Pages:
Author

Topic: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails - page 2. (Read 6407 times)

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Well, then you ALSO create an (incompatible) alt coin.  That's what a hard fork is: to create an alt coin. 

nope.
your over using the umbrella term hard fork but not understanding the categories within the hard vs soft.
save rewriting to repeat myself
in short
soft=pools only
hard= NODES then pools
save repeating myself:
below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

You are simply wrong on this.

A hard fork without a strong consensus ALWAYS leads to two coins.

A soft fork with a majority consensus amongst miners ALWAYS imposes its rules and one chain emerges.

A hard fork is defined as a modification in the protocol, so that new blocks under the hard fork are not valid under the old protocol.  You still have two cases: the hard fork can be backward compatible, so that blocks under the old protocol are still valid under the new protocol (call it a backward compatible hard fork), or you can have a genuine hard fork that is entirely incompatible.

A soft fork is defined as a modification in the protocol, so that new blocks under the soft fork are still valid under the old protocol, but that blocks under the old protocol aren't valid any more under the new protocol.

Case of a soft fork:
- if a minority of miners adopts it, not really an effect.
- if a majority of miners adopts it, it is IMPOSED UPON the others.  A single chain is always the result.  The user has no choice.

Case of a full hard fork:
- from the moment a non-negligible fraction of the miners adopts it, TWO COINS emerge.  The market will split the market cap over the two coins, and miners will follow that ratio.  It is possible that the market entirely kills one of the coins, or that essentially ALL miners adopt it: ---> consensus is preserved.  ONLY IN THIS CASE, a single chain emerges (the "alt coin" in case of full consensus).

Case of a backward compatible hard fork:
the old protocol can be seen as a soft fork from the hard fork.  
- As such, as long as the old protocol remains a majority, this "soft fork" remains imposed, the hard fork cannot happen.  
- if the hard fork is majority, it can split the chain into two coins, like a full hard fork.
However, if the hard fork loses majority, the second chain becomes a major orphan, and is taken over by the old protocol chain (can be six months later)  --> super cluster fuck.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 107
If a fork appears, I suspect we'll quickly see a new version of core with support for bigger blocks because they still want SegWit. So a BU fork may result in an actual compromise.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
You are seriously confused about this aspect.  There is no "majority hash rate consensus" between INCOMPATIBLE CHAINS.  The only thing you do with your 51% hash rate is to produce INVALID BLOCKS wrt the original protocol.  So this PoW doesn't matter, the blocks are invalid.  If you produce 1.5 MB blocks with a PoW that is more than 10 times all the PoW that ever went into bitcoin, then these blocks doesn't count because they are simply INVALID.  The old protocol simply rejects them (in the same way as if they were containing wrong signatures in the transactions).  The only valid blocks (wrt the old protocol) are those, mined with the 49% hash rate of the miners sticking to the old protocol.

But the new protocol can continue building on its own chain with bigger blocks.  

Of course, as long as BU accepts also old-protocol blocks, they need 51% of the hash rate, or the old chain (which is VALID under the new BU protocol if they don't protect themselves) will take over.  In fact, in this case, you can see the old protocol as a soft fork from the BU protocol, which can IMPOSE its will when it is majority.  In order to avoid that, BU should make the old protocol invalid too, so that ONLY BU blocks are compatible with BU.  Maybe they could flip a little-endian/big-endian convention somewhere, so that both are fully incompatible.  Otherwise, they risk at any moment to be killed by the "soft fork" of the old protocol.

Non BU blocks are still 100% compatible with BU so if BU doesn't have more than 50% of hash power, the fork will fail untless BU miners intentionally filter the non BU nodes. The only way for a fork to be successful is if the BU miners mine a block > 1 MB and have 51%+ of the hash power. Personally I'll wait until 18 blocks longer before I really consider the fork successful.

Yes, you are right (see the edit of my previous post).  This "backward compatibility" of BU with respect to the standard protocol makes that the standard protocol is a soft fork of BU.  Then they expose themselves AT ANY MOMENT to be orphaned, even 6 months later, if ever the BU fork falls beneat 51% hash rate.  Then you will get the bitcoin chain orphaned 6 months behind, because from the first >1MB onwards, the soft fork is not compatible any more, and this will be the last valid block on the chain.  Major clusterfuck !

