The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero

BTCOFFEE

newbie

Activity: 7

Merit: 0

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 07, 2015, 12:48:26 PM

Quote from: manselr on February 07, 2015, 11:33:42 AM

Fuck sakes, if Satoshi was so smart why the hell didn't he add 20 MB by default? he would have saved us from this mess. Geeeeez.

Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all. From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block. There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).

The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later. There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi. It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time. There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB.

aye i got a grand idea let's fork core immediately back to 33mb and see what happens ~ easy solution ! :-) lol

balu2

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: 8up on August 21, 2015, 12:16:03 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 21, 2015, 11:38:09 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

ya, well if the scum is gonna win get ready for really cheap coins. But i don't think so.

Also worth mentioning is how all these xt clowns on this thread gone silent since.

adding some high profile names like circle, coinbase and >50% of chinese miners

unfortunately some early adoptors seem a little bit to overconfident in their circle jerk forums bitcointalk and r/bitcoin. ->self-censorship is not a good thing if you want to stay connected with reality.

the best thing that could happen to bitcoin is if some early adoptors fold their bitcoins because of ideology. the better distribution will guarantee bitcoin a fast recovery (2nd gen. early adoptors are already waiting to take their place) and further success. but before that, there could be blood in the streets. $50 and below seem possible, if sky is falling on us.

lol, as if it would recover from 50$ - people aren't stupid.

8up

hero member

Activity: 618

Merit: 500

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 21, 2015, 11:38:09 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

ya, well if the scum is gonna win get ready for really cheap coins. But i don't think so.

Also worth mentioning is how all these xt clowns on this thread gone silent since.

adding some high profile names like circle, coinbase and >50% of chinese miners

unfortunately some early adoptors seem a little bit to overconfident in their circle jerk forums bitcointalk and r/bitcoin. ->self-censorship is not a good thing if you want to stay connected with reality.

the best thing that could happen to bitcoin is if some early adoptors fold their bitcoins because of ideology. the better distribution will guarantee bitcoin a fast recovery (2nd gen. early adoptors are already waiting to take their place) and further success. but before that, there could be blood in the streets. $50 and below seem possible, if sky is falling on us.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 21, 2015, 11:38:09 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

ya, well if the scum is gonna win get ready for really cheap coins. But i don't think so.

Also worth mentioning is how all these xt clowns on this thread gone silent since.

you mean on a 6 month old thread that you necro'd. let that sink in 6 months and people still haven't come to a consensus.

probably a good job that gavin started when he did. at this rate the heat death of the universe will probably need to be take into account...

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:45:05 AM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 21, 2015, 11:38:09 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

ya, well if the scum is gonna win get ready for really cheap coins. But i don't think so.

Also worth mentioning is how all these xt clowns on this thread gone silent since.

i am not silent?

balu2

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 21, 2015, 11:38:09 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

ya, well if the scum is gonna win get ready for really cheap coins. But i don't think so.

Also worth mentioning is how all these xt clowns on this thread gone silent since.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: balu2 on August 21, 2015, 11:35:11 AM

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

bitpay, blockchain.info and okcoin will support BIP101.
well....XT seems to win...

balu2

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

homo homini was pretty bang on.

If you search google for "gavincoin" this thread is at the top of the search btw.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on February 23, 2015, 06:15:19 PM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 08, 2015, 01:12:18 PM

If Gavin doesn't update the bitcoin core with a more realistic block cap size, then you can sure someone else will.

The client would likely need some additional changes ... kind of like as if starting a new altcoin that just that it accepts private keys and UTXOs at some starting point (where the fork will begin).

Otherwise, Cryddit describes pretty well why the (existing) protocol software is very discriminating to the "losing" chain (which has less hashing power than the chain with the "most work". The two chains just won't co-exist even if there is a certain percent of miners that will continue to mine on it:
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10440800

People would do very well to read and understand that thread. It explains perfectly why there is no such thing as gavincoin, and why all of the frothing about hard forks is just so much internet drama. Thanks for (re)posting this! Information is what will kill the FUD.

