The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)... - page 2.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 01:43:32 PM

Well, no. Only for non-fully-validating nodes. All nodes that ignore the signature chain will need to trust other -- fully-validating nodes (which get no capacity boost) -- to do the validation for them.

It does for those who upgrade; those that don't upgrade never needed the increase in capacity.

I can't tell what is subject and what is object in your reply. But if I have your words parsed properly, than I believe you are making a false statement. Let me try again.

For any given node:
- In order to operate in a trustless manner, a node must fully validate
- In order to fully validate, a node must have access to signature data
- SegWit partitions transaction data into two chains - the operational data and the signature data
- the 'capacity increase' that SegWit claims is entirely due to the fact that they don't tabulate the signature data as being part of the block size accounting

Ergo, any node wishing to operate in a trustless manner does not get any 'block size increase'

You may reply 'but fraud proofs'. But this is yet another mechanism entirely dependent upon outsourcing validation to other nodes. IOW, not trustless. Insecure.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 12:43:48 PM

If you are an exchange and you decide to "remain open" then you are gambling (i.e. if you end up on the wrong fork and you have paid out fiat to people then you have just lost that fiat and gained nothing of any value).

I don't think that exchanges are going to be so brave as to want to gamble.

Nonsense. Any rational exchange, seeing the threshold nearing, will implement trading for both chains independently. With tools to allocate to such chain funds that are being spent from the common trunk as desired by the nominal 'owner' of such funds. Any exchange that does not is incompetent, and deserves to be put out of business.

I note that even SegWitters are starting to recognize the possibility of chain splitting due to the SegWit fork, anyways.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 02:12:23 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 12:26:01 PM

Bitcoin is not a political thing

In and of the fact that politics is nothing more or less than the adjudication of who wields power in a group dynamic, this particular part of Bitcoin is indeed 100% political.

One group (small blockers) want one thing, and another group (big blockers) want another. What outcome wins? It will be decided by those who amass political power. Period.

Sure, it all has to operate within the constraints of what technology allows, but it is still political. All your pollyanna posturing can't change that fundamental truth.

Indeed. Consensus does not come from code and math but from people agreeing to run the same code. Convincing people to run the same code as yours is political.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 12:26:01 PM

Bitcoin is not a political thing

In and of the fact that politics is nothing more or less than the adjudication of who wields power in a group dynamic, this particular part of Bitcoin is indeed 100% political.

One group (small blockers) want one thing, and another group (big blockers) want another. What outcome wins? It will be decided by those who amass political power. Period.

Sure, it all has to operate within the constraints of what technology allows, but it is still political. All your pollyanna posturing can't change that fundamental truth.

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 02:04:40 PM

...

Quote from: blunderer on February 02, 2016, 02:00:34 PM

Could you link me to the source of boldface above? I keep searching https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, and getting zero hits.
Perhaps alternative spelling?

Start by reading the mailing list from day one. You're welcome.
...

Provide source or I'll have to assume you're simply lying.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 02:04:40 PM

Quote from: knight22 on February 02, 2016, 02:00:58 PM

Consensus is all about compromise. If one group is unwilling to do ANY compromise then the only thing they should expect is a letter of divorce, regardless of how much % they represent.

These is no group that is unwilling to compromise aside from the forkers. Your support a harmful split of the network; unfortunately we can't banish bad actors from an decentralized platform. I will not respond to further input from a party who is willing to damage the whole ecosystem in order to get their own way.

Give me a break, big blockers have been compromising down to 2 mb. That's how you get consensus. How much small blockists have been willing to raise the limit to achieve consensus?

0

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: knight22 on February 02, 2016, 02:00:58 PM

Consensus is all about compromise. If one group is unwilling to do ANY compromise then the only thing they should expect is a letter of divorce, regardless of how much % they represent.

