Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 9. (Read 11296 times)
Really! is this what the forum has become, a mouth peace for FUD, OP get a real job and fork off!!
Great post, sgbett.
On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...
It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.
On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...
It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.
well, fork without consensus ... haha ... it's really a joke.
Great post, sgbett.
On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...
It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.
On one side people criticise Bitcoin for being old technology (oh, really?) and on the other hand people slag off a change in the protocol. Damned if you do...
It also helped me understand how the switch will happen. It seems more seamless than I imagined.
^^^
misinfo/disinfo
misinfo/disinfo
what a compelling counter argument to the facts I presented. bravo.
man, people need to inform themselves. I really don't have the nerves to refute all propaganda 10 times.
You say 'there is only one bitcoin'
correct and that's Mpcoin as it is the unforked chain and 1 to 1 bitcoin of today. Gavincoin is per definition a fork of bitcoin and thus an altcoin. (to put it really short)
you trying to tell people a second fork wouldn't exist is wrong information. With 100% certainty after the hardfork two 'bitcoins' will exist. (Gavincoin/Mpcoin)
^^^
misinfo/disinfo
misinfo/disinfo
what a compelling counter argument to the facts I presented. bravo.
^^^
misinfo/disinfo
misinfo/disinfo
There is no such thing as gavincoin and mpcoin. OP is part of a co-ordinated smear campaign.
The strategy of OP is not to 'win' any argument about which coin is better - its as a trick to make you accept that there exists 2 coins automatically by arguing for one of them.
There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time. Once the date passes then miners will be able to create bigger blocks when they need to, once that happens then people who haven't bothered to upgrade will suffer. They will be forced to upgrade because otherwise they will not be able to mine anymore.
There will be no drama when this happens. There is no 'other' coin. There is no debate. The OP is just trying to drum up interest for their boss MP who's argument is that changing the block size is heresy, despite satoshi himself having said that this change can be phased in exactly how it is going to be
He well understood the network needed to scale http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html
The only people that really have a problem with this (aside from the short interested bears simply glomming onto it as a way to talk dow the price) are those that fail to understand the most simple math.
1MB blocks mean a maximum of ~4000 transactions * 0.0001 transaction fee = 0.4 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
20MB blocks mean a maximum of ~80000 transaction * 0.0001 transaction fee = 8 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
Gavin's proposal isn't lets go to 20mb blocks and leave it at that though, it's lets scale max block size over time
If you think limiting the block size will make people pay for transactions you are ignoring i) the most basic principals of human nature ii) sidechains, alts and the million other ways that people can transact of chain to avoid paying higher fees.
What it also fails to acknowledge is that one of the big argument for bitcoin is "no/low fees". How is that going to remain the case if now we are saying that actually you have to pay fees to get your transaction in the next block. It just doeasn't make any sense.
The *only* way for fees to take over from the block reward as the main source of revenue is by increasing the volume of transactions such that tiny fees per transaction add up to something worthwhile.
Its really simple maths.
Don't let people distract you from the simple maths with their imaginary drama.
The strategy of OP is not to 'win' any argument about which coin is better - its as a trick to make you accept that there exists 2 coins automatically by arguing for one of them.
There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time. Once the date passes then miners will be able to create bigger blocks when they need to, once that happens then people who haven't bothered to upgrade will suffer. They will be forced to upgrade because otherwise they will not be able to mine anymore.
There will be no drama when this happens. There is no 'other' coin. There is no debate. The OP is just trying to drum up interest for their boss MP who's argument is that changing the block size is heresy, despite satoshi himself having said that this change can be phased in exactly how it is going to be
He well understood the network needed to scale http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html
The only people that really have a problem with this (aside from the short interested bears simply glomming onto it as a way to talk dow the price) are those that fail to understand the most simple math.
1MB blocks mean a maximum of ~4000 transactions * 0.0001 transaction fee = 0.4 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
20MB blocks mean a maximum of ~80000 transaction * 0.0001 transaction fee = 8 BTC max potential fees for a mined block
Gavin's proposal isn't lets go to 20mb blocks and leave it at that though, it's lets scale max block size over time
If you think limiting the block size will make people pay for transactions you are ignoring i) the most basic principals of human nature ii) sidechains, alts and the million other ways that people can transact of chain to avoid paying higher fees.
What it also fails to acknowledge is that one of the big argument for bitcoin is "no/low fees". How is that going to remain the case if now we are saying that actually you have to pay fees to get your transaction in the next block. It just doeasn't make any sense.
The *only* way for fees to take over from the block reward as the main source of revenue is by increasing the volume of transactions such that tiny fees per transaction add up to something worthwhile.
Its really simple maths.
Don't let people distract you from the simple maths with their imaginary drama.
Too funny, you think you're a wolf praying on the sheep. 
after this desaster no new investement into any of the forks will occure by any sane person on earth - investors confidence will be lost forever, it is hurt already
- A 70% majority of sheep does not save Gavincoin as these sheep will later run for the exit too once they see what gavincoin really is
- convincing exchanges to not use Mpcoin will not help Gavincoin because one single exchange accepting Mpcoin is enough
- all propaganda and campaign will not save Gavincoin as users do see clearly the coin will become a nightmare to use almost immediately
- convincing exchanges to not use Mpcoin will not help Gavincoin because one single exchange accepting Mpcoin is enough
- all propaganda and campaign will not save Gavincoin as users do see clearly the coin will become a nightmare to use almost immediately
I agree that a growing size of the blockchain is a potential issue. However, there seem to be lots of improvements in the number and quality of light clients that don't require users to download the entire blockchain. Furthermore, as merchants use payment providers, it may not be an issue at all.
Basically users of gavincoin give up their souvereignity and direct control over the coins. They will be incapacitated in no time.
I agree that a growing size of the blockchain is a potential issue. However, there seem to be lots of improvements in the number and quality of light clients that don't require users to download the entire blockchain. Furthermore, as merchants use payment providers, it may not be an issue at all.
Dumb post by someone who couldn't even bother to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Here's a snippet for the uninformed.
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
gavin is fixed on it - he's not looking at reality
Bitcoin does not have that transaction volume yet and Gavincoin will never get it because it's not a useful coin.
Mpcoin maybe ...
Dumb post by someone who couldn't even bother to read the Bitcoin Whitepaper. Here's a snippet for the uninformed.
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
"
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
"
I doubt it.
You can quote that on one of your future troll posts, if you want.
You can quote that on one of your future troll posts, if you want.
So you're asking what happens to Gavincoin/mpcoin after the split.
My answer is that I'll start using whichever one chain is accessible by the current Bitcoin exchanges. I don't think we'll see both accepted by the exchanges.
My answer is that I'll start using whichever one chain is accessible by the current Bitcoin exchanges. I don't think we'll see both accepted by the exchanges.
different exchanges will accept different forks. And maybe some exchanges even accept coins from both forks. Other exchanges will accept no fork at all.
The only winners in this will be the good and solid altcoins
So you're asking what happens to Gavincoin/mpcoin after the split.
My answer is that I'll start using whichever one chain is accessible by the current Bitcoin exchanges. I don't think we'll see both accepted by the exchanges.
My answer is that I'll start using whichever one chain is accessible by the current Bitcoin exchanges. I don't think we'll see both accepted by the exchanges.
Im a bit out of the loop so im asking... are they really creating an actual fork named "Gavincoin"? wtf..
'they' aren't calling it that. 'We' call it that because we need to distinguish gavincoin from Mpcoin which is the original Bitcoinchain that will live on aswell. The savvy and informed user basically gets to choose which fork he/she wants to use.
The bloated gavinchain or the original unforked bitcoin chain (mpcoin)
The issue is ceating massive chaos because bitcoin works based on consensus and attempting a hardfork without a consensus like Gavin does will cause big problems.
That wouldn't surprise me. If there's a temporary crash due to the block chain fork when the switch happens. Before resuming trade at a similar price to before the fork.
Would it surprise you, homo homini lupus? The way you're posting the information seems to be as if you're imparting some genius knowledge upon us.
Any temporary disruption to the block chain is bound to have an exaggerated, if temporary, effect on Bitcoin.
Would it surprise you, homo homini lupus? The way you're posting the information seems to be as if you're imparting some genius knowledge upon us.
Any temporary disruption to the block chain is bound to have an exaggerated, if temporary, effect on Bitcoin.
temporary? Not so sure. Have you thought about the actual mpcoin/gavincoin market? What happens when mpcoin and gavincoin are traded directly against each other? You got it. Madness!
So the flashrecovery isn't a thing i see as this shenangians can be expected to go on for several months maybe years.
It's not a 'temporary disruption', it's a SPLIT of bitcoin into two forks and also a split in the community. The altcoin 'Gavincoin' and the original Bitcoinchain without changes. Many people will go for Gavincoin but Mpcoin is the integer blockchain.
User that don't upgrade are automatically on Mpcoin. It's going to be a fuckin' madness situation.
... basically the amount of bitcoin doubles
*disclosure on my position: i am an independant onlooker in this. I am not associated with any of the sides, though i do prefer Mpcoin as the integer Bitcoin over Bloated and inaccessible Gavincoin. At the time of the fork i will hold no bitcoin and will not participate in any of that. Same would be advised for anyone else - so that's why the market crashes because nobody wants to get caught up in it and everyone sells before the fork.
BillyBobZorton, the fork that is proposed is being implemented by Gavin Andresen who's one of the Bitcoin developers. The trolls are using Gavincoin as a way to smear Bitcoin to try and have an effect on regular users of the forum. Here's a thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-20mb-fork-941331
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-20mb-fork-941331
That wouldn't surprise me. If there's a temporary crash due to the block chain fork when the switch happens. Before resuming trade at a similar price to before the fork.
Would it surprise you, homo homini lupus? The way you're posting the information seems to be as if you're imparting some genius knowledge upon us.
Any temporary disruption to the block chain is bound to have an exaggerated, if temporary, effect on Bitcoin.
Would it surprise you, homo homini lupus? The way you're posting the information seems to be as if you're imparting some genius knowledge upon us.
Any temporary disruption to the block chain is bound to have an exaggerated, if temporary, effect on Bitcoin.
Jump to: