Topic: Why is BU consensus at 75% and isn't it bad (Read 1214 times)

you can do that now. find a few people that agree with you. and then set your node to blacklist everyone apart from those people.
thus starting your own network that wont orphan against bitcoin because it doesnt see bitcoin.

you dont need any big community activation event. just find people that want the same as you and connect to them and ban the rest.

you then have your own altcoin

Of course I don't think that.  My favorite scenario is where bitcoin successively hard forks into several different coins.  It is not a good thing that essentially all crypto is centralized into one single chain.   A single crypto, and a single chain, is also a form of centralization that should be broken.

But what I *prefer* is independent of how I think that the dynamics works.  And you are entirely confused about how hard forks work, because you still talk about "common chain height", orphaning, and so on.

So although my preferred scenario is where bitcoin hardforks into many different coins, I think this will not happen as long as bitcoin carries with it its first mover advantage: this has to erode away first.   And it might very well be that bitcoin will not be used as a transaction medium before this happens: as mainly a vault-reserve currency, where the meager transaction volumes are used to settle between institutional players ; or as an immutable ledger with limited space, that is sold for a lot of money by miners (and the coin is just an app coin that doesn't matter any more, as it is more expensive to move it than the coin's value).

I don't know what will be the outcome for bitcoin.  

lol you really have been fed the spoon of blockstream

"hard fork" is an umbrella term with several possible outcomes below it.

its whoevers script you have read that has sold you into thinking that soft = 1 result best case scenario. and then stroked ur head into thinking only good things will happen

hard=1 result worse case scenario. and punched ur heead into thinking only bad things will happen

please try understanding bitcoin and run MANY scenarios.
it will help you understand bitcoin better

You should really stop telling this.   With a hard fork, there is no "orphan risk",  you just have two chains, two coins, and that's it.

carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
(his pretense changes by the hour)

yet its blockstream that will trigger the altcoin.. and thats carltons real fear.. blockstream having to trigger because they are an altcoin or fear the community where blockstream is being left as the minority. and not owning and controlling the network.

they hate anything not blockstream
all of the implementations that are not blockstream have been attacked.
rather than seeing them as part of consensus and the diverse decentralised nature of bitcoin

carlton doesnt care about bitcoins consensus or diverse decentralisation of multiple implementations. he just wants his king to control it all

Why waste your time writing this:


When you could just be honest and admit that this is the real "consensus mechanism" in BU:



....which is just an invitation to an endless string of noisy, shouty 51% fork after 51% fork?




Alice Wonder, why aren't you able to present clear, honest arguments?

If Core's solution is one that a large sector of users, including miners, really do not want - do they really understand Bitcoin?

FTFY


if blockstream want to ban anything thats not blockstream then they can play on their 26% hashpower(today stats) all they like. and pretend its achieved 100% by just ignoring the other 74% of the network.. they are still going to be on a minority and less height altcoin chain.

Who cares about BU? nobody will accept it because Core keeps doing all the hard coding jobs. BU software is always several steps behind. Their coding team is lightyears away from Core's understanding of bitcoin, they will never get anywhere, it will join the XT and Classic trashcan soon.

It's not just 75% - the first phase is 75% for a full difficulty adjustment period.

When they stay at 75% for a full difficulty adjustment period then they will start broadcasting willingness to mine a bigger block.

When enough have signalled intent to accept bigger blocks for a full adjustment period WITHOUT dropping below 75% then they will start mining bigger blocks.

That's what I have seen them posting, so it will take maintaining 75% consensus for several difficult adjustment periods BEFORE the first bigger blog.

The only thing that could throw a wrench in that is UASF in which case they may need to emergency hard fork earlier.

carlton doesnt understand consensus and orphans (the main security mechanism built into bitcoin and what BU USES)
strangely he doesnt realise its his kings wishes to avoid consensus and where blockstream have added code to ban opposition.
where as BU has not.

end result.
if BU triggers. one network with orphan risk for the minority, leaving minority unsynced(BU will not do any banning to cause a split)
if segwit triggers. 2 chains, because segwit will ban pool(nodes) and their blocks that try to build old blocks ontop of segwit, (to avoid segwit getting orphaned)

but yes if BU triggers.. the minority 'could' LATER split. by the minority CAUSING a split because the minority want to keep away from BU rather than accept consensus and switch to the majority(BU).

in short
BU wont CAUSE a split by banning minority.. but the minority to BU can cause a split by refusing to join the majority and refusing to just give up

though BU could trigger at low majority. they wont actually do it. they would wait a bit longer and do whats safe and not risking the rewards due to orphans.