These is no group that is unwilling to compromise aside from the forkers. Your support a harmful split of the network; unfortunately we can't banish bad actors from an decentralized platform. I will not respond to further input from a party who is willing to damage the whole ecosystem in order to get their own way.

Quote from: blunderer on February 02, 2016, 02:00:34 PM

Could you link me to the source of boldface above? I keep searching https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, and getting zero hits.
Perhaps alternative spelling?

Start by reading the mailing list from day one. You're welcome.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 02:01:38 PM

This, plus there are altcoin lovers who dont mind hurting Bitcoin a bit or have different reasons for capping onchain useability. You cant get almost everyone agree becase there are bad actors who dont have best Bitcoin interest in mind. Thats why you cant give too much veto power to small minority.

Neither is 10 nor 5% small in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Nobody is capping the onchain usability either.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: knight22 on February 02, 2016, 01:55:30 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 01:33:45 PM

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

We don't "need" almost everyone for any change. That's what the minority would like to think but no, if 75% agrees to kick out 25% away. Then 75% have come to a consensus to get rid of the armful 25%. End of story. There is nothing the 25% can do to stop the 75% to do whatever they want.

This, plus there are altcoin lovers who dont mind hurting Bitcoin a bit or have different reasons for capping onchain useability. You cant get almost everyone agree becase there are bad actors who dont have best Bitcoin interest in mind. Thats why you cant give too much veto power to small minority.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:57:31 PM

Quote from: knight22 on February 02, 2016, 01:55:30 PM

We don't "need" almost everyone for any change. That's what the minority would like to think but no, if 75% agrees to kick out 25% away. Then 75% have come to a consensus to get rid of the armful 25%. End of story.

Why 75% then? Your argument makes no sense from this perspective: 51% resembles the majority as well and you could time the hard fork with a difficulty adjustment (this wouldn't be a problem). Then the 51% would have come at consensus and got rid of the armful 49%, right?

I used 75% as per Classic threshold but you are right, any % can make it for a split. Consensus is all about compromise. If one group is unwilling to do ANY compromise then the only thing they should expect is a letter of divorce from the other group, regardless of how much % they represent.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 01:27:57 PM

Yes. Seriously. Did you buy this account?

Would you like me to create a signed message using the 1ciyam address to prove it?

(and if that isn't enough then perhaps use my GPG sig as well?)

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 01:33:45 PM

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

Could you link me to the source of boldface above? I keep searching https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, and getting zero hits.
Perhaps alternative spelling?
Or are you simply making stuff up/using air quotes?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: knight22 on February 02, 2016, 01:55:30 PM

We don't "need" almost everyone for any change. That's what the minority would like to think but no, if 75% agrees to kick out 25% away. Then 75% have come to a consensus to get rid of the armful 25%. End of story.

Why 75% then? Your argument makes no sense from this perspective: 51% resembles the majority as well and you could time the hard fork with a difficulty adjustment (this wouldn't be a problem). Then the 51% would have come at consensus and got rid of the armful 49%, right?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 01:33:45 PM

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

We don't "need" almost everyone for any change. That's what the minority would like to think but no, if 75% agrees to kick out 25% away. Then 75% have come to a consensus to get rid of the armful 25%. End of story. There is nothing the 25% can do to stop the 75% to do whatever they want.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 01:33:45 PM

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 01:43:32 PM

Well, no. Only for non-fully-validating nodes. All nodes that ignore the signature chain will need to trust other -- fully-validating nodes (which get no capacity boost) -- to do the validation for them.

It does for those who upgrade; those that don't upgrade never needed the increase in capacity.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Jet Cash on February 02, 2016, 02:33:14 AM

SegWit who want to extend the functionality of Bitcoin, and as part of this extension, they want to split the transaction for storage in two chains (is this correct?) The important section regarding the amount of the transfer and the history link stay in the existing blockchain, but because of the reduction in information, more transactions can be stored in a block.

