Topic: The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)... - page 3. (Read 4840 times)
It is obviously in everyones interest to make sure this does not happen. there is noway that miners and exchanges are going to make radical changes that could cause a blockchain fork. and definatly not one that they keep mining.
I see your point but... exchanges might chose to remain open in one fork or another instead of just closing operations. They lose money if they remain closed and if there is a hardfork, I guess it would be better to have some than nothing.
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.
I see your point but... exchanges might chose to remain open in one fork or another instead of just closing operations. They lose money if they remain closed and if there is a hardfork, I guess it would be better to have some than nothing.
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 the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.
There's no telling what might happen right now and this does cause some concern for investors. If the proposal only had a required consensus threshold that is higher than 75% there would be less risk with whichever path this goes down. 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.
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
If the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.
There's no telling what might happen right now and this does cause some concern for investors. If the proposal only had a required consensus threshold that is higher than 75% there would be less risk with whichever path this goes down. 
Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!
100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over.100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
I.e. "not rational actors pursuing enlightened self-interest, the possibility of which Bitcoin failed to take into account."
Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!
100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over.100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
If the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.
Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!
100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over. 100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
Then you don't understand how the actual fiat system works.
btw 25% =/= almost 1/3. It equals 1/4.
There was a mistake in my original statement and miscalculation. 25% of the initial network is more than 30% of the forked network. You're the one who doesn't understand the current system that we're living in. Stop trying to make Bitcoin a democracy. It should be trustless, not a battle between chains.btw 25% =/= almost 1/3. It equals 1/4.
Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!
100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.
(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")
Forgive my ignorance, but I thought a transaction was not final until it was included in a block that was accepted in the blockchain. I assumed that if there weren't any slots for the transaction, then its finalisation would be delayed.
It is good to ask. I was referring to the person that you've quoted. Your thinking is correct; until the transaction gets included in a single block (1 confirmation) it is marked as a zero-conf transaction and is not final. It's possible to reverse a transaction with 1 confirmation but that is quite hard and becomes much harder the more confirmations that it has; these are things that you do not need to concern yourself with though. Your assumption is also correct, but mostly for transactions that have an inadequate fee. You could "take" someone else's "slot" by including a fee that is a bit higher.
If blocks are submitted half empty at the moment, why do we need to increase the blocksize to create more empty space/unused capacity?
There is no need for this right now. The fork is an political attempt at taking over the development of the main implementation. Segwit offers an adequate increase in transaction capacity (along with other benefits) and should ensure enough space for 2016 (it will grow with adoption). 
Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?
This doesn't apply to anything and is a ignorant statement. The average confirmation time for normal transactions stays the same regardless of remaining capacity in the block. The blocks right now are rarely full and the only transactions that don't get confirmed are those that don't have a proper fee. The situation would be the same at 2 MB with occasionally full blocks.Forgive my ignorance, but I thought a transaction was not final until it was included in a block that was accepted in the blockchain. I assumed that if there weren't any slots for the transaction, then its finalisation would be delayed.
If blocks are submitted half empty at the moment, why do we need to increase the blocksize to create more empty space/unused capacity?
Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?
This doesn't apply to anything and is a ignorant statement. The average confirmation time for normal transactions stays the same regardless of remaining capacity in the block. The blocks right now are rarely full and the only transactions that don't get confirmed are those that don't have a proper fee. The situation would be the same at 2 MB with occasionally full blocks.Uhhh, shouldn't the best code win?
Perhaps then, we should leave development as it should be -- meritocratic. Not based on a Reddit/Twitter political campaign.
You better hope miners don't support the mob rule Classic approach....because if this tiny minority of developers is to replace Core....it will be very dark days ahead for bitcoin.
If people weren't ignorant and playing politics around here it would be that way. Look at all the developments that Core developers have made, now look at the Classic developers and tell me what they've created? Nothing. Toomin's plan is to copy things from Core. Perhaps then, we should leave development as it should be -- meritocratic. Not based on a Reddit/Twitter political campaign.
You better hope miners don't support the mob rule Classic approach....because if this tiny minority of developers is to replace Core....it will be very dark days ahead for bitcoin.
You write as if this exchange wouldn't own the same address on the other chain then too. But they would ideally. Well, probably depends on the way their wallet creates addresses. Core might be not good if i remember correctly.
