Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 9. (Read 9367 times)

The first part is wrong: "longest SHA256 chain as Bitcoin". Bitcoin could be replaced (hypothetical scenario) with a SHA256 chain that has nothing to do with the previous Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. no balances). You won't define this as Bitcoin, will you now? Just pointing out that the position is missing a characterization that describes a longest SHA256 chain relevant to Bitcoin (at least up to some point).

There is zero reason for someone rational and open-minded to regret having a wrong position, especially if they learn and adapt. If the proponents of the 'split' chain end up being right about the whole 'debate', finds a way to scale Bitcoin 'the right way',and that chain becomes the main chain, then there's no reason for me not to shift my position towards it. I'd expect an irrational person to act differently.

---

Hint: Do not make consecutive posts, but rather try to group them up as 1 post whenever possible (forum rules).

To be clear BU is compatible with all implementations of Bitcoin under all conditions, depending on the configuration that is used, though out of the box this is certainly true. It is the only client that has this characteristic. Therefore this accusation by Greg is unfounded, you can absolutely fork the network using BIP109 using BU, and I do not see anything wrong with that.

Bitcoin Unlimited is presently my favorite implementation of Bitcoin, it has the most elegant solution to the scaling debate in my opinion. Solving it once and for all, it can be forever tweaked to be made more efficient but it should never be a problem like it is now if there was wider adoption of Bitcoin Unlimited. The blocksize limit should be determined by true supply and demand, not arbitrarily decided by a centralized technocratic elite.

I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain should be defined as Bitcoin. Whether that will be the network you favor or not will remain to be seen. However the most likely scenario is that we will split of as a minority to begin with which means we will take a new name, to avoid confusion, I can agree with you on that Lauda.

I actually think that what we will be creating will be something new, if it becomes the longest chain, it will simply be the continued evolution of Bitcoin. However these splits create a new type of "altcoin" I am referring to them as "genesis forks", since they contain the original genesis block by Satoshi and all of the same blocks up to the point of the split. Another term that I have seen being used is "spin off".

You are indeed correct in your recommendation Lauda to fork off, that is exactly what I think will happen soon. Though there is a chance that in the future you might regret not being more compromising on this issue.

You would be creating something that we've seen numerous times already, an altcoin. You can try to use pseudo-intellectual reasoning to justify that your split-off version is still Bitcoin, but it isn't. It's an altcoin per definition. Additionally, there have been quite some people telling you several times to fork-off already and re-brand yourself as whatever you want (to avoid general confusion that is detrimental to both sides).

At this point I suspect a controversial split will be the only way forward, keep in mind it only takes a very small minority of people to disagree to cause a split to happen in the first place. Which is definitely the case now, it is not unfair to think that some of these small blockist will simply never change their mind, and these two opposing ideologies can not exist on the same network since these differing visions also have very different road maps and projected outcomes for Bitcoin, which is why a split has most likely become inevitable.

I do agree that in principle consensual forks are not scary, but this has become a controversial topic for better or worse, no matter how long we wait or how good our arguments might be, this might not change, this is in part why splitting the network has indeed become the best possible solution to this impasse.

I would argue if peer review and testing has been minimal then it has not been finalised, it has not even been finished.

I think you are playing semantic games here and skirting around the issue, I am not saying that you are not being sincere however. "Consensus" is the term we give to the governance mechanism in the Bitcoin protocol, there is also a technical feature in the Bitcoin protocol that is also called "consensus". To make this even more confusing the term "consensus" can not even be taken literally except for in the technical sense, however the rules of the protocol can still be changed through the governance mechanisms of Bitcoin, therefore even the technical understanding of "consensus" can not be taken completely literally. That is in the literal sense of the word "consensus".

I recently explained my theory on Bitcoin governance and what I think is the present state of affairs here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-is-the-state-of-the-consensus-debate-1612347

I perceive hard forks to be a critical feature of the Bitcoin governance mechanism. Soft forks in some cases can contribute to circumventing this governance mechanism, since it makes splitting away more difficult, it makes it more difficult to protest in other words, which actually makes it easier to change the protocol through soft forks. Which is not necessarily a good thing from a humanist perspective.

Almost any change can be introduced as a soft fork, we could even increase the blocksize with a soft fork, there are multiple ways in which to do this. Whether something is a hard fork or a soft fork does not actually matter in terms of whether it should be implemented or not, what matters is the content of that change itself.

I suppose you know my view on soft forks, consensus and segwit by now. Segwit does not fix malleability last I checked, that particular feature has not been introduced, I am not sure whether it will be finished by the time Core wants segwit to go onto the main net.

