Topic: What really is affected by hard fork? (Read 295 times)

Hard forks are a complex and often misleading subject. There's more to it than merely tweaking blockchain protocols. No. Its about who gets to control things. To answer your question, yes, older blocks do stay together. But the real problem is that these splits cause conflicts in the community. By pushing older nodes to the side, the impact of earlier participants is tried to be lessened. Its like saying, "What have you done in the past?" They are no longer important." This could be a plan by some powerful people to steer Bitcoin in the way they want.

Who are these independent reviewers, then?  Are they entirely imaginary like every other stupid idea you've ever had?  You throw a shit-fit when anyone is paid by a company, so it sounds like you're once again asking for slave labour.  Not only does everyone have to obey the immortal word of FuhrerFranky, they have to do it for free.  

Any minorities you want to gas while you're at it, mein fuhrer?  You are Blockchain-Hitler.

hard forks can change different things.
the trick used recently is that nodes dont validate all the data they receive in new transactions. the new transaction formats produced now use a trick that old nodes should just treat a 'non standard' transaction(to old nodes) as valid without checking for signatures or security requirements. hense allowing extra junk data to be added without rejection

its security risks like this which allow validation by-passes that are a concern. when nodes are not ready to fully validate data and new data is allowed to appear in the blockchain without a consensus vote of majority. it puts the blockchain at risk

yes this trick makes it easy for core to implement changes without consent of the masses which means the can progress their development. but it allows malicious stuff to occur too.. which is more reason we should:
a. scrutinise, critique, review and point out devs failures more
b. not blindly concede that devs can/should abuse the trick so frivolously and unhindered.
c.we should get back to the principles of decentralisation where only well INDEPENDENTLY reviewed code that serves a good function for the masses gets the vote. whereby it makes devs actually think and care about development rather then throw in any cludge they like or are sponsored to add

i now await the usual centralist ass kisser to cry about how he admires cores administration and control and how he thinks anyone disagreeing should "f**k off"

When a hard fork is applied, the block size increases. When this occurs, the new block is larger than the previous block. The new blockchain will then reject it. Why? Because, as far as I can tell, the old block will stay valid on the original blockchain.

This also implies that the new block will be incompatible with the old one. Please tell me if I'm wrong, because the new blockchain has its own set of rules, right?

They are scam forks to say accurately.

They borrow the Bitcoin blockchain, its past blocks and transactions from the public ledger to make their scam altcoins look more valuable and more easily to convince investors that forks from Bitcoin are safer than altcoins that are not forks.

They all dead forks and shitcoins.

How many Bitcoin forks are there?. Because that scam trend no longer works, scammers stop to use forks to scam but I am not surprise if in future, more forks will be created.

Technically an altcoin that copies bitcoin is a "fork" not a "hard fork".
Hard or soft are the characteristics of the forks done inside the same blockchain/project where you also remain in that chain after the fork is done. Otherwise if it becomes a separate chain it is an altcoin which can be created through both soft and hard fork. For example right now you can introduce version 3 witness program rules (which is a soft fork) but create an altcoin by forking off to a separate chain.

As has been said somewhere else on a thread in another board:

Hard forks make previously invalid blocks or transactions value, because they change the rules to be incompatible with previous versions.

Soft forks make previously valid blocks or transactions invalid, which is compatible with older bitcoin nodes because all the existing rules they are verifying still apply, so to them it is as if the upgrade never happened.

Those are exceptionally rare, though.  There are only two hardforks that didn't result in the creation of a new shitcoin that I'm aware of and both of them were unintended.  Most of the protocol changes that have been made over the years were softforks.  

BIP34, for example, was created in July 2012, before you even signed up to this forum (so you should have known what you were getting into, but you didn't understand it then and you still don't understand it now).  BIP34 is a softfork.  Stop with the abject lunacy/lies that 2016 was the first softfork.  Are you unhinged or dishonest?  Which is it?  You've proven beyond all doubt that it has to be one of the two.  Do you even know yourself whether you're insane or just a compulsive liar?

The simple truth is that the vast majority of hardforks lead to the creation of shitcoins.  Devs prefer softforks and always have.  Look at GitHub and see for yourself.

certain ill informed people who idolise certain devs like gods continue to be idiots and think a hard fork purpose is done purely to create an altcoin.. its not

anyone can fork any time.. no "hard" about it

a true hard fork is when the native network actually changes due to a high consensus majority agreeing to a major change by being ready to accept the change by having the new code on their node to progress to the change. whereby those in minority not agreeing would stall out and not get the new blocks because the new blocks with new rules dont fit their rules and get rejected by old nodes.

a consensus hardfork is a majority consent (consensus is mass consent)
a contentious hardfork is when less than a majority has changed the rules

something COULD happen after a hard fork.. where the old nodes decide to separate themselves and produce old style blocks to make an altcoin but thats not essential to a hard fork of a upgrade of the native blockchain. in previous cases of a hard fork in 2009-2016 the old chain/block format just dies and doesnt continue and new block styles add on to the blockchain.

a certain centralist ignoramus wants to think a hard fork is only done to create altcoins where the people that abject to an upgrade can f**k off to and he pretends a fork upgrade of the native network does not need majority and should be mandated to activate no matter what, because central group wants it to...

he and his friends have no clue at all about consensus or the blockchains original solution to the byzantine generals solution. he has no clue about the need of validation nodes that decentralise not just the data but the control, the rules and the integrity and security of the network.

he is very angry that anyone calls out his ideology of centralism by pretending anyone against his centralisation idolisation must be centralists too.. he has no idea that people actually want decentralisation because he is soo deeply entrenched in the centralist mindset to even consider decentralisation is possible.. all he cares about is allowing core to remain the central point of failure that controls the rules..

and its time people realise bitcoin was not designed to have centralists controlling the rules

The new protocol could include an increase or decrease in coins before the hardfork, such as eCash hardforked at block 661648
Where 1 (BCH) = 1,000,000 eCash (XEC) or manipulating the total number of currencies or canceling mined currencies as happened in March 2013.
The new change can include anything, and the old currencies can be considered invalid but they do this to create some demand for the new currency.

Technically when you perform a hard fork you can change anything you like including old blocks. For example the hard fork that the shitcoin called Etherum had some years ago effectively modified the older blocks. There have also been some shitforks of bitcoin which modified the chain, allowed spending of old unmoved coins and things like that.

That's your lie and you can stick to it if you like.  Your weak attempts to rewrite history can't change the facts.  Anyone can verify what an utterly dishonest troll you are.



You sound like those braindead Trump supporters talking about "stolen elections".  Everything is well documented.  You just continue to ignore anything that doesn't support your preconceived fantasies about how any of this works.



Opt-in features mean you can be ready at any time and start using them when you want.  You can also stop using them when you want.  Or you never have to use them at all if you don't want to.  Total freedom (and you hate it).

Your totalitarian approach of "everyone has to agree before anyone can do anything" is entirely antithetical to the permissionless nature of Bitcoin.

No one requires your "consent" to use SegWit, Taproot, Lightning, etc.  You are a lowly piss-ant.  You can't stop anyone from doing anything.  But then again, you're the psychotic nazi who once said developers shouldn't be allowed to work on off-chain technology, as if it was any business of yours whatsoever.  And I also recall you arguing that Bitcoin Core devs shouldn't be allowed to add new features to their client on the basis that some people refer to it as a "reference client".  You're just an obnoxious little dictator who thinks they can order everyone about.  Only no one listens to you because you alienate everyone and make them despise you.

doomad you are the one that wants a centralised coin with no consent. you love the centralism occuring and how upgrades are no longer performed via majority consensus.

freedom is much more then "just f**k off if you dont like the mandate".. freedom is actually fighting for rights to ensure rules are not changed if majority disagree to rules that make populous's life more difficult

grow up and stop trying to pretend the only option is core control or fork off to altcoin.. learn what consensus is and how bitcoin was invented to solve the byzantine generals problem.. stop pretending the only option is obey core as sole general or go AWOL.. the actual option WAS majority consent to cause a new rule activation.. but that has stopped since 2017

by the way the 2016-17 event was not soft. soft failed(nov2016-june2017). which is why they went hard under the guise of misrepresentation and fake vote using blackmail(jul-aug2017). and yes code and block data prove it. (all you can quote is a buddy group of ass kissers misleading each other)
since 2017 major changes are made without consensus.

as for your narrowminded point
yes anyone can make an altcoin at any time. but thats a totally different thing to hard forks done to upgrade the native network

this topic.. if you read it.. is not about altcoin creation or running away.. its about upgrading the network via hardforks.. which upgrade for security reasons should actually ensure there is a good readiness of majority of nodes/mining pool validation assurance before activating a feature. (unlike how things actually are now where upgrades happen before node readiness)

no where in her question was she asking about wanting to run off and create an altcoin nor f**k off due to whatever reason you think people should leave the network for.

You can hardfork any time you like, you demented fuck.  You couldn't be more ignorant and gormless if you tried.  You don't understand freedom and you never will.  Please exercise your right to leave.  We'd all be happier for it.

Softforks are allowed and have been allowed since the genesis block.  Go build a closed-source coin if you want a Frankenfuhrer chain where users have no freedom and you have a constant hard-on for it, you fascist piece of shit.

^
quoting for hilarious hypocrisy and future reference

funny part is doomad idolises allowing central parties to change the rules without decentralised consensus activation (his favoured "backward compatible mandated activation" trick) where the only choice is be forced to accept the centralised organised change or fork off to a different network

the point of blockchains WAS to prevent rule changes unless the masses consent(consensus) which doomad hates. yep he hates consensus

part of blockchains security WAS that rules cant be changed without consent of the masses(consensus) .. emphasis on WAS

when central parties organise mandated activation without consensus it can AND HAS introduced unfinished cludgy code that introduces attack vectors and bloating to a far more extent than any tx count increase possibility/promise

This outlook doesn't make much sense to me.  Hardforks, functionally, are basically an emergency escape hatch.  They allow anyone who doesn't agree with the rules to leave and form a network of their own.  Trying to force people to stay against their will would be a bigger problem than allowing them the freedom to leave.

And the only way to prevent hardforks would be to run a closed-source project, with a single developer in charge, where no one else could alter the code.

//EDIT:

Public Notice: Subsequent replies by user franky1 should be considered inaccurate or fictitious.  It remains to be seen whether his inability to grasp consensus rules is the result of psychosis, lack of cognition, or total dishonesty.  He's had an account on this forum for over a decade, so you would think he might get something right by now.  Check various sources to validate what is being said.  You will see that the preposterous claims he makes are simply not true.

Hard forks are a real trouble for the whole blockchain industry. Any decentralised system is vulnerable to forking, and the main problem in dealing with hard forks is that the only way to solve the problem efficiently is to centralise the whole system, which opposes the general concept of decentralised financial database.

You are right about the factoids, as many people don't read them because they are not some full explanation instead they are just simple quotes. That might be a reason for the newbies as well as for older members to ignore them. I also don't really read many, even though I don't read the one under your post. I don't read it because I am here to read your post but If I have to read them intentionally then I would go to a single page where I can find them all. Which FYI is this:

https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adinfo

Now coming back to your question, the short answer is NO. After doing a Hard fork, the blockchain splits into two chains. One will become old and the other will become new. But it's not that the old chain will be gone and nothing can be added to it. Both can work simultaneously but there will be a difference of rules.

I'll try to simplify the things a bit... Let's take a step back into a simplified version that disregards many of the key aspects of bitcoin....

I'm making a payment system between me an my friends, in order to do this, we have an excel-sheet, we each put $100 in a jar and we add 3 records into our excel-sheet:

 1  friend1  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 2  friend2  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 3  friend3  $100  unspent  initial block reward


I'm friend1, i now send $50 to friend2... The exelsheet looks like this:

 1  friend1  $100  spent  initial block reward
 2  friend2  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 3  friend3  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 4  friend3  $50  unspent  used line 1
 5  friend1  $50  unspent  used line 1


Now friend3 uses line4 to send $25 to friend2

 1  friend1  $100  spent  initial block reward
 2  friend2  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 3  friend3  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 4  friend3  $50  spent  used line 1
 5  friend1  $50  unspent  used line 1
 6  friend3  $25  unspent  used line 4
 7  friend4  $25  unspent  used line 4


After a while, we decide to implement a hard fork... We come together and say: from now on, we'll no longer use dollars as the payment amount... Starting from line 8, we'll switch to euro's (at an imaginary exchange rate of $1 = €1)... When i now send my $50 to friend2, the ledger will look like this:

 1  friend1  $100  spent  initial block reward
 2  friend2  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 3  friend3  $100  unspent  initial block reward
 4  friend3  $50  spent  used line 1
 5  friend1  $50  spent  used line 1
 6  friend3  $25  unspent  used line 4
 7  friend4  $25  unspent  used line 4
 8  friend2  €50  unspent  used line 5

However, friend3 does not want to follow our new rule.. He insists every amount has to be entered in dollars... We now have a hard fork: friend1, friend2 and friend3 agree on the first 7 lines... But only friend1 and friend2 agree on the transaction in line 8, friend3 only agrees on the first 7 lines, he rejects line 8 and he'll be able to add his own transaction on line 8, making this a hard fork... We'll continue with 2 versions of our document: one that uses euro from line 8 and higher, and one that has always and will always use dollars...

If we kept working in dollars, but we decided to add a new extra worksheet in our excel document keeping track on metadata about our transactions, we could have created a soft fork: the people that wanted to use the extra sheet to add metadata and the people that did not want to use this extra sheet all agree on the rules about the first worksheet, so they can both keep adding their transactions in one document... It's only that some of the friends will use the second worksheet aswell...

Offcourse, in the situation with 3 friends putting fiat money into a jar, this seems ridiculous, but in a situation with thousands of anonymous users and coinbase rewards, it does "work"... All users agree on the blockchain untill the height of the fork, and at this height, the two blockchains grow apart.

Just FYI: this is not exactly how bitcoin works... It's just an (over)simplification about how hard forks and soft forks more or less work when mapped to an "easyer" problem.

The coin mined will be different, starting from the block height the hard fork occur.

Example is bitcoin and bitcoin cash

Let say the old blockchain is A, but blockchain B forked from it.  Let us say block reward in old chain A occurs 10 minutes in average, but what let to the fork of blockchain B is to increase block size, like what happened to bitcoin cash.

Also assuming that the fork happen at block 500000 (this is not correct I am just using it to explain).

Any block mined after block 500000, the blockchain B will begin its own chain with its own protocol, although having the old blockchain in its history.