The only safe way of making the BU hard fork, is by making it incompatible with the old protocol.  If they don't do this, and they "pull the trigger", this will be a major disaster on the chain.


YOUR FORGETTING NODES aswell as POOL
learn real consensus

also your forgetting without banning communications. the minority see the blockheight. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
endlessly.

BU wont ban the other community nodes.. only blockstream would ban the community nodes.
and that would only happen if blockstream were minority. because the community wont trigger unless they had majority.

and thats what blockstream fears.. losing their control where by the dozen other independant node brands continue.

remember and learn consensus

The only safe way of making the BU hard consensus, is by high majority  If they don't do this, and they "pull the trigger", this will be a major disaster on the chain. with orphans. which eventually settles down to a single chain
leading to the minority either:
not syncing and just orphaning everything (dead in the water)
having to change their own protocol to match(re-joining the consensus community)
intentionally banning away from the majority to not see the higher blockheight and orphans to then build ontop of their MINORITY

FTFY
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Non BU blocks are still 100% compatible with BU so if BU doesn't have more than 50% of hash power, the fork will fail untless BU miners intentionally filter the non BU nodes. The only way for a fork to be successful is if the BU miners mine a block > 1 MB and have 51%+ of the hash power. Personally I'll wait until 18 blocks longer before I really consider the fork successful.

Yes, you are right (see the edit of my previous post).  This "backward compatibility" of BU with respect to the standard protocol makes that the standard protocol is a soft fork of BU.  Then they expose themselves AT ANY MOMENT to be orphaned, even 6 months later, if ever the BU fork falls beneat 51% hash rate.  Then you will get the bitcoin chain orphaned 6 months behind, because from the first >1MB onwards, the soft fork is not compatible any more, and this will be the last valid block on the chain.  Major clusterfuck !

The only safe way of making the BU hard fork, is by making it incompatible with the old protocol.  If they don't do this, and they "pull the trigger", this will be a major disaster on the chain.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
Well, then you ALSO create an (incompatible) alt coin.  That's what a hard fork is: to create an alt coin. 

nope.
your over using the umbrella term hard fork but not understanding the categories within the hard vs soft.
save rewriting to repeat myself
in short
soft=pools only
hard= NODES then pools
save repeating myself:
below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

if only blockstream lovers stopped reading the doomsday scripts on reddit and the fake promise sales pitches.. and instead learned bitcoin especially consensus and bitcoins natural safeguard of consensus via orphans.. they would actually help themselves more and start giving real support to the community. rather than just kissing blockstream ass.

note to all blockstream loving doomsdayers
learn consensus
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 107
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).

if BU pulls the trigger.. it would do it with majority NODE (over50%) and majority hash(over 50%)
it wont trigger without consensus.


You are seriously confused about this aspect.  There is no "majority hash rate consensus" between INCOMPATIBLE CHAINS.  The only thing you do with your 51% hash rate is to produce INVALID BLOCKS wrt the original protocol.  So this PoW doesn't matter, the blocks are invalid.  If you produce 1.5 MB blocks with a PoW that is more than 10 times all the PoW that ever went into bitcoin, then these blocks doesn't count because they are simply INVALID.  The old protocol simply rejects them (in the same way as if they were containing wrong signatures in the transactions).  The only valid blocks (wrt the old protocol) are those, mined with the 49% hash rate of the miners sticking to the old protocol.

But the new protocol can continue building on its own chain with bigger blocks.  


Non BU blocks are still 100% compatible with BU so if BU doesn't have more than 50% of hash power, the fork will fail untless BU miners intentionally filter the non BU nodes. The only way for a fork to be successful is if the BU miners mine a block > 1 MB and have 51%+ of the hash power. Personally I'll wait until 18 blocks longer before I really consider the fork successful.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).

if BU pulls the trigger.. it would do it with majority NODE (over50%) and majority hash(over 50%)
it wont trigger without consensus.


You are seriously confused about this aspect.  There is no "majority hash rate consensus" between INCOMPATIBLE CHAINS.  The only thing you do with your 51% hash rate is to produce INVALID BLOCKS wrt the original protocol.  So this PoW doesn't matter, the blocks are invalid.  If you produce 1.5 MB blocks with a PoW that is more than 10 times all the PoW that ever went into bitcoin, then these blocks doesn't count because they are simply INVALID.  The old protocol simply rejects them (in the same way as if they were containing wrong signatures in the transactions).  The only valid blocks (wrt the old protocol) are those, mined with the 49% hash rate of the miners sticking to the old protocol.