While this is 'kind of true', it elides some vital detail. The fact of the matter is that any node that wishes to operate in a trustless manner must still validate the signature information. IOW for trustless nodes, there is no data reduction.

Quote

This solves the size problem in the short term,

Well, no. Only for non-fully-validating nodes. All nodes that ignore the signature chain will need to trust other -- fully-validating nodes (which get no capacity boost) -- to do the validation for them.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2016, 01:09:34 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 12:20:43 PM

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Is Bitcoin a country; a democracy? You're comparing apples and oranges here. Bitcoin is a consensus driven protocol. Participants that started using it have agreed on a set of rules.

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus libertatian here ?

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: achow101 on February 02, 2016, 01:29:53 AM

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 01:05:24 AM

Quote from: achow101 on February 01, 2016, 10:10:14 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 01, 2016, 09:48:34 PM

Quote from: achow101 on February 01, 2016, 09:38:37 PM

Why should soft forks deploy with 95% but hard forks deploy with 75%?

Why do you claim that soft forks deploy with 95%?

Because they do. Just read the BIPs for soft forks ....

Some specific soft fork proposals are set at 95%. Not endemic to soft forks generally. Got it.

What is the soft fork threshold for the SegWit Omnibus? Anyone?

It is the same as the other previous soft forks. Try actually reading the post I made because I stated that very clearly with references.

So you are saying that The SegWit Omnibus protocol changeset is defined entirely in a BIP, and that BIP lays out a 95% soft fork threshold? Great! That is news I had not yet assimilated.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 01:19:09 AM

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2016, 01:07:20 AM

Did you buy this account? Your recent posts don't strike me as the CIYAM of old.

For one, why do you think 'two weeks' is in any way relevant?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Did you buy this account?

Quote

Two weeks is just a guess so feel free to interpret that as two months if you prefer (it doesn't really change the issue one way or the other).

There is a cuase and effect issue here regarding the two weeks:

Quote

... miners ... will most likely shut down their hashing operations ... which will reduce the difficulty (in two weeks).

Frankly, I think your entire premise is nonsense, but wanted to start with the above. After thinking about the last quote, would you care to put a better number on 'two weeks'?

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 12:26:01 PM

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 12:20:43 PM

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Bitcoin is not a political thing (so trying to compare it to such things is just plain silly) - it is the fact that Gavin is trying to treat it that way now that is the issue.

Miners do not want to face risks of not being able to turn their BTC into "fiat" because it actually costs them a lot in electricity bills to keep mining (which secures the network).

If we end up with too much doubt as to what is going to occur then exchanges will stop allowing fiat to be exchanged and miners will be forced to start shutting down mines (due to the expense of running them).

If you mean Bitcoin is for privileged group who decide, and not users who have right to vote with the hashing power needed to secure the network, then you just describe totalitarian system which hardly anyone signed up when joining Bitcoin. And your free to follow old rules if you preffer, the same way Im free to follow new rules.

Exchanges can decide what to do, but the big ones showed support for 2MB, so you see problem where there is none.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 12:20:43 PM

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Is Bitcoin a country; a democracy? You're comparing apples and oranges here. Bitcoin is a consensus driven protocol. Participants that started using it have agreed on a set of rules.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 02, 2016, 12:20:43 PM

What about if we need 90% support for not increasing to 2MB, otherwise we increase to 2MB. You see, just 10% could veto such change even if almost 90% would disagree. It is not right to give such small minority much veto power in eighter case in my opinion, 67% mostly used has reasons behind, and 75% is very generous imo if 26% still can be allowed to veto 74% will

Wrong. If 2 MB blocks are "urgent", "needed right now", "wanted by everyone" there won't be a 5% to oppose it, not to mention 10%. If there is, then those 3 are invalidated. 75% is not generous, it is harmful to the network and all the participants. A hard fork should be an upgrade of the existing chain, not a split into 3/4 and 1/4 pieces.

Topic: The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)... - page 2. (Read 4864 times)