No - you can't do this - the person who is sending you (being the exchange) has the private key for those UTXOs (not you the exchange).
So it is within their potential ability to "double-spend" (not you the exchange).
Clear yet?
(why do I get the feeling you don't even know what UTXOs are)
You are right, they will chose one chain. But that doesn't say that they can check incoming deposits against the deposit on the other chain. When they received the bitcoins not only on their chosen chain but on the fork too then they can accept that deposit because it is riskless.
Why should they not monitor the other chain and instead close down completely? That makes no sense businesswise.
Why should they not monitor the other chain and instead close down completely? That makes no sense businesswise.
You are talking nonsense (again) - if you accept coins that end up being on a failed fork then you cannot spend them. Got it?
So if I am exchange A and I accept coins on Fork A and am giving someone fiat for those coins then I've already spent the fiat and end up becoming a bag-holder of a useless alt.
Now tell me why any business is going to take on such a risk?
You write as if this exchange wouldn't own the same address on the other chain then too. But they would ideally. Well, probably depends on the way their wallet creates addresses. Core might be not good if i remember correctly.
But let's assume they own the same deposit address on both chains. Then it would not matter if they receive the coins on both chains and the chain they used on their exchange suddenly dies. They still would have the coins on the other chain. Nothing would be lost.
I hope you got now what i meant.
No, i think the worse enforcer are the core devs. Deciding for everyone without giving a choice and when someone creates a choice then he wants to break everything in their eyes.
It isn't up to the core devs at all (remember it is about CPUs or more specifically ASICS voting?).
Quite likely the core devs will decide to simply accept 2MB if the fork risk is looking very likely (as they are not the ones trying to wreck things here) but I would pretty much guarantee that with in a month or two after that Gavin will be back with something that has 4MB (with another hard-fork threat).
..Because a blocksize increase means faster and more frequent transactions and faster confirmations.
Actually you only misunderstood him. He meant that a transaction will receive confirmations faster, blocks won't be found faster then. But a transaction will most probably be implemented in the next block. So his sentence is fine.
Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?
Yes i think so. Though Lauda wrote like the author of that sentence was so stupid to think that the confirmation time (the 10 minutes) will be lower. At least i interpreted it so since the sentence otherwise would be fine.
I don't see why it is fine for you to run a softfork that activates after 75% of the hashpower is using it or a hard fork that goes life after similar thresholds. Double standards? It would still show that the majority supports something.
All soft forks so far have only been enforced after a 95% threshold (and this will apply with SegWit as well).
The only people trying to push for a 75% hard-fork are Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin XT (the latter being now defunct).
Yeah, though the chances are not fair if you think about it. 75% is the majority of hashpower for sure. That's the first point. Then they can do it.
The otherside will make segwit come with higher threshold and lightning network without decision finding.
The problem is that the core developers block the raising of the blocklimit and they can enforce it. So in fact they force all the rest of the community to follow the way they want it to be. I think they can not complain about classic doing a similar thing. Classic at least would know the majority behind themself at that point. Coredevs don't really care about such decision.
In order to allow a decision there is no other way than to present an alternative. So at the end coredevs complain about the possibility to vote. They decided for themselves and for all to not raise the blocksizelimit. Everyone had to follow. Force. Now a way to find the opinion of the community was found and they complain about that happening since they already did their decision for us all.
No, i think the worse enforcer are the core devs. Deciding for everyone without giving a choice and when someone creates a choice then he wants to break everything in their eyes.
Bitcoin is not a democracy (have you not even read Satoshi's paper?).
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
Yes, in this sense it is not a democracy... maybe a technocrazy... cpu's are voting...
So at the end the wealthy has more power. Was inevitable. But still it is some kind of decision finding. And the strongest wins because he can.Uhhh, shouldn't the best code win?
Perhaps then, we should leave development as it should be -- meritocratic. Not based on a Reddit/Twitter political campaign.
You better hope miners don't support the mob rule Classic approach....because if this tiny minority of developers is to replace Core....it will be very dark days ahead for bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not a democracy (have you not even read Satoshi's paper?).
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
Yes, in this sense it is not a democracy... maybe a technocrazy... cpu's are voting...
So at the end the wealthy has more power. Was inevitable. But still it is some kind of decision finding. And the strongest wins because he can. Jump to: