If the community is split and both coins have some financial value, people will mine both of them. People mine Litecoin afterall, which is kind of a fork of bitcoin.
that's not how it will work miners aren't going to take a moral stand if one side starts to min the rest will follow within a day or 2. It will likely go to whatever side the exchanges are on because miners need to sell their coins. Its not about moral stance. In the case that user base is split, exchanges and infrastructure is split, both coins can hold some financial value. If both coins hold financial value there is profit to be made by mining both coins. Of course the value of a united bitcoin would be more then the sum of it split parts. |
|
|
|
|
If the community is split and both coins have some financial value, people will mine both of them. People mine Litecoin afterall, which is kind of a fork of bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Complete lack of understanding on how bitcoin works. Any splits will be resolved quickly due to the incentive of miners to agree. Bitcoin is designed to do this.
we cant really be sure of that. A disputed fork never occurred before, even in other alt coins. We could be in trouble by holding assumptions. |
|
|
|
Hash power could 'fake support it' i.e. pretend to be XT nodes but not actually fork. This could be a method to ensure a stillborn fork without enough hashpower.
Why did the image pass through my mind of a miner vigorously banging his head with a spoon? no idea why. |
|
|
|
The possible complication is if the community gets stuck in a half-way state, with almost equal mining power on each side. Then there may be two blockchains, lots of orphaned blocks and branches, etc..
You don't want to know about that possibility; just pray that it does not happen, and, if it does, just stop issuing transaction until the impasse gets resolved as above. Even after the critical block, all the unspent coins that were created before that block will remain there, no matter what happens.
It was my understanding the XT fork will only take place if 75% of hashpower supports it. I suppose miners could change their minds after the fact, but otherwise a "half-way state" will not result in a fork. Hash power could 'fake support it' i.e. pretend to be XT nodes but not actually fork. This could be a method to ensure a stillborn fork without enough hashpower. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody is saying to never raise the block size. Some people just think it does not need to be done now and the increases should be smaller.
Other people want to increase it aggressively/rapidly.
Either one of these options is not as bad as a split and civil war in the community (in my opinion).
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a new option in the survey:
'Smaller increases in the future'.
|
|
|
|
Core vs XT nodes here http://www.xtnodes.com/Its sad the Bitcoin is splitting. I support the core devs. Ultimately in the long term things will work out tho in anycase. Maybe there will be a 'liberterian' coin, and a 'corporate' coin. May the best coin win. |
|
|
|
|
Moore's law is not a law but a trend. The bitcoin foundation already went almost bankrupt betting on a trend.
We can increase the size when the trend materialises, not before.
btw I am pretty sure my internet speed in Australia did not increase x8 in last 6 years.
Decentralisation is Bitcoins unique killer feature and I believe it should be the top priority, even if it results in slower user growth short term.
|
|
|
|
|
It definitely looks like the bottom is behind us, objectively speaking. There have been so many false hopes tho over the past year and a half that nobody can be sure.
|
|
|
|
ok I get it now. thank you for taking the time to explain it.  |
|
|
|
Bob does not broadcast the refund at start as it would not be included to the block chain or mem pool until its time has come.
The point of micropayment channell is not to broadcast anything but the final version of the settlement transaction.
The payee can flush the latest version of the settlement transaction any time to the block chain which then double spends and thereby invalidates
the refund. If this happens long before the refund timeout then malleability is not a concern.
The payer signs new versions of the settlement transaction and sends them to payee. Payer can not broadcast them as they are only signed by payer.
The payee will sign and broadcast the most favorable to him and that is the regular close of the channel.
What prevents the payer (bob) from spending the bond before the settlement? If it is not on the network? When you say settlement transaction? You mean the two separate transactions, bond and final refund? You mean to say that they are both broadcast at the same time at the 'end of work day'? The payer signs new versions of the settlement transaction and sends them to payee. Payer can not broadcast them as they are only signed by payer. After payer (bob) signs the bond, what prevents Payee (Alice) Spending the bond therefore invalidating refund? The way I understand it if the inputs of a time-locked transaction (refund) are spent before time elapses the time-locked transaction is invalid. |
|
|
|
|
Good luck.
Are there any interesting Bitcoin businesses/startups/projects in Russia (apart from you guys).
Where do most Russian Bitcoiners buy their Bitcoin from?
|
|
|
|
Hi, I just want to know if my understanding of payment channels is correct. I also have some questions that I highlighted in bold. Would be grateful if somebody could answer them. So based on this: https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#micropayment-channel. Scenario: Alice is going to do work and get paid in a micro-channel by Bob. ----------------------- - Bob creates and signs a multisig 2-of-2 transaction for 100 mBTC bond, this has no lock time. -Bob creates and signs a 2-of-2 refund transaction that uses outputs from bond, with time delay, for 100mBTC. -Bob Gives refund transaction to Alice. -Alice checks refund has time delay . -Alice signs refund. -Bob broadcasts refund (correct??)-Bob gives bond transaction to Alice. -Alice signs bond and broadcasts it on network. Does Alice need to wait for at least one confirmation here to prevent Bob double spending bond through eg. transaction malleability or reversing block(s)?-Alice checks refund uses outputs of bond. ?? what prevents this bond being spent by Alice invalidating refund?-Alice does some work. Alice creates 2-of-2 refund for 99 mBTC and gets bob to sign it. She does not sign it.The refund has no time lock and will invalidate the original refund if broadcast before its time lock. -Alice does more work . . . -Alice finishes 30 units of work total. -She signs refund for 70 mBTC and gives Bob to sign. -Alice or Bob broadcast latest refund. -This has to occur before the time delay of the original refund is reached. - the end |
|
|
|
to the moon, there is a lot of FUD out there, from the people who stand to loos control over Bitcoin.
This is the sort of talk that should be avoided. Lets stick to the arguments instead of trying to slander the other side by questioning their motivations. Both sides do this. |
|
|
|
Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0I am not sure if that is wise. In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho. From the video he isn't suggesting he would support adding multiple checkpoint to ignore the most mining power but merely discussing a hypothetical worst case scenario. I agree , that would be a horrible scenario that we should never consider, although may happen and would be disastrous as it would undermine our trust in PoW. Well, I hope they do not try and push it through if they do not have majority (85%+) mining, node and services on board. Trying to go ahead without that consensus, would be damaging I think. Apart from that I guess they have a right to try. tbh Most likely they are doing it now to just try and put some pressure on the other side to yield. |
|
|
|
"just let bitcoin split into multiple children of itself. people will choose whichever they like. like it already is with the existence of altcoins, it is inevitable that the future will be one of competing cryptos. just let it be." A post from a guy called "guy" in the comment's section... https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/I was leaning towards Core, but after reading that comment. I agree. Just let it be. The code rolled out to XT requires 90 % nodes participating before the fork occurs. I sure would hate to be on the chain with 10% of the hashing power and 10% of the nodes. Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0I am not sure if that is wise. In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho. If two sides can not agree, you can not blame the other side for not folding and going your way. It takes two idiots to have a fight, so to speak. Both sides are too blame for the dispute. Actually this debate is trending in the wrong direction, in terms of getting more personal and using ad-hominem attacks (from both sides). Both sides need to respect others choices and opinions. A 'civil war' would be bad for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes. That chart says there's 6k.  That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active. Thanks. Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping. Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet. What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains. Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute. btw my vote is core. |
|
|
|
Im curious about update now. This is my favourite (most useful?) thread on the speculation forum btw . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