It also makes Bitcoin less "scalable" that is in the IT/Engineering sense of the word, again a word that carries different meanings within different fields of knowledge. Since segwit transactions are still slightly larger then normal transactions, making them less efficient. Segwit actually also makes Bitcoin less expensive to attack because segwit allows an attacker to fill up the witness data at a rate 1/4 of the normal fee price, which means spam attacks on the network become easier, by flooding the network with these spam transactions an attacker can fill up the blocks preventing other people from being able to transact, actually exploiting the existence of the blocksize limit which was first introduced as a temporary anti spam fix, ironically. This reduced fee is actually for a specific type of transaction that the lighting network relies on. I do not support this type of economic favoritism, it is one of the many reasons why I do not like this version of Segwit that Core is planning to release. I would not be against Segwit if it came out as a hard fork with a few minor changes, it actually would make segwit transactions more efficient then normal transactions, such a hard fork could also fix malleability. Such a hardfork version of segwit would also introduce a lot less technical debt.

I actually agree with you on this, except for that anyone is free to contribute to Core, you can not have it both ways, which is why there have to be multiple viable implementations of Bitcoin, otherwise the governance mechanism would just not work since people would not have the freedom of choice between these implementations, since you have already said that Core should not provide that choice within their organization and implementation. This is in part why I consider Core to be the biggest point of centralization within Bitcoin right now, even the name we use "Core" is inappropriate for a decentralized protocol.

That is an opinion, and the facts do not back up this sentiment at all. Ethereum investors have not even lost money especially if you include their holdings in ETC. The two networks are doing just fine, especially ETH. The sky has not fallen after the hard fork, the recent Ethereum split proves that such hard forks are viable and they are not the "disasters" that some people claimed it would be. It is actually a good thing, a graceful solution to an age old problem.

I think the same will happen to Bitcoin within the next six months, whether we like it or not. I am an advocate of this action if that has not been made clear already, unless "consensus" is found within the Bitcoin network, the network will split. Allowing both sides of this debate to have the Bitcoin they want, true freedom of choice.

I think I actually agree with you here exstasie and not franky1. Though I also think that you two are having a misunderstanding, franky1 is very clearly referring to the case where "consensus" is reached and the network does not split, like XT, Classic and maybe Unlimited for example, or even if Core released a hard fork with a simple blocksize limit increase, that might be a better example since there is less chance to this leading to a split.

I do not think this will happen though which is why I think that actually splitting the chain is now a better option for users who are not happy with the direction that Core is taking Bitcoin into.

But you are correct extasie in that you can never be sure whether a split will occur, since it only takes a small minority to decide to stay behind, I consider this to be a good thing however, not something to be feared. This governance structure protects everyone and even protects people against the tyranny of the majority and minority.

You are again jumbling the meaning of words, since they mean different things within different fields. Technically XT, Classic and Unlimited are forks of Core, since they have taken Core code and have made slight changes. However when I run a Bitcoin Unlimited node for example I am running it on the Bitcoin protocol and I am compatible with the Bitcoin protocol and I am not forking the network at all, the same is true for XT or Classic. Do you see the subtle difference in meanings that exist in these words, by using this type of language you are drumming up fear, one of the very defining features of propaganda as is commonly understood.

It is strange for you to say that any fork attempts to leverage miners is against users. That is not in theory how this is supposed to work, the miners are supposed to follow what they think the users want, however by promoting such an ideology we are making the miners more conservative against any change, especially if a considerable amount of the user base have such beliefs, this is in part why I think that Bitcoin is becoming stagnant and losing its competitive edge, much of that energy is now spilling over into the alternatives.

You are indeed tripping up here exstasie, not all orphans are in fact invalid blocks, most orphans are actually valid blocks that where found at a similar time by different pools, they are only considered invalid after they are rejected only because the same block already exists and just got propagated faster. It is one of the fundamental aspects of how Bitcoin works, franky1 one is correct in pointing out the importance of this feature since it also allows for there to be no blocksize limit at all since the pools themselves can best determine their own technological limits, instead of this arbitrary limit being centrally controlled by the "reference implementation".

Miners do indeed have power over the "consensus" of the Bitcoin network, however because they have so much at stake they have a strong game theory incentives to do what is best for the network, this is how Bitcoin works, I realize that some people are not comfortable with this, but it is how Bitcoin actually functions. I even think some of the Core developers are skeptics of this idea, as technologists it might be hard for them to see the virtue in a system that relies on the economic self interest of the masses to govern the network. Ideas of immutability and an unchanging network where we are governed by machines taking human beings out of the picture completely ending politics might seem like a romantic idea but it is just not the reality of how these cryptocurrencies actually function.