But the new protocol can continue building on its own chain with bigger blocks.  

Of course, as long as BU accepts also old-protocol blocks, they need 51% of the hash rate, or the old chain (which is VALID under the new BU protocol if they don't protect themselves) will take over.  In fact, in this case, you can see the old protocol as a soft fork from the BU protocol, which can IMPOSE its will when it is majority.  In order to avoid that, BU should make the old protocol invalid too, so that ONLY BU blocks are compatible with BU.  Maybe they could flip a little-endian/big-endian convention somewhere, so that both are fully incompatible.  Otherwise, they risk at any moment to be killed by the "soft fork" of the old protocol.

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.
What about removing the *1 MB block size limit*? Cheesy


Well, then you ALSO create an (incompatible) alt coin.  That's what a hard fork is: to create an alt coin.  

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.
I don't think you are informed on the background of these actors nor their motivations.

But that is part of the "consensus mechanism".  Having different motives, and wanting to "pull the blanket to your side" is exactly what the distributed consensus mechanism is about.  The impossibility of collusion over "pulling the blanket to your side" is exactly the origin of the immutability.  As one cannot agree on WHICH SCAM to propagate, no scam is propagated: immutability.

Distributed TRUSTLESS consensus is the putting together of sufficiently many and diverse scammers, that they cannot agree upon a single scam.  That is the essence of distributed consensus, providing you with immutability.

legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).

if BU pulls the trigger.. it would do it with majority NODE (over50%) and majority hash(over 50%)
it wont trigger without consensus.

also all that occurs is a orphan  which will inevitably and naturally find a single chain.
at a small majority (say 51-60%) just means clusterf*ck of orphan drama.
at a high majority (say 80-95%) just means less orphan drama
at superhigh majority (say 95%) just meand bearable amount of orphan drama, slightly above what happens daily anyway

just taking longer(more orphans) with lower amount of majority to get a single reliable chain

the only way to get the 2 chains to independantly survive is to intentionally ban communications with the opposition. which is what happened in ethereum

oh and emphasis on majority.. which also bursts your bubble of core overtaking lol (learn consensus please)
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT
Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

if consensus is not reached.. its orphaned. end of.. in the trash in 2 seconds. no drama no fuss


Could you pls elaborate on sth I ve just seen sw else that BU (and > 1MB blocks) could be run side to side / compatible  together with a very ancient Satoshi version 0.3 or so, just with no block size issues at all ?

This would show to all how close BU is to initial Bitcoin?
legendary
Activity: 4536
Merit: 3188
Vile Vixen and Miss Bitcointalk 2021-2023
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT
Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

if consensus is not reached.. its orphaned. end of.. in the trash in 3 seconds. no drama no fuss

want proof of a block over 1mb
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.
What about removing the *1 MB block size limit*? Cheesy

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.
I don't think you are informed on the background of these actors nor their motivations.

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.
Irrelevant. This just adds a sybil variant to the existing hashrate attack.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.
Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin. Roll Eyes

I do - I speak to Bitcoin United.

This monster cluster fuck we are in right now has something good.

We now have more than one solution - it's a luxury !

The reason is clear, one group has failed to deliver the no-brainer solution that fits all.

I feel very sorry for some 'core' Core devs since I ve spoken with one just some days ago for about 1 hour face to face trying to understand some of the issues - as unbiased as I could - politics and own agendas are bad....

Most ve done and still do a great job keeping things just up and running (most forget about this !) - but sorting out the right features for the next releases is hardest in terms of scaling and long term future and 'we' all try to deliver best, but just are dammed to 'fail' sometime - that's our complex life.


Admitting such failures is one of the strongest personal features human can have. Only with this we can do the next step forward  and still we don't know for sure it the next one is correct.



