional immutability Bitcoin and Ethereum are mostly identical, it is practically impossible to roll back blocks and therefore also transactions. This is not what happened with the Ethereum hard fork, it involved a state change on the smart contract layer through the "consensus" mechanism. I consider any change to the rules of the protocol legitimate if it is brought about in such a way.

I understand that this is a major difference in our theories on how the governance of these blockchain systems function, I perceive it to be much more of a social construct, a tool for human beings to govern themselves and each other in a better way. It is a good thing that the code can change through this governance mechanisms, "immutability" in the literal sense of the word is not something we should aim for, if something goes wrong the majority of people should be able change the rules of the system, ideas and people also evolve, these blockchain networks need to evolve with our civilizations.

It is wrong to describe the DOA fork as a bail out, since there are no extra taxes, inflation or "haircuts" like there would be in a bailout like we understand it today. Rather I think the analogy of a bank robbery is much better, we are simply intervening, preventing the bank robbery from taking place. I think this is perfectly justifiable. Before you say "code is law" and smart contracts have no value if they are not "immutable". The opposite is actually true, there is a good reason why all law systems today are non-deterministic, it is the intent of the law here that counts, not the letter of the law.

At the same time even though I do not agree with the reosons for Ethereums Classics existence, I do absolutely respect their right to self determination and at the same time they have given Bitcoin a perfectly viable option that we could follow, splitting the chain, resolving this ideological debate.

I did claim it was going to be illegal. I didn't specify where. I didn't make any claims about insider knowledge, that's what you concluded out of my statement. "It's confidential" may mean a lot of things.

---

Objectively speaking, I can only put someone like that in one (or more) of the following groups:
1) Trolling.
2) Paid shill.
3) Idiot.
Hint: This isn't ad hominem, nor character assassination. This is an objective evaluating of a viewpoint which is not rational.

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

My impression from lurking in IRC and the Slack over the past few months is that there's no consensus around a hard fork. I also think there was somewhat of a mutual understanding among most people involved in the July SF dev/miner meeting....that in the wake of Ethereum's failed hard fork, that a hard fork is more dangerous than most had expected. It's on the back burner. Way back. I don't think the timing of the deadline for that proposal, and the SF meeting were coincidental.

I'm actually quite curious and waiting for them to release a proposal and implementation. It's taking too long in any case.