Bitcoin is more like a cyborg, human beings are part of the machine and are actually one of the key components that allow it to function successfully in our world. Which means that politics are part of the equation here and the mechanism is that miners do have the vote, because their incentives are best aligned, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It can almost be seen as a form or representative democracy, however where the incentives of the representatives are not perverted unlike what we often see in state democracies. In this case the users have all the power, since that is where the value comes from, splitting Bitcoin will allow users to better express this choice when there are strong diverting ideologies within a single protocol, like what we are seeing today within Bitcoin. Which is why a split could also be such a positive thing, both sides would be more likely to be able to innovate much faster when there is a greater general agreement on what Bitcoin is and where it should go. Splitting the network would allow for a more cohesive and less toxic community, while also allowing for greater freedom of choice for Bitcoin users.

Technically you are correct here exstasie, strictly speaking that is. But the idea that Bitcoin actually splits every day, in some cases even for several blocks is at least poetically interesting, since when Bitcoin splits it would not be that different to an orphan initially, it is just that we will give the orphan life and extend that chain where otherwise it would have just died. You have to admit that poetically it is at least a good analogy.

I think that the term valid here is completely subjective, valid is dependent on the client you run, I think that Bitcoin ideally should be defined as being the longest chain, not the longest valid chain, since otherwise it would become a completely subjective position to take.

I do not think that most of the community supports Core, I think it is actually very difficult to measure such a thing especially when there are people on both sides of the debate who can be very loud. It creates a situation where the "consensus" is not clear which is maybe why many miners are presently still siding with caution and sticking with the incumbents. This is also why splitting the network has become a better option for users to express their opinion, miners will simply just follow the value after all.

Hard forking is how most important changes should be made, before Ethereum split there were multiple hard forks where the network did not split. This is an example of how this mechanism works, if enough people are unhappy with the change they can simply choose to stay behind, the sooner we embrace this mechanism the sooner Bitcoin will be able to continue to evolve.

The consensus rules are subject to democratic vote, that is exactly what Bitcoin is, I understand that you are part of a group of people that rejects this and have therefore constructed a flawed understanding of how Bitcoin works. I do not think there even is a cryptocurrency out there that works that way at all, it might presently even be a technological impossibility also for practical reasons. I am not a technologist myself, I have a background in humanism, maybe a fellow technologist/technocrat will be able to explain this to you better:

I agree with you franky1, but I do agree with exstasie that you do come across a bit angry and it does get in the way of the message I support as well. I am a bit angry myself at the injustice that is occurring, Bitcoin being changed in such a radical way, is something I never signed up for and it is a shame to see that this issue might even delay mass adoption of this technology at such a critical time. Understand that not changing the blocksize limit fundamentally changes the economics of Bitcoin. I also think that the alternative economic model developed by Core is fundamentally flawed.

It is better to keep a cool head franky1, that way we can argue more rationally, I can argue rationally for this different perspective, and I have a solid understand of the theory. Based on experience I know I will not be censored here, unlike r/bitcoin.

I know it has become a very long post, I was simply replying to your singular message, I suppose the ideological split has become so wide, that we have started to see most things very differently.

No, it's not because they blacklisted anybody. It's because those nodes broke the rules, transmitting invalid blocks. Like Satoshi said in the whitepaper, nodes "reject invalid blocks by refusing to work on them". This is true for any rule violation -- it's nothing to do with blacklisting, but the rules in the Bitcoin software. Blacklisting means "targeted". But the software's rules apply to everybody, no matter what. It doesn't matter why the block is invalid -- could be that it includes double spends, doesn't matter. The point is that nodes ignore invalid blocks.

It is like saying that every one that shows up and votes gets to pick a president and all those that don't vote automatically vote for candidate 1. Hard forking the coin is like this example

"Those users won't even see the rule-breaking chain no matter how long it is. "
because they blacklist the nodes transmitting the changed rule.. to not even get that changed rule block

without blacklisting rule changed nodes. then "those users" will see the rule changed block but will orphan off the rule changed blocks, because that is how the consensus mechanism works. if a block is seen that doesnt match the rules, its orphaned.

separately if a node blacklists rule changed nodes.. then they wont even talk to each other to use the orphan consensus mechanism.. meaning that both sides are not orphaning each other and instead working as independent chains.

again it requires blacklisting opposing nodes to avoid the consensus mechanism to keep a minority chain alive. other wise orphaning will take care of the "battle" in a thunderdome scenario(2 enter 1 leave). which is exactly how the consensus mechanism works.
its been working every day, an average of 2 blocks a day occur due to them not fitting the rules of the majority

That doesn't mean it was intended to split the network. They intended for everyone to update to the fork. That code was included in case not enough hashpower updated before the DAO attacker could move his funds. This is similar to Mike Hearn's "checkpointing" in XT -- in case XT became the minority chain, keep the rules intact.

