Bitcoin Forum

A lower activation threshold like 75% can be considered an attack by those opposed to the move.  I think 95% is a high enough threshold which demonstrates overwhelming support and should therefore  not be considered an altcoin.
 

75% is higher than the majority needed to change the constitution in most parliamentary democracies. 

Bitcoin is not a democracy, it is a consensus based system, which means that everyone has to agree otherwise the changes will not work. Since there is no central authority like in governments, no one is there to enforce the majority decision.

75% is the majority of the miners, but miners will not move until they are sure that a very large majority of the network will support them.

The will never try create coins that no one will accept. The value of Bitcoin is given by the network (users, exchange, payment processor, etc ...)

Core will make the move to bigger blocks. They wont give up control this easily.

They need to do it yesterday to restore market confidence.

No, they need to do it at exactly the speed that the technical challenge demands, lest serious mistakes could be made. And they're doing that already.

There's no difference between an activation threshold of 75% (or 51%) and 95% because pro-fork miners can just start rejecting blocks from anti-fork miners to increase the percentage. Miner voting is a stupid concept for hardforks -- it's the economy that matters in a hardfork, not miners.

It's already on their roadmap
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

You think that matters in a consensus-critical distributed ledger?

That's adorable!   :)

That's better blocks, not bigger ones. Eventually the economy will need both and if Core doesn't provide it the market will force their hand. It will be a steady stream of fork attempts until they do.

No, it's both. The Core roadmap calls for maintaining the 1 MB "normal-blocks" for now, but then adding 3 MB "witness-blocks" (sent alongside normal blocks) where much of the data from normal blocks can go. It does roughly double transaction capacity, it's backward-compatible, and it'll be ready in only ~4 months. The Core devs are following Satoshi's footsteps by significantly prioritizing backward-compatibility: Satoshi never did a hardfork, and when he did the backward-incompatible version checksum change, he scheduled it two years in advance.

Ya but...

But the 1MB cap was a temporary measure to stop spam attacks. Satoshi was optimistic about future tech.

Isn't it?

What is core team planning about RBF

What is actually the percentage needed for this secession democratic-fork to happen ? If this is 50%, I agree with you that it is no enough. Even 75% could be considered not enough in most of the situations.

I think it will be 75%, although as of now, no changes have been made to the fork so this cannot be known until they actually commit the changes.

So the secession leaders will organise elections and decide the actual minimum of votes that they need to be elected, and that they're sure to have ? It doesn't look like Satoshi would have intented it. However, if they decide to put the minimum threshold at 75%, I'm pretty sure that they will lose.

As theymos said above though, 51% is enough since pro-fork miners could just reject blocks from anti-fork miners making the percentage go above any arbitrary percentage quite quickly.  For a hard fork just miner voting is not sufficient.

Long term, the number of bitcoin hard forks will need to be kept to a minimum - kind of like a "hard fork" for smtp/ftp/dns/'tcp/ip' etc are exceedingly rare - because this type of political turmoil is a huge risk factor for bitcoin, not to mention the risk that a critical bug is introduced.  Things like hard forks to enable sidechains with opcodes such as OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, will enable a lot of experimentation without needing hard forks going forward.  Perhaps re-enabling select other opcodes.

Stability of bitcoin at the protocol level is extremely important due to the risks involved in changing it both technically and politically.  If it was still 2008, changes would be much easier but a huge ecosystem and value gives no room for errors.  It is like upgrading the engines on an airliner while in the air.

:-)

So basically we're in a critical situation, since with AntPool, KnC Miner, Avalon Miner and much more, we may already have the 51% required for the secession ?

No, I was just making an example about how groups of humans function together. Or not, as in this case.

Pro-fork miners need to be over 50% of the power (or the sum) to start having an incentive to rejecting blocks of other miners, otherwise they will have a higher risk of getting orphaned.

Still, as the logic says (and as it was seen at hong kong event), miners are totally afraid of making decisions, because the value of their prize doesn't come from them, but from who accepts their coins.

They will never try to make a hard fork (a new type of Bitcoin token) if they aren't sure that the larger majority of the network (users, exchange, payment processor, etc ...) will accept them.

I'd rather be right and a black sheep than succumb to social pressure.  Clearly, you prefer the latter.

Have a good time in the Toominista hive mind.  I'll be over here providing thought leadership for the rest of the flock.   :)

You are of course correct in that 51% of miners can control all the miner voting.  Implementing a hardfork is a difficult process and a variety of things need to be considered.  Miner voting should not be considered in isolation.

With respect to a one off shift to 2MB, I think there is broad support from users, businesses and miners for this kind of compromise proposal.  However given the controversy, particularity the number of developers who do not want to go down this path, there is elevated risk with this hardfork.  Therefore I think it is prudent to have a mining activation threshold of 95% or more, in order for me to support the hardfork to 2MB.  If miners start orphaning blocks that do not vote their way, many will consider this a serious attack and withdraw support for the hardfork.

However, according to Brian Armstrong the threshold is "only at 70% for classic".

Source: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688428800959332352 (https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688428800959332352)

I consider 70% dangerously low and demonstrates a lack of confidence in consensus by Classic proponents.  It is therefore important for users and node operators to continue to rally behind Core, to prevent a potentially dangerous and catastrophic loss of consensus.  If Classic adopts a 95% activation threshold, then I may switch to supporting Classic.

most newer alts get no where, so yeah I'd stick with litecoin over bitcoin classic.

I hope so.

I've done a bit of research & I like the look of SegWit.

Looks like Gavin has gone for 75% again.  I cannot understand why such a low threshold is being used.

Incompetence or malice?  Gavin should know better, so flip a coin.

I for one am delighted he's using the optimally bad 75% value.

OrganOfCorti mathed the hell out of the issue until there was no room for doubt.

75% maximizes chances (ie, ensures inevitability) of a premature fork that subsequently orphans the attacking chain.

Now stop that sniggering at the back, it's most unkind  ( 8) )