Topic: The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)... - page 4. (Read 4840 times)

I did this before I read your post.

OK, so I'm only buying Satoshis, and I'm only a small node operator, but there must be many others who are starting to think like this.

I am not talking about "faking hashrate" I am talking about a planned attack with real hashrate.

The motivation for such an attack would be financial (i.e. spend your BTC twice or convert it to fiat twice if exchanges end up on different forks).

You can't just watch as you are risking the loss of your fiat - so any sensible business is going to put up a sign like this:

"Sorry - no fiat withdrawals until the fork situation has been resolved."

What would be the sense of doing so? You can't send a reasonable amount of hashingpower to fake nodes just to try raising the hashrate, you would need to put real power into it. And you would only do this when you are sure that the fork wins. You can't fake hashrate like you seem to suggest. At the end it comes to the blocks that are found. And when a classic node miner has XX TH and spreads this hashpower around 10 fake nodes then on that chain there still would only be XX TH from that miner.

I think you mix the kind of vote the XT fans tried with actual votes by hashpower. It's not the same and the number of nodes decides nothing.


It might be that the problem is that one can foresee that there will always be more then 5% miners that categorically would block such a change. Which would make it impossible. On the other hand 75% is a strong sign of the will of the community, well miners aren't actually the community but comes near to it. And it's better to let the majority decide instead staying undecided.

At the end it doesn't matter. Sigwit might get taken over by the net realitively without problems, ln doesn't need a fork but i doubt it will be used very much. And at one point in time it is inevitable anyway to raise the blocksize. It's grinding some time, that's all.

of course it does. that's what this is all about. whether capacity can increase before the system is more scalable. i am reminded of children in the back seat screaming "ARE WE THERE YET?!??!?!?!"

decentralization > increased capacity. always.

otherwise wtf is it all for? if bandwidth bottlenecks continue crippling node health as block size increases -- and we know this happens because that is the historical trend -- how much is too much? eventually, your transactions are censorable.

so yes, all the other shit matters. the fact that SegWit offers a capacity increase in the interim while weak blocks/IBLTs are worked on (which will reduce peak bandwidth requirements by 90%+ for full nodes)... makes this a no-brainer.

then we can talk about increasing block size limit -- when bandwidth loads for nodes are more sustainable.

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 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.

it's an hard fork for the 2mb capacity incrase nothing else

we have two side here, those that want to hard fork no matter what and those that want a soft fork

but the result is basically the same, capacity must increase all the other shit does not matter

what is with this new obsession with "democracy?" did gavin write a new blog about how bitcoin is supposed to be a "democracy" or something?

If you mean that the tx capacity should increase by around twofold then yes.

Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?

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.

I, for one, appreciate it. The propaganda from the XT Classic camp is relentless.

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).

Still it means 3 times more hashpower on the new chain.

And bitcoin no democracy... then there should nothing at all happen. Though the facts are that all forks are a form of democracy. I wonder how you imagine how things should be solved otherwise. We will never reach a consensus after this long time so the solution would be to do nothing? Or simply doing what you want?

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.

Really, i wonder what you are against for.

I do not believe a hard fork will occur, there is not enough approval for it to occur.
Just the name for the current bitcoin, I suppose?

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?

Will miners actually create 2Mb blocks if they risk them being orphaned if SegWit wins?

25% are exactly 1/4 of the system and not almost 1/3.

And what do you mean with a system where the majority can push around the rest? I guess you never heard of how democracy is actually the best way of ruling a country. I wonder what you would prefer, i guess no dictatorship.

The majority says what will be done which is simply a democratic principle.


We only would have split all coins when all the same coins are on different addresses on each chain. If they are on the same then these coins are safe and for them it would be as if no fork was happening.


So then is the segwit softfork an attack vector too or is this different because... it's what i think has to happen?

Hashers can throw their power behind a classic miner then later withdraw their hashing power.


As I've stated I don't think we are just dealing with sensible people making sensible decisions.

If Bitcoin Classic were to stick to the way that soft forks have so been done (95% before activation of the new feature) then all of this controversy would go away.

If the vast majority of people do want 2MB blocks then I don't see that 95% should be a problem (and for the record I don't really care if the blocks are 1MB or 2MB).