Are you saying consensus rule changes should be decided by "orphaning"? How would that even work? The reason a network split occurs in a hard fork is because users haven't updated, and so some miners return to that chain. Those users won't even see the rule-breaking chain no matter how long it is.

put it this way. if ethereum just done a roll back.. the 'hacked' ether transactions would have got orphaned and everyone would make new blocks ontop of the backdated chain

but instead vatelik actually added a bit more code to intentionally black list nodes against each other to cause a split (controversial fork)

that oppose dao fork. is the flag to cause an intentional split by bypassing the standard orphaning mechanism by not letting the nodes talk to each other to come to a consensus.

so ethereum was an intentional split. rather then changing the rules for everyone to head in a single direction and let orphans take care of the minorty.

Ethereum did not intentionally split. Vitalik and his chronies intentionally hard forked, but they assumed that by having the support of the major mining pool administrators and client/wallet developers (IOW, a dozen or two people), that the original chain would just die. But of course it didn't. Users remained, speculators speculated, miners returned to the original chain. It was not intentional. That's why the Ethereum Foundation told exchanges to ignore the original chain and ignore replay attacks. They planned on the original chain just dying. Silly, especially in a case where the hard fork rewrites history.


Hmmm. No thanks. Good luck.

If you are interested about bitcoin forks, we have created a telegram group: https://telegram.me/BTCFork join us .

Wait a second. I read the whole thread. Ver's answer is kinda bullshit. If you read the thread and look at his pool's blocks, he was flagging blocks as BIP 109 compatible. He was also mining on Bitcoin Classic's testnet. But he was really running BU. So he forked the testnet (he had the most hash power but was mining an invalid chain).

I would echo Greg here: What exactly was he testing?---That he could break everything by flagging support for BIP 109 but not enforcing its rules?

Oh, that's because he was running BU. Now you see why BU flagging support for protocols it does not support is dangerous. But hey, if Classic/BU can break Classic testnet, why not put it on mainnet, right?

Several people have given them more than plenty of chances here, but they usually just seem to write up huge posts of flawed nonsense. They're very persistent with their flawed understanding of the underlying protocol, in addition to trolling members with high knowledge (e.g. DannyHamilton). Basically if you do not want what they want, you are one of the following or more (according to them:
1) A Core fanboy living in a delusion.
2) Blockstream shill.
3) Monero shill.

We've already discussed the on-chain capabilities of Bitcoin, which currently are far from what certain groups are advertising for.

Those people will by default fall onto the preexisting blockchain and if the other flies and that gets left behind and scuttled, they would have no idea until it is too late. 

consensual forks are not scary. orphans take over the minority, and thats the point. thats what the consensus mechanism is all about.
its the doomsday of intentional splits (like ethereum intentionally split) which is a separate thing, called controversial, which are scary.

no one is saying we should logically do a controversial split. apart from the core fanboys who veto a consensual agreement, and by this are saying the only way to increase the capacity buffer is to split.. simply with their veto power

all because they dont want increased capacity, and are telling people how scary controversial splits are because they themselves fear consensual capacity increases as it will de-incentivise the (heavily invested corporate) need to go offchain

I know the idea of a hard fork scares people. Its fucking scary.
I honestly don't know how I feel about it, myself.
I've been watching the Etherium fork to see what will happen, but I think I still need more time to make my mind up.

Confirmation time is a big deal.
You are never going to get a physical store to accept a payment that takes close to an hour to confirm.
This means we are limiting Bitcoin to an online payment system. If that is what is intended, maybe its okay.
But if we want to move the system forward, maybe its time to discuss these other options.

