Bitcoin Forum

Few questions here, i understand that bitcoin is powered decentralized across network by multiple PC's, founder is Satoshi nakamoto, 21 Million supply

But i am more interest to know

1) Will Bitcoin ever ever get shut down? Perhaps every user still mine the coin, but will a minor code change result the whole thing to be gone?

2) Do satoshi nakamoto hold a specific % of premine btc?

3) For the 21 Miilion supply, as it is open source according to some news i read. This shows people can actually change the supply in the code? Lets say currently most people uses btc-core, are they be able to change the max supply to 22Million?

Thank you

1) if every single user of bitcoin stops using it then it will shut down. otherwise it can continue as long as someone is mining blocks.

2) there was no premine in bitcoin. that is a notion for shitcoins in the altcoin board.
the coins belonging to Satoshi were mined. you could have mine the first blocks too if you bothered to notice bitcoin like many who did and mined simply with their CPU and running the bitcoin-QT wallet in the early years.

3) if the overwhelming majority decides to change the supply or anything else for that matter they can do it. otherwise any change like that will lead to a fork aka an altcoin.

Thanks for your answer, as currently we has bitcoin (Under bitcoin Core) and Bitcoin unlimited (Under Bitcoin Unlimited), therefore BTU is also a fork of BTC Right?

Majority decides will be like the consensus meeting of 2017? Where all the big one decided to implement Segwit and Increase the block size to 2mb?

As Segwit does not require a soft fork, for the plan on the meeting where the block size will be increase to 2 MB, in this case does this means we are require to undergo a hard fork?

the consensus dictates a certain rules. rules such as what the size of blocks should be, what the maximum supply should be, or what the block reward should be and so on.
anything that changes that is a fork of bitcoin. and if that fork can get enough support, that becomes the new consensus.

and consensus is not just some people in a meeting, public or behind doors talking to each other. it is the whole network. the miners who provide the hashrate, the users who express their opinion by running a full node supporting different forks/proposals and i supposed we can say also businesses running on bitcoin but they can be counted as users and nodes too.

What is consensus? (https://bitcointalk.org/dec/p1.html)

There has to be consensus about "minor code" changes.
Yes,Satoshi Nakamoto holds a sertain amount of bitcoins.
If the people or core devs could play around with bitcoin supply,then btc is gone.

"Fork" is a confusing word.

In Open Source software development, "fork" simply means to make a copy of the software, and then make your own changes to it.  Using that definition of "fork", there are probably thousands of "forks" of bitcoin already.  That kind of fork has no effect on the rules of bitcoin.  If one person tries to change one of the consensus rules, they will discover that nobody else will run their software and the entire network will simply ignore those new consensus rules.

In a consensus system such as Bitcoin, there is a shared ledger (called the blockchain). It is effectively impossible to modify any of the historical data in the ledger, and new data is added on to the ledger on a regular basis (every 10 minutes on average in Bitcoin).  With that sort of system, there are, generally recognized, 2 types of "forks" in consensus rules.

A "soft fork" is a change to consensus rules that requires those that add data to the ledger to agree to implement the change, but is backward-compatible to all those that enforce the rules.  Bitcoin Core currently has a change called "SegWit" that is waiting to be activated.  If it activates, then it will be a "soft fork".  It is called a "soft fork", because if a significant majority of those adding data to the ledger implement it, then the blcokchain doesn't fork, but if a minority of those adding data to the ledger implement it, then the ledger will split with a shared history prior to the implementation of the new rules, and two incompatible histories after the implementation of the new rules.

A "hard fork" is a change to the consensus rules that requires an overwhelming majority of ALL USERS (miners, nodes, wallets, merchants, exchanges, etc) to all agree to implement the change.  It is not backward-compatible to anyone.  Bitcoin Unlimited currently has a change called "Emergent Consensus" that is waiting to be activated.  If it activates, then it will be a "hard fork".  It is called a "hard fork", because if EVERYBODY implements it, then the blcokchain doesn't fork, but if ANYBODY chooses not to implement it then the ledger will split with a shared history prior to the implementation of the new rules, and two incompatible histories after the implementation of the new rules.

A "fork" only becomes an altcoin if it results in two incompatible histories.  In that case, whichever of those histories is used by a minority of users would probably be considered an "altcoin" by the majority.


I haven't seen specific implementation details from "the consensus meeting of 2017".  While I may be mistaken, it is my understanding that the plan is to implement SegWit with a soft-fork, and very shortly later implement 2 MB blocks as a hard fork.

First of all, appreciate on the long explanation! Understood most of it except this part

In this case for soft-fork, it change the consensus rules that require those who proceed blocks to agree with the changes, but the update is reversible. As long as Majority of the user apply the updated consensus rules, the original blockchain will not be "Fork"(Recreate/Split).

But in the case of Hard-fork, All the user are REQUIRE to implement the new consensus rule towards the chain else a "Fork" (Split Chain) will happen?

Therefore, for the segwit update, it can be 80% of user to process block with the segwit updated core chain and the leftover 20% to process block without the segwit package?
Sorry if my words sounds confusing because english is not my native so hope you got me  :P

1. Who will be able to "shutdown" several thousands of nodes at the same time all over the world and keep them down?

2. Satoshi is rumoured to have over 1 000 000 coins, but those coins has not been touched since it was mined. We think those coins are lost.

3. Why will someone run a altered version of the protocol that increase the coin cap? They will have to be crazy... more coins = lower value for

coins that they own now.  ::)

Understanding why SegWit is a soft-fork change and not a hard fork change requires understanding some of the technical details about how SegWit was implemented.  This can cause some confusion since you are trying to understand 2 things at the same time (How does SegWit work? AND  Why is that a soft-fork?).

Perhaps it would be better to use a more simple example of soft-fork and hard-fork to better understand what it means when something is a soft-fork. We will not talk about "Core" or "Unlimited" or "SegWit" or any of the current future plans.  We will just talk about a simple change that would be a fork.

---

Example:

There is currently a limit on the MAXIMUM size of a block.  A block cannot be bigger than 1 Megabyte.

If any miner tries to make a bigger block, then ALL bitcoin software (other miners, nodes, wallets, exchanges, etc) will just ignore that block.  The miner will have wasted time, money, and effort creating junk that nobody else accepts as part of bitcoin.

If any miner tries to make a smaller block, then ALL bitcoin software (other miners, nodes, wallets, exchanges, etc) will accept that block. The block will be added to everybody's blockchain and the miner will receive the reward (subsidy plus transaction fees) that he pays to himself.

If we want to allow a larger 2 megabyte MAXIMUM block size, it will require that EVERYBODY implement that change at the same time.  If, instead, some miners, and/or some nodes, and/or some wallets, and/or some exchanges, etc implement the change to accept 2 megabyte blocks, and others don't implement the change, then when a miner creates a larger block, some of the network will accept it and add it to their chain, and others will not. Imagine that ONE miner doesn't change to the new software, and ALL the other miners do.  99.999% of the hash power is running new software and is able to accept bigger 2 megabyte blocks. Imagine also that ONLY YOU change to the new software.  99.999% of all other users (nodes, wallets, exchanges, etc) are still running old software and NOT able to accept bigger 2 megabyte blocks.  Now imagine that one of the MANY miners creates a block that is 1.1 megabytes in size.  The ONE miner that isn't running the new software won't accept this block. It will appear to be "invalid".  That ONE miner will create his own separate and completely different block 0.9 megabyte block.  Since YOU are running the new software, YOU will accept the bigger 1.1 megabyte block and will see transactions and confirmations from the 1.1 megabyte block.  EVERYONE ELSE will ignore that block (since their software says that block is "invalid").  They will ALL accept the smaller 0.9 megabyte block and will see transactions and confirmations from the 0.9 megabyte block.  Prior to the creation of this bigger block, we all agree on which transactions exist, and which are confirmed.  Now (after the bigger block is created) there is no longer agreement. This is a HARD FORK.  The changes look invalid to the old software.  Therefore, the chain splits and anyone on the old software (even just one person) sees different information than anyone on the new software.  Notice that even though almost ALL the miners and almost ALL the hashpower is willing to accept the new bigger blocks, they are unable to get the old software (and anyone using that old software) to accept this new higher MAXIMUM.

If we want to restrict to a smaller 0.5 megabyte MAXIMUM block size, it will only require that a significant majority of miners agree.  If a minority of miners don't upgrade, and if none of the non-mining users upgrade, then the majority hashpower CAN enforce the rule on everybody else. Imagine that ONE miner doesn't change to the new software, and ALL the other miners do.  That one miner is still willing to accept blocks bigger than 0.5 megabytes (up to 1 megabyte). 99.999% of the hash power is running new software and is refusing to accept blocks bigger than 0.5 megabytes. Imagine also that ONLY YOU change to the new software and so you will refuse to accept blocks bigger than 0.5 megabytes.  99.999% of all other users (nodes, wallets, exchanges, etc) are still running old software and are still willing to accept the old bigger blocks (up to 1 megabyte). Now imagine that one of the MANY miners running the new software creates a block that is 0.5 megabytes in size.  The ONE miner that isn't running the new software WILL accept this block since it is less than 1 megabyte in size. It will appear to be "valid".  Since YOU are running the new software, YOU will accept this smaller 0.5 megabyte block but so will All the other users that accept anything up to 1 megabyte.  Notice that the new software is still compatible with the old software.  Anything that is less than 0.5 megabytes is ALSO smaller than 1 megabyte.  Now imagine that the ONLY miners running the old software creates a block that is 0.9 megabytes in size. Momentarily there will be a split since YOU and all the other hash power will treat this block as "INVALID". However, since the MAJORITY of the hashpower is running the new software, they will create blocks faster than that one miner.  Eventually their chain will grow to be longer that the chain being built by that one miner.  Since that longer chain is a "valid" chain according to the rules of those running the old software, they will abandon their short chain with the bigger 0.9 megabyte block and will switch over to the longer valid chain with all blocks smaller than 0.5 megabytes.  This is a SOFT FORK.  The changes look valid to the old software. Therefore if the minority of hashpower ever splits the chain, the greater hashpower will eventually create a longer valid chain that will replace the split and enforce the new rules on anyone running the old software.