IIUC, if this 20MB change is adopted by most miners, then the actual fork won't happen until one of these miners happens to mine a block that is more than 1MB. At that point the "new" miners will accept this block, and add to it, and the "old" minors will reject it as invalid and continue to add to the previous block.
If less than 50% of the mining power switch to the "new" (20MB) code, then the "old" (<1MB) blockchain will remain longer, and even the "new" miners will accept the "old" blockchain as the longest, and thus the "official" blockchain.
As for non-mining nodes (clients), they have nothing to lose by adopting the "new" software, because it will still accept the "old" blockchain.
tl;dr: The fork only happens when 51% of the mining power switches to the "new" (Gavin) code.
Topic: What is Bitcoin Fork? (Read 1143 times)
The fork will cause more problem than the current block size limite of 1 MB, what do you think? I a one of the users that is supporting the decentralization, and if this improvement will be make by the core dev I will not update bitcoin core (this is why I love decentralization).
This could be the death of bitcoin. Half the exchanges adopt it... half don't.. most people in BTC have no clue what's going on... It is even worse when these sheep insist that everyone must submit.
Unless 100% of the miners goes to the version you aren't using.
Then, depending of the change made, using an old version would be useless.
In this case, the size of the block, it's affected by only full nodes and miners right?
The fork will cause more problem than the current block size limite of 1 MB, what do you think? I a one of the users that is supporting the decentralization, and if this improvement will be make by the core dev I will not update bitcoin core (this is why I love decentralization).
This could be the death of bitcoin. Half the exchanges adopt it... half don't.. most people in BTC have no clue what's going on... The maximum block size has nothing to do with exchanges. It makes no difference if an exchange accepts it or not, except that it will be out of business if miners switch to the bigger size and it doesn't.
On the broader topic:
Nobody is required to use Core in order to use Bitcoin. It is sad that so many people in the Bitcoin world who profess to be free-thinkers are ready and eager to submit to authority. It is even worse when these sheep insist that everyone must submit.
The fork will cause more problem than the current block size limite of 1 MB, what do you think? I a one of the users that is supporting the decentralization, and if this improvement will be make by the core dev I will not update bitcoin core (this is why I love decentralization).
This could be the death of bitcoin. Half the exchanges adopt it... half don't.. most people in BTC have no clue what's going on and panic sell.. THE BIG ONE.. the gov steps in because peoples coins are rejected on the other network..they claim it as some scheme and start a world regulation program to take over control.. Arrested for mining non approved block chains.. oh the future is not bright.Hmm , yes but this is the game of 'decentralization'. The unique rule is choose which way follow
. If you do not agree with the new code (if it will be released) simple don't update your bitcoin core version and you will be fine. You should only hope that the majority will choose the 'right' thing, but there is not a thing right or wrong in bitcoin 
(not at all). The fork will cause more problem than the current block size limite of 1 MB, what do you think? I a one of the users that is supporting the decentralization, and if this improvement will be make by the core dev I will not update bitcoin core (this is why I love decentralization).
This could be the death of bitcoin. Half the exchanges adopt it... half don't.. most people in BTC have no clue what's going on and panic sell.. THE BIG ONE.. the gov steps in because peoples coins are rejected on the other network..they claim it as some scheme and start a world regulation program to take over control.. Arrested for mining non approved block chains.. oh the future is not bright.
The fork will cause more problem than the current block size limite of 1 MB, what do you think? I a one of the users that is supporting the decentralization, and if this improvement will be make by the core dev I will not update bitcoin core (this is why I love decentralization).
The creation of Gavincoin hoping everyone will ditch Bitcoin for gavincoin..
It will be interesting.
Again, why in planet hell are you supporting 1MB over 20MB? Do you literally want Bitcoin to remain a small niche for nerds that will collapse soon as it goes mainstream? whats the catch?It will be interesting.
I for see this as the kinfe that kills BTC and allows another coin to rise as champion. IF we are willing to change BTC then it's "hard" cap does not exist.
As I have said before, BTC should be use as a store of wealth NOT a spending currency.
Something like peercoin should be used for that. I only forsee bad things hard forking bitcoin.
They hate the fact that he has the power to make changes to the code that has affect on them or they hate the fact that they don't matter in the Bitcoin universe or any other universe for that matter.
I think it's not that. It's maybe that they want people to understand that bitcoin is a "centrally controlled currency". And even more so than USD or EUR.
Centrally controlled currencies are not inherently bad. And living in an illusion is a choice.
Its not centralized.
It's a bit closed to the main contributors of the protocol just to avoid griefing ofc
But its open source, and anyone can make a BIP.
