Bitcoin Forum

I am creating a new fork of Bitcoin that will use Scrypt for hashing on block 256000.
The initial difficulty for scrypt will be 1 to give miners a chance at reliving the good old days of Bitcoin.

This is because the bitcoin network is going to be owned by China with ASICMINER, AVALON, BTCGARDEN, etc. Going back to GPUs would strength Bitcoin and protect the miners - the working class of Bitcoin.

We need to get all the users, miners, merchants on board. Please contact your mining pool and tell them to switch to Scrypt on block 256000. Point your GPUs at a scrypt miner. Get merchants, websites, casinos, stores to update to the hard fork.

Together, we can reclaim the glory of Bitcoin again.

You just made my day  :D.

Ty for the laugh  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Good luck to you sir

Thank you. Please get on board. Scrypt will allow Bitcoin to survive. SHA256 will not.

out of interest, is this possible?

This is certainly possible. There is just no need for it, therefore people would be unlikely to get on board.

There has been many hard forks through out the history of Bitcoin. For example, remember the May one?

If you do not upgrade to Scrypt, you will be left behind.

theoretically speaking  if people do get on board, which they probably will if difficulty is set to zero(greed), then we have 2 different chains?

Yes, there will be 2 different chains. But the Scrypt chain will prevail.

explain why so? 

At any given time we have 10 bitcoin chains: 1 official one and 9 private chains that I run. Everyone is free to create their own chains, it just doesn't matter.

i don't wish you good luck
even though i share the view that ASIC has a monopoly issue and is not a perfect distribution of voting power...
please do think of what would happen if you succeed but only miners who don't use ASIC join your ALT Chain.

there will be 2 systems. one with ASIC, which will probably have more Hash power, and be more secure, and one with the growing scrypt mining which will be more democratic...

people will have their coins in both but any tx can be copied and broadcast in either Chains, thus new tx will be very insecure
security problems will weaken bitcoin, and bitcoin will suffer.
also the rift will make the whole concept of cryptocurrency a laughing matter.

i don't think this is the way to go...

luckily i don't see you succeed.

No it will not. Nobody will stick with this idiocy.

I have just talked to a very large Bitcoin merchant. They said they will upgrade.

First be a bitcoin developer to try to change the mainline of bitcoin development. You are out of your mind if you think people will switch to scrypt-based Bitcoin just like that, without notifications and you demand all the merchants and miners and POOLS (people point sha256-asics to them!) etc. to switch. Also: there's no reason to use scrypt.

2/5, haven't seen this stuff at this level before.

... of course they will ...

Haha - your large merchant mines then do they (if not then why would they want a less secure network)?

You all seem so stressed, stare this. When I see one major bitcoin developer switch, I will switch.

https://i.imgur.com/7kWu8xC.jpg

The cat says no.

I highly doubt any meaningful amount of nodes will switch to this new fork.

But then again to each his own.

A hard fork is the worst thing miners could do.

It would result in questions about future stability of bitcoin causing a price drop and devaluing all the coins they mine.

Out of self interest, this will not happen.

When i see 90% of official bitcoin related services and such switch then I will do the same, but this will never happen to a fork by an random internet guy.

I like dat cat, it's cute :3

Scrypt is more secure. ASICs cannot 51% Scrypt.

Good one.  Some of the ASIC companies, and investers could be slightly unhappy if that happened.

Wrong.

Yup - I guess the OP doesn't understand Bitcoin very well - time for me to leave this topic...

will this include the blockchain of btc? ie, if so i can spend my btc twice :D

No you just stay on the bitcoin-double-sha256 rather than bitcoin-scrypt.

Are you planning to make any changes to how signatures work? 

If you don't, then people who spend pre-fork bitcoins on one fork, will effectively be spending them on the other fork too.

For example, if I buy something for 1 scrypt-BTC using a pre-fork coin, then the merchant can submit the exact same transaction to the main chain, and it will be accepted.  Vice versa is also possible.

If the scrypt coin was less valuable, then I might end up spending $100 worth of sha256-BTC when I only meant to buy something $1.

An easy option would be to add an offset before signing transactions.

Rather than signing hash(transaction), you could sign hash(transaction + "scrypt-coin").  That would mean that the signatures for the 2 forks would be different.

There are already a few miners using ASICs for mining Scrypt  ;)

WHERE?

Somewhere, hidden amongst the anonymity of the online world  ;) 8)

At the moment...

its open source
its possible
majority wins
what you feel about is irrelevant

The new scrypt wallet sounds like a good place to stick a trojan.  I assume you'll want us to import all of our private keys, right?

compile it yourself,,

I like how the only real "advantage" Litecoin has over Bitcoin is GPU mining. What is really sad and depressing about these Litecoin advocates is that Script ASIC's most likely already exist and have a similar hashrate gap as SHA GPU - ASIC gap.

The advantage part is in quotes because, as discussed by many Bitcoin developers these so called advantages are non-existent and to be honest, the Script worship here reminds me of church.

Have you even seen the Bitcoin source? A lot of lines to vet!

ANYTHING is POSSIBLE with a hard fork.  You can't "change" Bitcoin you can simply make a modified fork.
Want the block reward to be 38i378932372891372189 BTC per block?
Want to remove the coin limit?
Want to make tx reversible?
Want to steal recover old coins?
Want to make the network less secure because you are butthurt over ASICS?
Want to (insert idiotic change here)?

Make a fork.  Technically it is that simple.

The real difficulty is getting people to use your fork.  

At block 256,000 my guess is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of people will consider the original fork "Bitcoin" and the new fork will die off quickly.   MtGox won't be accepting coins from the fork (and neither will any exchange), no major merchants will be accepting coins from the fork, the overwhelming majority of users won't be using clients for the new fork, no major pool is going to drop support of the real Bitcoin in favor of the fork.

This is what people mean by "it is nearly impossible to change Bitcoin".  It isn't technically difficult.  Change a couple lines of code, compile and distribute.  It is difficult because most people simply will CHOOSE not to upgrade to the incompatible fork.  There is no mechanism anyone (not even core developers) can use to FORCE users to upgrade to an incompatible fork.  Both networks will exist as long as 1 or more node is running on them and people will make a choice.

Yes.

I for one will be selling all my BTC on the fork right after block 256,000.  I have a standing offer to sell them for 10% of market price for the real fork.  Any takers?  Pre-orders available.

+1

I'd say the only people really against this right now are ASIC owners. Sucks for them but 'securing the blockchain' is really just fancy speak for trying to hold a monopoly on hashing power and screw the little guy. A BTC fork to scrypt has been discussed for a while now and was even recommended by the guy who made the BTC hashcash algo. There is very good reason to do this unless you WANT the future of BTC to be in the hands of ASICS.

In my opinion one of the major reasons litecoin and the alts have gained so much traction IS the ASIC problem BTC has now.

this is the dumbest post EVER.
if dude wants to use scrypt go mine or buy some litecoins etc...... or is that too expensive for OP and he wants to make some $$ the easy way.
lame not thought out thread

there are more than enough "scrypt coins" for you guys to enjoy already.
dumb is dumb

you guys are quite unintelligent if you guys can't figure out that ASICS for scrypt WILL come out.
if you guys do understand that than you guys are borderline morons.
go enjoy your altcoins (litecoin is more or less fine)

alt coins have gained NO traction they are 99.5% speculation and nothing more than that

Being in the hands of major GPU farms is somehow "superior".  Don't give me the "anyone with a single GPU can mine Scrypt".  If Bitcoin used Scrypt the difficulty would be so high that a single miner would make a token amount (as they should given their small hardware investment) much like a USB ASIC miner today makes a token amount.  

The parameters for Scrypt used by LTC (et all) are memory weak.  They only use 128KB of memory.  That is more than possible to acheive with an ASIC at reasonable cost.  If BTC used Scrypt there would be Scrypt based ASICS.  If LTC grows large enough to warrant the investment and risk there will be Scrypt based ASICs.



What traction?  
http://coinmarketcap.com/

Bitcoin is 96%+ of the combined "market cap" (as much as I hate that word).
BTC & LTC combined are >99%.  
The other 50+ scamCoins are <1% combined.
(BTW I exclude Ripple as well it is PayPal 2.0)

Name a significant vendor that accepts a crypto-currency that doesn't accept BTC.
Name a major exchange which doesn't accept and altCoin but doesn't accept BTC.
Show me a day where there was more altCoin coverage in mainstream media than BTC coverage.

An alliance of a few loudmouth butt hurt GPU miner and pump and dump scammers isn't "traction".

So this would use SHA to convert private -> public keys but SCRYPT to show proof of work?

Nothing uses SHA to "convert" private keys to public keys.  Hashing algorithms are not public key cryptography.  Bitcoin (and LTC and every single scamCoin copy) uses ECDSA for generating keypairs (private & public keys) as well as creating and verifying signatures necessary to spend coins.

Oh you're right, I was thinking of brain wallets.

Difficulty 1. Yes, sounds much more secure.

*facepalm*

Don't be so negative about the other coins and call them scamcoins lol, ltc wasn't the first script so it's a copycoin  :D

But yes i agree on the matter.
Random people making random forks, interesting  :D

New York Stock Exchange
Tokyo Stock Exchange
London Stock Exchange
Hong Kong Stock Exchange
Shanghai Stock Exchange
Toronto Stock Exchange
Deutsche Börse

should I continue?


Don't get me wrong - this thread is ridiculous, but thinking that bitcoin has gained "real traction" is only little bit less ridiculous :)

In normal news for people who are not involved in crypto world bitcoin is still something strange and unknown and on same level as other crypto things. There was a little hype few months ago and average person saw bitcoin mentioned about 4 times in general news when there was that big jump in price. since then it was mentioned 0 times in last 3 or something months.

I am talking about news that usual people watch and read.

YouGov/Economist Poll

Have you ever heard of Bitcoin?
Yes    30%
No    70%

Have you ever used Bitcoin?
Yes    0.6%
No    99.4%

I can beat D&T's offer. I will sell 100BTC on the new fork for 50% of the market price.

You give me 50 original fork BTC, I will give you 100 new fork BTC. I can make a number of such trades if there is anyone legitimately interested...

Id do 20 original fork BTC for 100 from the new fork!!!! 

Stop with this crazyness.
Give me 0.1 orginal fork BTC and I will give you 10 new fork BTC  :D

So if you are doing this wheres the wallet?

It was quite obvious in context of the post I was responding too, the other examples, and the message of the entire post, that the meaning was there are no major exchanges which accept OTHER altCoins but not Bitcoins.

The post I was responding to made it seem like there is this massive flow of investment, talent, development, merchant support, etc AWAY from Bitcoin and towards alt-coins.  That obviously isn't true.  While BTC aren't traded on the NYSE, that isn't because for example BTC is dying and the NYSE went with NVC (or some other clonecoin of the week). 


The OP didn't make the claim that ASICs have slowed new interest in BTC the claim was that altCoins were gaining traction at the expense of BTC due to ASICs. My post was to show they aren't.  Even re-reading it now I can't see how anyone would take it any other way, but then I look up at your post and you have proved me wrong.  Your responses were ... well dumb in that context.  However don't worry I updated the post to be even more explicit so you no longer need to apply any thinking before responding.  Your welcome.

I said 10% your offer is 5x worse.  Are you trying to rip people off?  :)

This whole thread is for jokes and sarcasm ;)

My point was - for usual people value of bitcoin and value of other coins i exactly same.

In crypto world - yes bitcoin is leader, but with general population after few years - leader will be the one with best connections and biggest budget for marketing.

And with that in mind - is it really that impossible for other scrypt coin to overcome bitcoin? Let's think about your mentioned NVC .. that is russian coin ... now imagine all those crazy russian billionaires buying biggest castles in world and buying biggest yachts ... what if they get bored and suddenly want their own money and decide to put few billions in marketing for NVC just because it's russian? What would happen with bitcoin in that case? Bitcoin as completely decentralised currency doesn't have significant investment from anyone and so is easy target for everyone with money to overrule.

Don't get offended - just discussing that bitcoin has it's own flaws and it's base idea of decentralization is not definitely proof of success. Things can easily turn around at any given moment.

Yay, I'm gonna be rich!

Oh, you're correct. I guess I read that as "10% off" not "10% of". Okay I'll do 5%!

5 original fork BTC for 100 new fork BTC!

Can I suggest an alternative, fork to allow miners choice whether to use scrypt or sha256. This way all of the existing blockchain is still valid as would new blocks from sha256 miners. This would be far more likely to be accepted by more people also.

Those who have invested in ASIC's can continue to use their investment and the rest of us can competitively use GPU's for scrypt. The Bitcoin client would just need to check that each block either validates with sha256 or scrypt. You would need separate difficulty for each though, maybe such that each resolved to 20 minutes each. It needs some thinking about but I reckon this would be more palatable to most and still achieves what you need.

What exactly is suppose to be achieved?

The only reason OP wants to fork is so he can mine some easy Bitcoins. At the moment he can't mine jack, and butthurt about it.  :D

+1

Just a bunch of butthurt kids late to the party.

:D :D :D
Yes, I definently agree.

Can't Argue with the cat...

Never argue with the cat  :o

meiu

So much lol. There is only one solution (http://trilema.com/2013/the-future-of-bitcoin-regulation/) to that problem, and not one within your reach. Write to your senator.