Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 8. (Read 11296 times)

as i said before an hard fork needs to be planned a long time ahead. if there is a need it is already too late by 6months (minimum)

edit: i cant imagine transactions more micro than faucets - and even they work with 1mb...
so where are those microtransactions coming from? btc gots more adoption by fee paying participants? GREAT!

if they would just spam no miner would include their transactions

 on the other hand transactions on gavincoin wouldn't be safe

I think there's a fair chance miners don't leave the Bitcoin chain for gavincoin or return to the original chain once gavincoin has been shown to not be viable

Why do you keep trying to rename bitcoin, what is your agenda. Its almost as if you are trying to frighten people, make them feel uncertain about bitcoin's future so they doubt it will succeed.

In actual fact, you trying to tell people a second fork will exist, is blatant speculation!

What's interesting is that your repeated use of the term 'hard fork' shows that you pay more attention to the media than to the facts. The term is used by media outlets because it carries gravitas, it generates click through revenue, it 'sells papers'.

What Gavin is proposing is an update to bitcoin core that allows for larger blocks - that is not a 'hard fork', despite what you read in the papers. The deployment of the update can be properly managed so as to create minimum disruption to all of those with a vested interest in the continued success of bitcoin, just as satoshi described.

What you actually mean is a blockchain fork. This is not something Gavin can do, or even MP in his omnipotence! A fork is just what happens when miners haven't yet reached consensus, eventually they do and one of the chains becomes orphaned and every one just carries on.

Here are two axiomatic truths. There will always exist bad actors. There will always be innocent people that just forget to upgrade.

What the bad actors here are trying to do, is subvert the upgrade process by trying to fork the blockchain by only accepting smaller blocks. The bad actors will intentionally not upgrade, and will take advantage of the fact that there are innocent people who have forgotten to upgrade and recruit there hashing power. (of course they will also then try to argue that all of these people are 'supporters')

The thing is, in reality those chains will too become orphaned in time. That too is mathematically certain. The only way this cannot happen is if the bad actors are able to pull off a 50% attack... Now is that really what you are suggesting that you would do just to stop this change from being implemented?

MP is super smart but an egomaniac with it, which makes his his blog blog a great read! (I'm serious btw).

Only he would try and hard fork the blockchain just to get his own way! ... whilst all the time accusing everyone else of being the villains

you say 1mb blocks aren't filled atm - correct. So there is obviously no need to scale up yet

if you introduce 20mb blocks ahead of demand thefollowing traffic will take hold:

- microstransactions for all kinds of nonsense
- parasitic services like counterparty that fill the blocks
- malicious spam

20MB will be filled in no time



I won't support any of the coins
I support bitcoin right now and since Mpcoin is Bitcoin and i don't have consensus on the fork i support Bitcoin of course.
Once the chaos occures i will not be holding bitcoin anymore same as most people - i am  not interested to get caught in this shit

Your assumption Mpcoin will turn to an altcoin is likely wrong because it is the integer Bitcoin blockchain (unforked)

even worse: an sha265 alt...
with a strong bitcoin with much much more hashrate this alt wouldnt survive long and wouldnt be safe from 51% attacks

Oh it fits, alright. It fits BIG TIME!

But seriously: who else besides a handful of you will continue to support MPcoin? Seriously!? It will turn into an altcoin, right?

dont you think its a little bit stupid to assume that 20mb blocks are filled immediatly as soon as they start to exists if atm 1mb blocks are not filled?

and dont forget miners are also people: if they think it should stay at 5mb it will be there... so there is no "automatic" doomsday scenario

how is it 'all his'? It's bitcoin and everyone can and will continue to mine like normal. The network will stay decentralised. But your question doesn't fit the point raised in the text you quote.

Once the MirceaPopescufork occurs, Mirceacoin will be all his. What is YOUR point here?

if miners want higher fees they can simply make blocks smaller. they can do this know - but atm the block reward is so much higher than all fees combined that there is no need for them to do this.

it has been shown that once blocklimit would be reached fees would of course rise and a free market effect for txs would take hold (if you want fast transaction, pay higher fees). The first effect of this would be to drive a lot of the spamming microtransactions like satoshi dice for 50cents worth a bet and things like that off the chain. That's probably already 20% or 30% of the traffic. So the propaganda of 'the chain comes to a halt' is fearmongering and only serves the purpose of bullying everyone into accepting the gavinfork without a second thought.  

completely agree.
I get the "whole sky is falling" vibe with his hard fork proposal and for not doing shit in the last 5 years.
It really can wait a while longer to hash out more ideals.

if an hardfork is urgent it is too late.
an hardfork needs to be planned - otherwise its chaos.

it just matters what miners and exchanges do: ALL others wills follow - even the mp crowd

i would remove the block limit all together (including the message-size-limit around 30mb) and let the free market decide what is best.

edit:
i second that.

You think Mirceacoin is going to fly? Good luck with your civil war I'm sure

What hard fork? I have not heard of any official anything at this time...?

+1

the whole approach is bullshit so far

- no other proposals
- no consensus
- not even an urgent need to fork (some supporters of the gavinfork want tell you that it would be urgent but that has been shown to be wrong)

-----------

basically the community is devided in the people who think and talk sense and know the original purpose of the coin aswell as have a basic understanding of the tech and on the other side is the camp of the greedy sheep who don't give a fuck and tell everyone "just follow in line"

-----------

people need to inform themselves to protect their finances and be able to make educated decisions.

I don't plan on supporting the fork. I want more proposals and more options besides just gavins that obviously doesn't have the full community support. If there is going to be a hard fork; there are other things that need done at that time as well to prevent future hard forks from happening within the next decade again.