BU relies on consensus..
segwit relies on bypassing consensus(first going soft to avoid node consensus, then banning opposition to avoid orphan risk)

no
the 5% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 5%. reject it
and again
the 5% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 5%. reject it
and again
(which as you say is 5% not syncing and either die(stuck) or change to the majority to rejoin)

---

the 25% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 25%. reject it
and again
the 25% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 25%. reject it
and again
(which as you say is 25% not syncing and either die(stuck) or change to the majority to rejoin)
meaning in short MORE nodes having the headache. but in both cases no second chain(just 1 chain and some dead nodes(the less the % the less dead nodes)

for the 5% or 25% to build on a LOWER height. they have to ignore (ban) dis-commnicate / split from the majority. to then only see the minority as the highest height. to then sync to that without the orphan game of unsyncing them.

this is called a bilateral split (intentional ban).
consensus mechanism (orphaning) exist for a good reason. to keep one chain that the majority can agree on.
to make a second chain exist and survive without orphans requires avoiding the majority by banning from it, to not see the majority blockheight, to then not fight it

even ethereum done this by their '--oppose-dao-fork' to know which nores to white list and which nodes to blacklist to avoid orphan drama and only see the blockheigh of the chain they prefer

No one  in this thread said it did.


Are you capable of making a technical argument Danny Hamilton, instead of just using semantic tricks?



And when "enough" (i.e. 51%) miners agree, the other 49% get turned into yet another altcoin (BUcoin2) when it happens, don't they? Call it "activation", call it a "fork", but the truth is you just don't want to point it out, because it's inconvenient to your highly selective presentation, huh Danny Hamilton


Are you capable of making a technical argument Danny Hamilton, instead of just using semantic tricks? Or lying by omission?

It might be a little bit too low but 95% is crazy in my opinion.  Most people will jump onto something if it's clear that a large enough majority of Bitcoiners has chosen something that it's unlikely anyone will be able to change it, but there will always be a group of stubborn people who believe the worst of that system and refuse to adopt it.  This group will nearly definitely be over 5% but under 25%.

It might even be SegWit's unrealistic goal that has resulted in BU overtaking SegWit's adoption among miners (along with the support from Jihan Wu).

Ideally though it would somewhere in between the two, maybe about 90%.

Unless the number is 100% then there is always a split involved. The question you want to ask is if the risk ending up with 2 chains permanently is lower if the numbers are higher. Seems obvious, but on the other hand if you pick a to high number you risk to not get activated at all (like many fear what will happen with SegWit) and who knows if it wouldn't be better to get activated at a lower number and take the risk of a permanent split than never activating and stay with a chain that might die out altogether.

thanks for the explanation franky, i can understand the orphan risk and the relationship with the percentages when put it like that.

but what about risk of splitting the network into two chains.
this is what my question basically is, i don't know how right or off the mark i am though.
i say with 95% the remaining 5% can not really stay around for long and they either die or switch.
but with 75% the remaining 25% seems too big and can stick around and continue producing blocks

My sense is that the BU folks are highly motivated to act sooner than later, which makes me uncomfortable by itself. But at the same time, the BU altcoin (as it must necessarily be called as per Charles Lee's comments) is extremely fragile and can be destroyed through several strategies if their hashrate falls too low in competition with Bitcoin. So BU advocates want to set as low a threshold as they can to get it active, but setting it too low makes it very likely it will be destroyed by hostile miners.

I've been trying to avoid leaning too hard one way or the other in this conflict, but everything I've been seeing here, in bitcoin media and on both the subreddits the last few days has been giving me a worse and worse opinion of Bitcoin Unlimited. I don't believe their dev team is sufficiently competent, haven't seen a roadmap besides bloating the blockchain and trying to block offchain TX, the marketplace appears unlikely to be receptive to BU's fork, and BU advocates increasingly push hostile actions to force BU on people against their will. If they activate I fully expect at this point to be dumping my BU coins, probably for Dash, Zcash and a few other alternatives.

Bitcoin Unlimited does not have an "activation".  It is already active.  Anyone can run Bitcoin Unlimited right now and declare whatever blocksize they want to support.

Miners can already create larger blocks if they want to.  Those blocks will be orphaned if there are not enough other miners that are willing to support that block height yet (which would make it foolish for a miner to waste money mining a block that won't ever pay them).  If there are enough miners supporting the larger block then the block size will increase.

the 75% figure is basically a gentleman's agreement, the truth is that BU gives miners the power to fork at 51% hashrate, if they're that suicidal

i said in the last line of my post, the risk that i am talking about is the risk of splitting the network into two separate chains.


is it your own understanding/guess or do you have a reference for that
i'll admit i haven't had time to go through it myself and do a proper research yet.