 

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT
Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

its not an altcoin until blockstream split away.. b
BTU is an altcoin.

your own words are the "victim card' - pretending its BU harming the network.
Because it is. You should read the posts from 'dinofelis'; maybe you will learn something.

when infact its blockstream by wanting the split!!! wake up!!
No.

im my own boss. i dont need to be paid to be awake
Highly doubtful at best.
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to aplit, but then pretend its "harming the network"
Of course, to get the altcoin away from Bitcoin.
its not an altcoin until blockstream split away.. because the rest of the community wont do it so blockstream will have to if thats blockstreams intention to get 100% control with no one else on the network but blockstream making the decisions.

BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
Nonsense.
your own words are the "victim card' - pretending its BU harming the network.
Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin. Roll Eyes
when infact its blockstream wanting the split!!! wake up!!
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

wak up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS
Sure. Only if you stop taking money from your employer. Roll Eyes

im my own boss. i dont need to be paid to be awake
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.

2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to aplit, but then pretend its "harming the network"
Of course, to get the altcoin away from Bitcoin.

3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
Nonsense.

4. BU, XT, classic, bitcoinj and the others DO NOT want a bilateral split. and if you READ THE CODE you will see its USING CONSENSUS to keep things together as one network
No.

5. to create a bilateral fork nodes have to INTENTIONALLY BAN communications from each other to prevent orphans (bitcoins natural and USEFUL safety mechanism)
Depends whether they've altered parameters or not.

wak up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS
Sure. Only if you stop taking money from your employer. Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 4410
Merit: 4766
look at lauda.. lol

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to split, but then pretend its "harming the network" if BU did split (hypocrits)
3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
4. BU, XT, classic, bitcoinj and the others DO NOT want a bilateral split. and if you READ THE CODE you will see its USING CONSENSUS to keep things together as one network
5. to create a bilateral fork nodes have to INTENTIONALLY BAN communications from each other to prevent orphans (bitcoins natural and USEFUL safety mechanism)

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

lauda please please please.
wake up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.
What about removing the *1 MB block size limit*? Cheesy

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.
I don't think you are informed on the background of these actors nor their motivations.

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.
Irrelevant. This just adds a sybil variant to the existing hashrate attack.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.
Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin. Roll Eyes
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Short answer: the network has reached capacity and must be increased in one form or another.
I think it won't happen.  Immutability and consensus can only be reached over status quo.

As I said elsewhere, the valuable commodity will not be the coins any more, but the room on the chain.
All that the BTU coin folks require is 51%. After all, they are entirely convinced that having 51% hash rate equals to being Bitcoin, which is on a level of absurdity not seen in a long time. Do you think that it is not possible for them to reach this number?

Miners pay millions only for energy already (how much is your investment?) and miners (sadly...) might be more centralized as the rest of our community - they will come up with enough % of hash power and nodes if needed ( costs less than 100$) if time is ready.

We can dispute forever and try to split our community - it does not help, no it rather harms. Sit back and watch or spend some millions.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Indeed. It will be a genuine hard fork / split, which would split off BU into their own altcoin. Something nice I found on reddit:

Quote
Consider this thought experiment: you create your own altcoin, remove the 21M coin limit and make yourself the central issuer. You are the only user of your coin, but you manage to build/buy enough miners to put in more proof of work into your chain than the total work put into the Bitcoin chain. No one else uses your coin. Is your coin now Bitcoin? You can even use the same genesis block made by Satoshi. I hope this example makes it clear that your coin is not Bitcoin, because everybody else is using the Bitcoin they have always been running, even if is backed my less mining power than your own coin.
Similarly, you somehow attain 51% hashrate and split at one point (changing some rules along the way). Is your coin now Bitcoin? Whoever answers this question with 'yes' should visit a psychiatrist. Roll Eyes
[/quote]

People don't seem to understand the fundamentals of crypto !

If you *remove the 21M coin limit* your chain is NOT COMPATIBLE with bitcoin, so of course it will not be bitcoin.  You have invalid blocks according to bitcoin's protocol !  You have simply produced an altcoin that is not recognized by the bitcoin protocol.

However, if you DON'T remove the 21M coin limit, and you start with Satoshi's genesis block, and you achieve a higher total PoW in the chain than the "real" bitcoin, then YES, you have taken over bitcoin.  That is a (very heavy) version of a successful 51% attack.

Quote
Agreed. Well, now we know who is actively trying to harm that.

Nobody is "trying to harm" anything.  Consensus mechanism, nothing else.
Pages:
Jump to: