Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 6. (Read 38090 times)

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

There are already people who would like to see bitcoin become a totally anonymous and trace-less system, so that no one can really understand how money moves in this system. But they can already fork their small chain and use that new dark bitcoin, and there will be people specifically interested in those features. But to hijack the whole network hash power to support their chain will be too much, I think majority of the large actors in this industry must follow regulation due to their size and visibility

This is just hypothetical, but imagine the other 10% consists of die-hard nutters for whom it isn't just about the money?

You're darn tootin'.

When you're got more than 90% of the hashpower, it's not really contentious any more.

All chainforks are not hardforks.  Short chainforks happens every day.  Usually because miners can't distribute their newfound blocks fast enough.  This one was caused by a malicious miner not validating blocks, and mining on top of an invalid one.  It disappeared as soon as the correctly validated chain overtook it.  This only show the dangers of one miner controlling too much hashrate.  All nodes, new and old, accepted the correctly validated chain as soon as it overtook the bad chain, and nobody were forced to upgrade anything.  (Those who hadn't upgraded were potentially vulnerable to double spends however, as with all chainforks when you don't require enough confirmations.  This is a good reason for merchants to stay up to date.)

The August 2010 fork was much longer, btw.  That fork was caused by a bug which had to be fixed for the nodes to reject the faulty chain.

A hard fork is different.  In a hard fork where the fork has a miner majority, the two chains will live on in parallel.  Correctly validating nodes will never switch to the fork.  The so-called "Classic", "XT", "Unlimited", etc forks are especially dangerous, since upgrading won't help either.  There will just be different coins, and you have to make a choice of one of them.  Due to incompetent fork developers, you can't even run one of the other coins on the same computer at the same time as Bitcoin Core, since they demand to bind to the same ports.  Constantly keeping up with which fork to use this week is too much for most users, and since their SPV wallets will be rendered useless, they will probably just try to get rid of their coins ASAP.  It would be sad end for Bitcoin, I think.

If some competent developer should think about forking bitcoin, he should start here and get 100% consensus first.  There are many good reasons for a fork.  Forking for a simple block size change is just dumb, and most people see that.

You mean in a contentious hard fork situation? Ain't nobody got time for that.

I apologize for misrepresenting you. I was trying to be laconic.

I think there's universal agreement that everybody is free to submit.

It's the authority to accept or reject that Chinese miners could conceivably wrest from Core.

It's possible that overwhelming hashpower could allow them to succeed.

I don't doubt they can and that isn't quite what I said.

This is an open source project. Anybody is free to submit code. Am I wrong?

Maybe the Chinese miners think they are able to judge merit by themselves.

This idea doesn't really pass my smell test and I'm not sure why. BIP's are accepted or rejected based on merit. Throwing money at a developer in the hopes of getting some code past the gates? I don't get it.

I realize now that I've made a mistake. Chinese miners will sponsor a "core" dev but not a Core dev.

That is, not one of the existing Core devs.

I think the important question is what will happen if and when the dev sponsored by the Chinese miners tries to bring the code in a direction contrary to Core's.

Either the Chinese miners plus dev would start a new fork (with majority hashpower) or they would suffer loss and humiliation as their pull requests were rejected.

So you're either a contender for the throne or a servant to the powerful.

Choose wisely, Chinese miners.

It's a disgrace.

Humor is supposed to be funny.

Oh c'mon stop being such enraged virgin. That's humor.

How big is this trophy case?

http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

You're in China. Can't you fix that? Get them all grokked to the ethos or whatever already.

We are not going to see that as Bitcoin is not allowed to be used for commercial purchases in China (it is only allowed to be used like a "stock").