Will Bitcoin client do direct peer-peer coin exchange

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: e4xit on January 22, 2014, 08:49:46 AM

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 04:30:13 PM

I would argue (semantically) based on nothing but my opinion, that a chain with greater then 51% of the network agreeing to would continue on as **the** bitcoin (chain), and the 49% left behind without the changes woudl have to be then considered to be the alt-coin.

Surely the larger % (if greater than 50%) must be considered the "main chain". If i were to boot up a pre-hard-fork bitcoin instance now under you logic that might be the only node in the world running *pure* bitcoin, with the 99.99% of us on the current chain simply using an "alt-coin".

Your point largely still stands though...

Yes, a split of any magnitude would cause this to be argued ad nauseum. "We are the real Bitcoin", "No, we are the real Bitcoin".

But, it is never going to happen because all these people that come up with bright ideas of how to change Bitcoin never actually do it. They just sit and post about it over and over. Those that actually do something go create an alt coin with a totally new chain. Creating an alt as a blockchain branch has a real issue: all of us that own pre branch coins now own coins on both branches and given any value to the alt we can all dump our alt coins and crash their alt coin market and use the proceeds to buy more real Bitcoins.

e4xit

sr. member

Activity: 302

Merit: 250

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 04:30:13 PM

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:20:54 PM

Well the Bitcoin code can be changed, but it's kinda hard to do because 51% of the network has to agree with these changes. But, I see your point and I totally agree with you. You don't like it? Who the hell cares, bye.

No.

Even if 51% of the network agrees with a major change then it does not affect Bitcoin. What happens is that the 49% that does not agree with the change is still Bitcoin and the 51% that wants the change becomes a new coin by design.

Even if you get 75% to agree (with a major change that causes a hard fork) you still have 25% of the "die hard" miners and clients supporting Bitcoin and the 75% have just created a new alt coin.

I would argue (semantically) based on nothing but my opinion, that a chain with greater then 51% of the network agreeing to would continue on as **the** bitcoin (chain), and the 49% left behind without the changes woudl have to be then considered to be the alt-coin.

Surely the larger % (if greater than 50%) must be considered the "main chain". If i were to boot up a pre-hard-fork bitcoin instance now under you logic that might be the only node in the world running *pure* bitcoin, with the 99.99% of us on the current chain simply using an "alt-coin".

Your point largely still stands though...

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 05:03:32 PM

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

Ah, I see. Of course. Interesting stuff. I really should read the white paper and all the technical stuff. I have been saying that for months and still haven't done it. Oh well.

Read this entire thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/25-btc-per-block-forever-352734

I think it answers a lot of questions in this area and it is not too long.

Will do, thanks dude Wink

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:57:44 PM

Ah, I see. Of course. Interesting stuff. I really should read the white paper and all the technical stuff. I have been saying that for months and still haven't done it. Oh well.

Read this entire thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/25-btc-per-block-forever-352734

I think it answers a lot of questions in this area and it is not too long.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 04:51:41 PM

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:44:45 PM

Hmmm. I see your point. I never looked at it that way. But wouldn't the coins from the other 49%/25% be worthless, because the majority chooses for the new alt coin?

No, the market would decide the price of the Bitcoins and the Bitcoin alt.

Let's say the change was to invalidate or recycle the coins if they do not move in X years (a very popular change idea) then those two chains would diverge as one chain, the original, did not invalidate the coins and the other one did.

Ah, I see. Of course. Interesting stuff. I really should read the white paper and all the technical stuff. I have been saying that for months and still haven't done it. Oh well.

maaku

legendary

Activity: 905

Merit: 1012

If you want to make a hard-fork change to bitcoin, then you need every single node to upgrade. You need 100%.

It happened a couple of times in the early history of bitcoin. At this stage, it's basically impossible except in emergency response to consensus errors.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:44:45 PM

Hmmm. I see your point. I never looked at it that way. But wouldn't the coins from the other 49%/25% be worthless, because the majority chooses for the new alt coin?

No, the market would decide the price of the Bitcoins and the Bitcoin alt.

Let's say the change was to invalidate or recycle the coins if they do not move in X years (a very popular change idea) then those two chains would diverge as one chain, the original, did not invalidate the coins and the other one did.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 04:30:13 PM

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:20:54 PM

Well the Bitcoin code can be changed, but it's kinda hard to do because 51% of the network has to agree with these changes. But, I see your point and I totally agree with you. You don't like it? Who the hell cares, bye.

No.

Even if 51% of the network agrees with a major change then it does not affect Bitcoin. What happens is that the 49% that does not agree with the change is still Bitcoin and the 51% that wants the change becomes a new coin by design.

Even if you get 75% to agree (with a major change that causes a hard fork) you still have 25% of the "die hard" miners and clients supporting Bitcoin and the 75% have just created a new alt coin.

Hmmm. I see your point. I never looked at it that way. But wouldn't the coins from the other 49%/25% be worthless, because the majority chooses for the new alt coin?

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: Mitchell on January 21, 2014, 04:20:54 PM

Well the Bitcoin code can be changed, but it's kinda hard to do because 51% of the network has to agree with these changes. But, I see your point and I totally agree with you. You don't like it? Who the hell cares, bye.

No.

Even if 51% of the network agrees with a major change then it does not affect Bitcoin. What happens is that the 49% that does not agree with the change is still Bitcoin and the 51% that wants the change becomes a new coin by design.

Even if you get 75% to agree (with a major change that causes a hard fork) you still have 25% of the "die hard" miners and clients supporting Bitcoin and the 75% have just created a new alt coin.

Mitchell

copper member

Activity: 3948

Merit: 2201

Verified awesomeness ✔

Well the Bitcoin code can be changed, but it's kinda hard to do because 51% of the network has to agree with these changes. But, I see your point and I totally agree with you. You don't like it? Who the hell cares, bye.

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Beat to the punch.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: prezbo on January 21, 2014, 04:06:28 PM

The atomic cross-chain trading maaku mentioned already works without any changes to the protocol(s), all it needs is an easy to use implementation.

Sounds great. The OP can take that and run with it. I am looking forward to the results.

whtchocla7e

full member

Activity: 392

Merit: 116

Worlds Simplest Cryptocurrency Wallet

If doesn't matter who sends first as long as both parties initiate the transaction. The bitcoin client acts as the escrow and handles the sending. A black box.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: coinbridge on January 21, 2014, 04:03:10 PM

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 08:33:15 AM

Ah yes those two names are so similar. Nevermind. Carry on. This ccould be very interesting as long as it can be done with no changes to Bitcoin.

I'm puzzled by the insistence not to changes Bitcoin protocols. Is it a technical challenge? In my mind they can't they just do that in the next version update?

One of the best things about Bitcoin and the Bitcoin protocol is that it is basically impossible to change. It is one of the reasons I and many others are here. If it could be changed as easily as a next update then I and many others would not be here because it would just devolve into a total steaming pile of crap trying to satisfy everyone's whims.

Maybe now you can understand why us cranky old timers get so tired of threads that start "Bitcoin is cool but it need to be changed to do _____", because one to the best things about the design of Bitcoin is that it is impossible to change it to suit the desires of the day.

prezbo

sr. member

Activity: 430

Merit: 250

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 08:33:15 AM

Ah yes those two names are so similar. Nevermind. Carry on. This ccould be very interesting as long as it can be done with no changes to Bitcoin.

The atomic cross-chain trading maaku mentioned already works without any changes to the protocol(s), all it needs is an easy to use implementation.

coinbridge

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

Quote from: BurtW on January 21, 2014, 08:33:15 AM

Ah yes those two names are so similar. Nevermind. Carry on. This ccould be very interesting as long as it can be done with no changes to Bitcoin.

I'm puzzled by the insistence not to changes Bitcoin protocols. Is it a technical challenge? In my mind they can't they just do that in the next version update?

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Ah yes those two names are so similar. Nevermind. Carry on. This could be very interesting as long as it can be done with no changes to Bitcoin.

maaku

legendary

Activity: 905

Merit: 1012

There's no reason you can't do CoinSwaps across chains (it's even mentioned in the introductory post). Maybe you're thinking of CoinJoin?

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

~~Coinswap is all Bitcoin and uses the current protocol without any changes.~~

I was thinking about CoinJoin. See below. Oops.

coinbridge

newbie

Activity: 13

Merit: 0

So if Bitcoin does not have such a protocol in place, how hard is it to implement such a protocol in the future? What would prevent it from doing this?

Topic: Will Bitcoin client do direct peer-peer coin exchange (Read 1538 times)