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Quote from: tss on February 17, 2015, 01:54:04 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You guys are delusional. It's time to fork for fuck sakes, we'll need to deal with this eventually anyway.

why are you such a cheerleader? discussion and understanding is the goal not follow and comply.

It's as simple tho. We are on a dead end, if we don't do it now, we'll have to do it later, which will be worse.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 08, 2015, 01:12:18 PM

If Gavin doesn't update the bitcoin core with a more realistic block cap size, then you can sure someone else will.

The client would likely need some additional changes ... kind of like as if starting a new altcoin except this one happens to accepts Bitcoin private keys and UTXOs at some starting point (where the fork will begin).

Otherwise, Cryddit describes pretty well why the (existing) protocol software is very discriminating to the "losing" chain (which has less hashing power than the chain with the "most work". The two chains just won't co-exist even if there is a certain percent of miners that will continue to mine on it:
- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10440800

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

You guys are delusional. It's time to fork for fuck sakes, we'll need to deal with this eventually anyway.

why are you such a cheerleader? discussion and understanding is the goal not follow and comply.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 17, 2015, 09:44:41 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 17, 2015, 04:17:33 AM

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.

It was all correct until the bolded part. Non-standard is still valid. Standard vs non-standard only controls the behavior of nodes for relaying or including txns in a block. A non-standard txn is still valid and thus a block containing a non-standard txn is also valid. All nodes will validate and accept the block without issue and miners will extend that chain.

Standard = nodes will relay the txn and miners will include the txn by default
Non-standard = txn is still valid but it is not relayed or included in a block by default
Invalid = txn violates consensus rules and any block containing it is invalid.

Thank you for correcting me.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: hyphymikey on February 17, 2015, 01:21:43 AM

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

No. If a miner has a method to directly accept the txn and it meets their requirements then you could submit it directly to the miner. Non-standard means that nodes will refuse to relay the txn, store it in a memory pool, or include it in a block. Changing the fee won't make it standard.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 17, 2015, 04:17:33 AM

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.

It was all correct until the bolded part. Non-standard is still valid. Standard vs non-standard only controls the behavior of nodes for relaying or including txns in a block. A non-standard txn is still valid and thus a block containing a non-standard txn is also valid. All nodes will validate and accept the block without issue and miners will extend that chain.

Standard = nodes will relay the txn and miners will include the txn by default
Non-standard = txn is still valid but it is not relayed or included in a block by default
Invalid = txn violates consensus rules and any block containing it is invalid.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: hyphymikey on February 17, 2015, 01:21:43 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 16, 2015, 09:57:45 PM

Quote from: tss on February 16, 2015, 09:14:10 PM

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE). The new code doesn't change that. You can make a txn as large as a block. That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size. So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.

hyphymikey

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 16, 2015, 09:57:45 PM

Quote from: tss on February 16, 2015, 09:14:10 PM

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE). The new code doesn't change that. You can make a txn as large as a block. That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size. So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: tss on February 16, 2015, 09:14:10 PM

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE). The new code doesn't change that. You can make a txn as large as a block. That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size. So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 02:39:24 AM

Bitcoin does not exist for your enjoyment. It does not exist for the benefit of all. It exists because there is a demand for an alternative to the current, corrupt, banking system.

Micro-payments can be left for some other less secure alt-coin or side-chain.

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners. This is the key. The Blockchain does not, by itself, solve the Byzantine Generals problem. It is the alignment of incentives that even makes this project possible.

The Blockchain is not infinite, and without the majority of the hashing power, it will not be secure.

Transaction fees should be implemented on a floating, market price, and the block size should remain fixed. (*until there is a reason to increase it which provides a proper profit incentive for the miners to accept such a change*)

Bitcoin is simply too important to fuck with, and your pathetic attempt to fork it will fail.

i agree with this all. why will no one comment on... do we not care?

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

plopper50

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Most pools limit the block size they will accept. What's going to change if the fork goes through and they continue limiting the block size they will accept? It will make no difference unless the pools start accepting giant blocks.

Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero (Read 11296 times)