If bitcoin doesn't evolve, it will go the way of the dinosaur.
I'm going to start investing a little bit of money in some of these other coins like Monero in case they end up being the next big thing, I guess....

are you even reading your own words..

old nodes do not validate signatures of segwit.
the quote you made about satoshi is where he is saying he envisions a time in the future where instead of downloading a whole new client. users can download a 'patch' (template) that makes old nodes recognise new transaction types.

but here is the thing.. core didnt insert that template feature into their code to allow users to patch core without needing a full upgrade. so when segwit activates, old nodes dont see a segwit transaction as segwit and have a template to be able to validate signatures of segwit.. what old nodes see is an "anyone can spend" which is the trick where its telling old nodes there is no signature, but blindly pass it on anyway.

i dare you to show me where a users of version 0.3-0.12 can simply patch their old version to not treat segwit as a "anyone can spend" and instead actually sees and validates signatures.

as for your other waffle, about the test net stuff.. what may work in a secondary environment may not work in bitcoin.
hard fork implementations have actual code running on bitcoin, relaying data to other bitcoin implementations. segwit however has not had this finalised code included in a BITCOIN node untill a few weeks ago. and before that the code on the testnets was completely different.
you mentioned segwit has been around for months.. so show the finalised code 3 weeks ago. then show the same code, from any other time you have pretended that segwit was part of bitcoin.. go on
show me code from 2 months ago where they match up.
show me code from 4-6 months ago where they match up.

screw it.. ill do it for you.. blockweight was not even a variable in bitcoin or testnet or segnet's consensus.h until only a few weeks ago

as for the stuff about bip109. read it. maxwell was making blind assumptions,
but later admitted he didnt know what code the nodes were running or why. meaning he had no clue,(he even says it was just a hypoethis)

and knowing he lost the argument because he didnt know how or why, he then started to talk about rogers investment amounts as a subtle way to drop the subject without having to actually say he was wrong by making assumptions.

anyway you have meandered these posts off topic to avoid the question.

using the CONSENSUS mechanism where there is no intentional split(no blacklisting) and because the remaining 5% gets rejected/orphaned to keep the chain going in a single direction the majority is agreeing to.
again emphasis using the same consensus mechanism that takes care of bitcoin every single day.
again not meandering down your false doomsday of intentional splits

where is the problem?
remember people running full nodes want to remain full nodes, they dont want to be blinded. so ofcourse the minority that didnt upgrade will upgrade, to avoid seeing orphans and avoid other issues, and remain full nodes.

full nodes want to be full nodes for good practical reasons of decentralization, security to protect bitcoins immutability, etc etc
if they wanted to be a blind node they might aswell run multibit
there would be no logical reason for a full node to choose to run as a blind node where they are not validating all the data they receive
there would be no logical reason for a full node to choose to run as a blind node where they are wasting bandwidth on orphans
there would be no logical reason for a full node to choose to run as a blind node where they they cant trust 0-1 confirms due to orphans

again reply in context of a consensus.. not your dooms day intentional split controversial rhetoric

Actually, it could occur in multiple situations.

One would be a bilateral fork, where the fork intends to ensure the viability of all networks. For example, blacklisting blockchains that do not contain the fork block, or otherwise changing some consensus-critical factor to ensure a split. This is beyond the scope of "longest chain".

Another would be something like the DAO fork. ETH had nearly 100% of the hash rate at some point. But since the original network will always reject the hard fork blockchain, anyone can return to mining the old chain at any time, and there will be a network split.

You would only know after the fact if there was "consensus" in a hard fork. If there was not, users remain on the original chain....and miners will come.

Is this Franky guy just a total troll? I'm feeling like I've been trolled. Can't believe I took like 45 minutes to write that post, only to have him ignore every single point, yet again. And here he is, foaming at the mouth, babbling incoherently about "core fanboys" and "monero is the future."

What a fucking mouth breather.

I'm not going to waste time responding to your garbage post, Franky. This is the only thing of note that you said:


Not sure where you think code should be tested, if not on a testnet. Also, Segnet has been live for many months prior to Segwit's introduction to the testnet. You realize that forks like Unlimited and Classic have only been run on testnet, right? Fun testnet fact: Recently, Roger Ver's pool -- marking blocks as BIP 109 on Classic's testnet -- mined BIP 109 violating transactions (did not enforce sigop limit). This caused a fork; Classic nodes correctly rejected the longer invalid chain. The fork continued for a month (it may still be ongoing, not sure); no one bothered to notice or care. To allow something like this to happen to the Classic testnet for more than a month is beyond embarrassing -- it's fucking pathetic. That's got to make you question both the BU and Classic teams (and idiots like Roger Ver). This shows the idiocy of BU not enforcing sig op limits while flagging support for BIP 109. The forkers are cannibalizing each other.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zqd7g/roger_ver_does_your_bitcoin_classic_pool_on/

And stop spreading lies about non-updated nodes "not validating." They validate everything according to the consensus rules. To reiterate Satoshi (emphasis mine):


Bitcoin is clearly not for you, Franky, since you apparently believe that miners mining the longest valid chain = "bypassing the consensus mechanism." It's painfully obvious that you have some deep misunderstandings of the protocol. Or perhaps you really do intend to deceive people.