Topic: The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)... - page 5. (Read 4840 times)

Who the fuck is this classic shit?

Is sounds to me like some bad commercial!

Fake bitcoin classic nodes would not be able to raise the percent of support since they aren't actual miners. At the end the amount of hashrates are mattering.

And when a fork happens then when support for this new system raises a high value which means everyone will switch then since it is very unlikely that they will drop again then.

OP's post is so so shallow, so uninformed and probably malicious.

Huh?

You are not making sense. An exchange is going to on one fork or the other (not both unless they want to be giving away fiat).

If your exchange decides on Fork A and then Fork B finally wins out then that exchange will go "belly up" (as all the coins it has had deposited would be unsalable).

I think they need only to check if the coins reached on the deposit address on both chains. Then these coins are safe. It doesn't matter then which chain will win since they have the bitcoins on both chains.

Wow! Some really great information here, what a great thread. Can I give a newbie summary as I see it, and please correct me where I am wrong.

There are two main camps.
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. This solves the size problem in the short term, and still allows for an upgrade to 2Mb blocks when traffic volumes have increased in the future. This could become effective fairly quickly.

Double blocks want to double the size of the blocks as a temporary solution, and then increase them again in the future as traffic continues to increase, They believe that this can be implemented immediately. Whilst the code changes could be incorporated quickly, it seems to me that no miner would produce blocks over 1Mb in case the SegWit fork wins, and they lose their income. Thus the 2Mb change will not be effective until the fork dispute is resolved.

If core includes some of the other enhancements with SegWit, then wouldn't that become the popular choice of nodes? Also, if I have understood the problem, then double blocks don't seem to offer any benefit in the short term.

It's very easy to do a hard fork by your self if you just have 1% of total hash power, just compile a different incompatible version of bitcoin and mine a couple of blocks that is accepted by your client but not the rest of the network, once that block entered in your chain, you have done the hard fork

Unfortunately no one but you will be interested in that new chain and you have nowhere to exchange the coins on that fork

It is similar to any other hard fork, if no one is interested in the minority chain after the fork, then the coins on that fork will become worthless, at least much less than any alt-coin

This can be proved by the July 04 hard fork, the major hash power has mined a incompatible chain, those coins on that chain becomes useless and the miners lost 50K dollars on mining that chain

So to make sure the fork does not do any harm, you only need to make sure all the exchanges support only the major fork. And when a fork is really necessary, people will quickly reach consensus. Currently there is no such urgency so there is not enough consensus

more like, miners do not trade on public exchanges. instead they do private trades (otc style)

for instance VC's hand miners FIAT to pay the electric. and the miners hand bitcoins to the VC as their returns. that way funds dont actually touch public exchanges..

even things like bitpay received 30+million in fiat a couple years ago and they used the fiat to pay customers and gave the bitcoin to VC's, without needing to touch exchanges as often as you would think.

secondly. if miners are losing funds due to VC's not accepting their transactions (due to threat of orphaning.. then miners would downgrade to mitigate the risk of orphans or go offline temporarily to conserve costs.. resulting in a reduction of the difficulty if the stalemate lasts too long.. its not an instant killing off of bitcoin its just a re-organisation of power.

in short miners wont push the boundary of the 1mb limit.. even if they have the setting in their client as a buffer, they wont physically make blocks bigger than 1 block unless they are sure their blocks wont get orphaned or not accepted by the community..

so even if 75% of the community had the 2mb setting as a buffer. miners wont shoot themselves in the foot, they would just plod along at 0.99mb until the time is right.

any miner that went full retard and tried to force a fork, even at 75% would eventually get their attempt orphaned unless they had more hash power than any other miner to ensure they kept beating other miners to win the blockheight race.

in short the 2mb setting is a harmless buffer setting thats never used, unless
1. miners are secure that their attempts to make bigger blocks wont evaporate into orphans
2. they had enough hash power to tip the scales in their favour without loss
3. they had community relaying support to ensure their blocks got relayed.
4. their not mentally retarded to risk more processing time, orphans or going offline which would be 3 slaps in the face, for just being to eager.


instead they would wait it out until the time was right. even if gavins 'few week' predicted timescale elapses, miners just wont move forward until they are sure.

this is also the reason miners dont upgrade their mining software as often. as they like to let the community test out new software before risking using it on a pool.

if you think that accepting more transactions(fees) is more important compared to long term regular income.. you are wrong.
currently fee's average 0.4btc total per block. if you think they are going to let in another 100 transactions (1.05mb instead of 0.99mb) just to get 0.42btc while risking their opportunities for multiple long term earnings of 12.5btc.. well im guessing you prefer the conspiracy theory more than logic theory.

some miners may be mentally impaired and try pushing beyond the 1mb limit prematurely, but they will find their attempts cost them if they dont have all the other factors ready to protect them and the community, and so the are just shooting themselves in the foot and only hurting themselves in the end. and so eventually they will adjust down to start earning again and wait for a better time to adjust up again, or the rest of the community will grow to allow miners to move forward sooner.. or the miner will just go full retard and mine anyway at a loss. for no good reason. and the rest of us just orphan off those attempts

This is just a conspiracy theory, but I think Gavin wants to force a hard fork, to see if the Core team can handle this
scenario. They themselves said, "We do not want to hard-fork, because of a lack of experience" Is this a test, to discredit the Core developers? The Core team avoided a hard fork by all means, and Gavin knows this.

It would definitely test their resolve, if a forced hard-fork are engineered by the Gavinoids.    

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.

Seriously?

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).

Previously I've steered clear of any "politics" on this forum but with all of the misinformation that is being posted on behalf of those wanting a hostile takeover of the project to occur I felt it was time to "make a statement".

Following uncomfortable?


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?

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?

If the Bitcoin Classic was going to use 95% then I wouldn't have a problem but unfortunately they have stated that they are going to enforce their new rules at 75%.

The reason that this is so dangerous is that for certain there will be an equivalent of NoXT appearing (meaning that they don't actually have 75% of nodes but maybe not even 50%).

So if you have enough resources then you create a few thousand nodes (not too hard to believe possible) then prepare to sell all your BTC on the fork and once you have removed the fiat you "switch back" and then you sell it all again.

Because they do. Just read the BIPs for soft forks under the deployment section. Specifically after 75% the new rules go into effect. At 95% is the point of no return where the fork actually happens because at 95%, any blocks with older version numbers are rejected. With soft forks this is fine since the new rules are backwards compatible so it is fine if there are nodes that don't comply as they will still be fine. The actual forking part is at 95%, and that threshold should be carried over to hard forks as well. With hard forks, changing the rules causes the forks so those rule changes should only go into effect at the time of the fork, and since soft forks use 95% for the fork, hard forks should as well, not just 75%.

BIPs 34 (block v2; https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0034.mediawiki#specification), 66 (strict DER; https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki#Deployment), and 65 (OP_CLTV; https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0065.mediawiki#deployment) all use the same mechanism of 75% for rule deployment and 95% for fork. BIP 141 for segwit (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#deployment) will use the exact same mechanism.

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

The 75% threshold is too low. Why should soft forks deploy with 95% but hard forks deploy with 75%? It is too low and there are too many miners still mining the old chain who would be able to keep that chain alive while the new one kept going. It is not proper deployment of a change in the consensus, which should require consensus (realistically the supermajority) to change.

Would it help if I point out that, if the 75% threshold is reached, then 75% of miners (+/-) would have already upgraded?

Exchanges wont shut down.   very few anyway.  Certainly not all of them.  Will the market be volatile and crazy? Possibly.   But there will always be entrepreneurs looking for opportunities.

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?