They hate the fact that he has the power to make changes to the code that has affect on them or they hate the fact that they don't matter in the Bitcoin universe or any other universe for that matter.
I think it's not that. It's maybe that they want people to understand that bitcoin is a "centrally controlled currency". And even more so than USD or EUR.
Centrally controlled currencies are not inherently bad. And living in an illusion is a choice.
Again, why in planet hell are you supporting 1MB over 20MB? Do you literally want Bitcoin to remain a small niche for nerds that will collapse soon as it goes mainstream? whats the catch?
The problem is authority. That's only the rational cause here, as the people opposing this are trying to find weak arguments that support their story.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority_problem
They think that Gavin is the sole person in control (which is wrong). They hate the fact that he has the power to make changes to the code that has affect on them or they hate the fact that they don't matter in the Bitcoin universe or any other universe for that matter.
The creation of Gavincoin hoping everyone will ditch Bitcoin for gavincoin..
It will be interesting.
Again, why in planet hell are you supporting 1MB over 20MB? Do you literally want Bitcoin to remain a small niche for nerds that will collapse soon as it goes mainstream? whats the catch? It will be interesting.
The creation of Gavincoin hoping everyone will ditch Bitcoin for gavincoin..
It will be interesting.
It will be interesting.
The fork that's deprecated (in this case the old 1MB fork) will eventually get abandoned, of course there will always be stubborn people using it, but it will eventually die. For example, Freenet did a fork in a version I dont remember now, and the old fork is still used for a couple people for some stupid reason probably.
If someone decides to run a client without the new changes in it no one is stopping him.
Hmmmm. Not sure how well that will work. Community consensus is awesome in theory but if you look at the democratic governments of the world, in practice it's an entirely different reality.
The illusion is that people can decide not to update. But the reality is, bitcoin is just as centralized as any other form of money. I'm not saying that's a bad thing if you have a developer like Satoshi actively participating. But that is the reality. We need to choose our kings carefully.
People can still reject unwanted changes (right?). If someone decides to run a client without the new changes in it no one is stopping him. IIRC if people join him, they would be forming a network that would be running without the changes in the fork.
I was talking about the changes on Github. Gavin can't force the 20MB blocks unless the other developers agree to it too.Also that is correct. Anyone can choose to run the older wallet. If he does that his Bitcoin will be worthless and he/she would be stuck due to the high difficulty.
but there is any advance by using this new block dimension?
For the miners? The "users"? For the blockchain itself?
Or it's only a geek change in btc code?
For the miners? The "users"? For the blockchain itself?
Or it's only a geek change in btc code?
In non-technical terms, I fork simply means the developer (central controlling authority, aka Gavin) decided to make a mandatory change that will require an update to the client. 
Although this is quite wrong. Gavin is not a central authority nor does he have the power to push this onto us.The other developers have to agree to this first.
OP you can read more about it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-commits-20mb-block-size-march-2016/
You will find a lot of people who have a problem with authority complaining about this. The fork does no damage at all, but I guess some people are just deluded.
People can still reject unwanted changes (right?). If someone decides to run a client without the new changes in it no one is stopping him. IIRC if people join him, they would be forming a network that would be running without the changes in the fork.
In non-technical terms, I fork simply means the developer (central controlling authority, aka Gavin) decided to make a mandatory change that will require an update to the client.
Although this is quite wrong. Gavin is not a central authority nor does he have the power to push this onto us.The other developers have to agree to this first.
OP you can read more about it here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34riua/hard_fork_allow_20mb_blocks_after_1_march_2016/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-core-developer-commits-20mb-block-size-march-2016/
You will find a lot of people who have a problem with authority complaining about this. The fork does no damage at all, but I guess some people are just deluded.
there is the possibility that can survive two blockchains, with two clients...aka bitcoin version 1 and bitcoin version 2 ?!?
If I remember correctly there was in the past two fork for some altcoins like for the scam on nxt or mintpal...
It's the same concept?
If I remember correctly there was in the past two fork for some altcoins like for the scam on nxt or mintpal...
It's the same concept?
Well this has happened to altcoins as you mention. If a hard fork takes place you could end up in the wrong side of the network if you're running a non compatible client. Because of the size of the network, organisation, and the attention bitcoin receives this is a very unlikely scenario for bitcoin though.
there is the possibility that can survive two blockchains, with two clients...aka bitcoin version 1 and bitcoin version 2 ?!?
If I remember correctly there was in the past two fork for some altcoins like for the scam on nxt or mintpal...
It's the same concept?
If I remember correctly there was in the past two fork for some altcoins like for the scam on nxt or mintpal...
It's the same concept?
Jump to: