Whoa! Hard forks are BAD! | Bitcointalksearch.org

Yanisumin

hero member

Activity: 648

Merit: 502

Quote from: franky1 on June 25, 2016, 06:46:30 PM

Quote from: Lauda on June 25, 2016, 03:37:17 PM

A decentralized, censorship resistance coin should have no leaders at all.

then why does Luke JR (pretending to be independent) say he cant make a hard fork code because he is not speaking on behalf of "core"
and we all know "core" set up blockstream.

lauda you keep going in circles saying bitcoin has no private authority and then use the private authority as a reason why there is contention and why luke jr wont forfill his "personal" agreement.

here is a more simple question .. WHO is saying no to a hard fork
i hope you use your independant mind to research this and not go running to blockstream fanboys to get your spoon fed answers

The Core has about 15 days to fulfil its promise to release the SegWit and the 2MB block size increase, otherwise we will see the revival of Classic soon.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on June 25, 2016, 03:37:17 PM

A decentralized, censorship resistance coin should have no leaders at all.

then why does Luke JR (pretending to be independent) say he cant make a hard fork code because he is not speaking on behalf of "core"
and we all know "core" set up blockstream.

lauda you keep going in circles saying bitcoin has no private authority and then use the private authority as a reason why there is contention and why luke jr wont forfill his "personal" agreement.

here is a more simple question .. WHO is saying no to a hard fork
i hope you use your independant mind to research this and not go running to blockstream fanboys to get your spoon fed answers

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ?? on ??

In the meantime, any ideas?

Enjoy your stay unless you are able to contribute to Bitcoin in any way (developing, testing, etc.). Maybe we will see a new 'round' of scaling proposals in late 2016, you never know.

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 17, 2016, 04:20:29 PM

Whoa! I found out that Bitcoin was hacked in 2010. A hard fork rolled back the tricky transaction. I still think there bad tho. Changing any of the codes now is too dangerous.

That a one of a kind event that broke the initial specifications of Bitcoin. I doubt that it was hard to fork back then considering the small size of the ecosystem.

Quote from: Dobmaster on June 21, 2016, 12:25:55 PM

Ethereum has strong leaders. But they do not have complete control over the course of the coin. The miners will decide.

A decentralized, censorship resistance coin should have no leaders at all. It seems that ETH is going to lose its initial values (code is not law in these "smart contracts"). Besides, this is not the right place to discuss altcoins.

Quote from: Dobmaster on June 25, 2016, 01:10:13 PM

I agree with this. I do not understand why do not they just change the 1MB to 2MB, just a few lines of code, much safer than the SegWit.

You have your answer right there. You don't understand, as in, you didn't do enough research or do not understand the risks behind it. Even if we exclude HF's as being risky on their own, a 2 MB block size limit is potentially un-safe (due to validation time being O(n^2)). Gavin knows this and that is why he has added several limitations in his BIP for Classic. Segwit aims to solve transaction malleability but shall also boost capacity (rising with user adoption), scale down that time to O(n) and bring some other neat things with it as well.

Dobmaster

sr. member

Activity: 464

Merit: 250

Quote from: Amph on June 21, 2016, 12:38:37 PM

Quote from: Alley on June 17, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Core can take as much time as they need testing segwit. We dont want a eth type hack.

the long they delay this feature, the long bitcoin need to wait before embracing right adoption

current block limit is somehow preventing global acceptance, done by some big merchants for example

none is going to pay an escalatatio of fee that will be always higher than before, just to be in the priority list, that's stupid and should be fixed, i knwo it favor miners so they don't care

I agree with this. I do not understand why do not they just change the 1MB to 2MB, just a few lines of code, much safer than the SegWit.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Alley on June 17, 2016, 01:38:36 PM

Core can take as much time as they need testing segwit. We dont want a eth type hack.

the long they delay this feature, the long bitcoin need to wait before embracing right adoption

current block limit is somehow preventing global acceptance, done by some big merchants for example

none is going to pay an escalatatio of fee that will be always higher than before, just to be in the priority list, that's stupid and should be fixed, i knwo it favor miners so they don't care

Dobmaster

sr. member

Activity: 464

Merit: 250

Quote from: Cuidler on June 18, 2016, 03:01:17 AM

Quote from: mkc on June 18, 2016, 02:29:44 AM

it is important to have strong leadership. Hard fork or soft fork both are fine, as long as one group of people will not intentionally fight another group. It is quite mystery that bitcoin creator decided to fade out of the scene abruptly.

My opinion is quite different, cryptocurrency should not be centralized with strong leaders having complete control over it, afterall it should be alternative to traditional currencies which have exactly such centralizing schemes already.

And reverse transaction is a big no, seems somebody exploited the DAO rules, developers should learn from it to do much more vulnerability testing before going public.

Ethereum has strong leaders. But they do not have complete control over the course of the coin. The miners will decide.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: mkc on June 18, 2016, 02:29:44 AM

it is important to have strong leadership. Hard fork or soft fork both are fine, as long as one group of people will not intentionally fight another group. It is quite mystery that bitcoin creator decided to fade out of the scene abruptly.

My opinion is quite different, cryptocurrency should not be centralized with strong leaders having complete control over it, afterall it should be alternative to traditional currencies which have exactly such centralizing schemes already.

And reverse transaction is a big no, seems somebody exploited the DAO rules, developers should learn from it to do much more vulnerability testing before going public.

mkc

hero member

Activity: 517

Merit: 501

it is important to have strong leadership. Hard fork or soft fork both are fine, as long as one group of people will not intentionally fight another group. It is quite mystery that bitcoin creator decided to fade out of the scene abruptly.

tokeweed

legendary

Activity: 3976

Merit: 1421

Life, Love and Laughter...

Quote from: killerjoegreece on June 17, 2016, 07:11:00 PM

Quote from: helloeverybody on June 17, 2016, 07:07:52 PM

Quote from: Yanisumin on June 17, 2016, 10:12:34 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 17, 2016, 08:45:30 AM

I think Vitalik Buterin is in a dilemma. If he does the hard fork, that would be frowned upon and many would view Ethereum as some sort of joke for doing it. On the other hand if they don't, it's like the Ethereum version of getting goxxed, which also would make the people view it as some sort of joke.

But yeah, I agree. The hard fork should be a no go. Though I feel for the investors. I hope they find another solution and get their funds back.

And here on forth, the whole crypto community will have a field day everytime this historic hack is remembered. Imagine if the hacker actually gets all 11M ETH. Jesus that's a lot.

From the https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/history-of-hardforks-and-rollbacks-in-bitcoin-702755
8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence.

That problem was solved and bitcoin is better than ever.

In August 2010 I'm pretty sure bitcoin only hada market cap of a couple of hundred grand. We're talking about 160 million dollars with the dao, you can't really compare the two.

100% agreed on that last comment. cant be compared

This is a better answer to the argument.

Quote from: Foxpup on June 17, 2016, 09:18:30 AM

Quote from: pedrog on June 17, 2016, 08:43:14 AM

Bitcoin did it first.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/history-of-hardforks-and-rollbacks-in-bitcoin-702755

Those were required due to massive (network-breaking) bugs in Bitcoin itself, not because people put their money into an insecure third-party application which then was exploited to send said money to the attacker. The latter has happened many, many times in Bitcoin and nobody has ever seriously suggested a hardfork or rolling back the attacker's transactions, because Bitcoin developers, miners, and users all know that it would completely destroy everybody else's faith in the system. One must ask why those involved in Ethereum don't seem to know that.

And I don't know why people tend to point to Bitcoin's past to justify the mistakes made of the coin/platform/project that they blindly support. That isn't fair. What Bitcoin's mistakes did, it's done. Those were different situations in a different era before crypto 2.0. In fact, Ethereum and the rest should be learning from them. And let me point out that some of the elite Bitcoiners were mentioning that a Turing complete language via blockchain is a security conundrum... Now we're seeing what they were warning us of.

etparle

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

I love NACHOS

If they hard fork then ETH isn't as decentralized as people think it is. It sucks that people lost their money but transparency is key and deciding a valid tx (unlike the bitcoin example) is "void" by "voting" doesn't seem right.

killerjoegreece

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1010

Professional Native Greek Translator (2000+ done)

Quote from: helloeverybody on June 17, 2016, 07:07:52 PM

Quote from: Yanisumin on June 17, 2016, 10:12:34 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 17, 2016, 08:45:30 AM

I think Vitalik Buterin is in a dilemma. If he does the hard fork, that would be frowned upon and many would view Ethereum as some sort of joke for doing it. On the other hand if they don't, it's like the Ethereum version of getting goxxed, which also would make the people view it as some sort of joke.

But yeah, I agree. The hard fork should be a no go. Though I feel for the investors. I hope they find another solution and get their funds back.

And here on forth, the whole crypto community will have a field day everytime this historic hack is remembered. Imagine if the hacker actually gets all 11M ETH. Jesus that's a lot.

From the https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/history-of-hardforks-and-rollbacks-in-bitcoin-702755
8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence.

That problem was solved and bitcoin is better than ever.

In August 2010 I'm pretty sure bitcoin only hada market cap of a couple of hundred grand. We're talking about 160 million dollars with the dao, you can't really compare the two.

100% agreed on that last comment. cant be compared

helloeverybody

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: Yanisumin on June 17, 2016, 10:12:34 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 17, 2016, 08:45:30 AM

I think Vitalik Buterin is in a dilemma. If he does the hard fork, that would be frowned upon and many would view Ethereum as some sort of joke for doing it. On the other hand if they don't, it's like the Ethereum version of getting goxxed, which also would make the people view it as some sort of joke.

But yeah, I agree. The hard fork should be a no go. Though I feel for the investors. I hope they find another solution and get their funds back.

And here on forth, the whole crypto community will have a field day everytime this historic hack is remembered. Imagine if the hacker actually gets all 11M ETH. Jesus that's a lot.

From the https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/history-of-hardforks-and-rollbacks-in-bitcoin-702755
8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence.

That problem was solved and bitcoin is better than ever.

In August 2010 I'm pretty sure bitcoin only hada market cap of a couple of hundred grand. We're talking about 160 million dollars with the dao, you can't really compare the two.

tokeweed

legendary

Activity: 3976

Merit: 1421

Life, Love and Laughter...

Quote from: pawel7777 on June 17, 2016, 10:34:07 AM

Quote from: tokeweed on June 17, 2016, 08:45:30 AM

I think Vitalik Buterin is in a dilemma. If he does the hard fork...

Looks like he went for the soft fork not the hard fork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4oj7ql/personal_statement_regarding_the_fork/

Quote

I personally believe that the soft fork that has been proposed to lock up the ether inside the DAO to block the attack is, on balance, a good idea...

But isn't a hard fork going to follow to enable them to return the stolen ether to the investors? I was under the impression it was that, unless I missed something.

rizzlarolla

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ?? on ??

There are lessons to be learn from this, for all the big block supporter, who wants to run into a Hard fork to increase the Block size for Bitcoin. You do not gamble with the wealth of people, if they invested

Billions into it... You also need to consider that many businesses already built their whole model on top of Bitcoin and if Bitcoin fails, these businesses will also fail, putting a lot of people out of work and also

increasing unemployment. Take baby steps before you run... in the mean time, kick the can down the road. Roll Eyes

I know it is only your
opinion. It is 100% opposite to mine. Segwit is the gamble here, not a
block
size increase.

Kicking the can down the
road normally refers to
2 MB here?

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

Whoa! I found out that Bitcoin was hacked in 2010. A hard fork rolled back the tricky transaction. I still think there bad tho. Changing any of the codes now is too dangerous.

Quote from: wikipedia

On 6 August 2010, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was spotted. Transactions weren't properly verified before they were included in the transaction log or "block chain" which let users bypass bitcoin's economic restrictions and create an indefinite number of bitcoins.[16][17] On 15 August, the vulnerability was exploited; over 184 billion bitcoins were generated in a transaction, and sent to two addresses on the network. Within hours, the transaction was spotted and erased from the transaction log after the bug was fixed and the network forked to an updated version of the bitcoin protocol.[18][19]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2548

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: raphma on June 17, 2016, 10:36:04 AM

they got hacked, that's enough to make people stop invest in this idea(at least for now).
With fork or without fork, they are already screwed up.

Correct. For money and business trust is no 1.

Once lost it takes YEARS to earn trust back.

GreenBits

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1048

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 17, 2016, 03:47:00 PM

This is a good example of why Bitcoin cannot and will never hard fork, it would forever destroy confidence in the currency.

It may be annoying to have expensive fees and unreliable confirmations, but it is simply too late to make any changes to the Bitcoin without a collapse.

Exactly. It may have flaws, but those flaws are known and compensated for. People want consistantcy in the assets they trust their money to. This dao fiasco was an unknown unknown.

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

This is a good example of why Bitcoin cannot and will never hard fork, it would forever destroy confidence in the currency.

It may be annoying to have expensive fees and unreliable confirmations, but it is simply too late to make any changes to the Bitcoin without a collapse.

ebliever

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1036

Ethereum has some options short of a hard fork. Nothing has been decided AFAIK, and they have some time (27 days), so they should have enough sense not to act rashly. Today is brainstorm day, argue about the best options for a couple days and then work on implementing it.

1. They can cut a deal with the thief to restore most of the funds. As it stands the thief is going to lose everything, so they should be ready to negotiate. This could avoid a lot of messiness/forking. It's ugly, but it might be the best idea when all is said and done. Call it a world-class bug bounty...
2. Soft-fork by miners to lock off the funds collected by the thief so they can never be spent. The thief loses, and The DAO investors learn a tough lesson in due diligence and risk. This is the option I am favoring over the hard fork, and if #1 doesn't pan out I think the community will settle on this. But other ideas are being floated.

GreenBits

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1048

Hard forks are very bad, this is why you vet code for many years before you allow untold amounts of value to be invested in your technology.

But this isn't a bitcoin problem. Money gets stolen in btc land, tough titty. You eat it and move on.

Dammit dao, you had one, undefined job.

Topic: Whoa! Hard forks are BAD! (Read 1756 times)