I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up
A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. You don't know how Bitcoin variance works. Much less than an actual 75% of mining power may will inevitably get lucky and prematurely trigger a fork. But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks. Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars: Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class. You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind.  So... 750/1000 may be us just getting lucky...  |
|
|
|
I would rather have all those issues than be half broken. Simple fix for upnp... don't allow it.
Imagine if "we" could be not broken and have bug fixes at the same time, plus 2MB blocks, why didn't anyone think of this...?
Imagine if you could code (or pay someone to code) you could actually fix all those things you perceive as being broken, make changes to your hearts content ... instead of sitting on the sidelines, back-seat driving, monday morning quarter-backing and generally sounding like a pompous know-it-all. Why didn't you think of that? Thankfully, like-minded people... investors, coders, miners, and exchanges are beginning to coalesce around something I agree with. Our mutual self interests align... Imagine that... could it be possible?  |
|
|
|
Can you give a "for example" on the security patches nodes want besides not being half-broken?
Small sample.. #6438 2531438 openssl: avoid config file load/race #6571 100ac4e libbitcoinconsensus: avoid a crash in multi-threaded environments #6694 834e299 [QT] fix thin space word wrap line break issue #6703 1cd7952 Backport bugfixes to 0.11 #6750 5ed8d0b Recent rejects backport to v0.11 #6769 71cc9d9 Test LowS in standardness, removes nuisance malleability vector. #6789 b4ad73f Update miniupnpc to 1.9.20151008 #6785 b4dc33e Backport to v0.11: In (strCommand == “tx”), return if AlreadyHave() #6795 4dbcec0 net: Disable upnp by default I would rather have all those issues than be half broken. Simple fix for upnp... don't allow it. Imagine if "we" could be not broken and have bug fixes at the same time, plus 2MB blocks, why didn't anyone think of this...? |
|
|
|
I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up
A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper. |
|
|
|
You have a strange definition of bugs. After segwit activation, formerly full nodes not running the latest release will not be verifying signatures on witness data. Period. Full stop.
Yes this is what I explained, but they will still verify tx from non-upgraded nodes. The bugs I refer to are in reference to concerns of some that may prefer security patches and not some features like segwit /or RBF. So... half-broken, fine, not a distinction that matters to me. Can you give a "for example" on the security patches nodes want besides not being half-broken? https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/ gives the appearance of consensus forming through democracy but in the end there is little difference as jtoomim or gavin has veto power or can push through a change the community disagrees with - The only real democracy in Bitcoin is measured in PH/s, other elements of the economy may influence them, and rightly so... their business depends on it. |
|
|
|
Deftly keep referring to XT, while Bitmain, BW, (BTCC?), OKcoin, Coinbase are giving support to a simple BIP 102 type bump to Core 0.11 in the form of Classic. Have you asked MP his opinion on the Power Ranger's roadmap? Any big exchanges and miners signed on to the roadmap? (Not sure if Blockstream counts as big, is anyone using Liquid yet?) The MP suicide short is a great incentive to have fiat on the exchange when a fork happens. Like "opportunity of a lifetime" style if he has the stones to do it. (I'm doubtful anyone would take the trouble to list the <25% chain... but if they do, I bet I won't be the only one on the other end of that trade.) "Deftly?" You aren't using that word correctly. Consult a dictionary before you try to match my vocabulary. And read more books. You don't understand how the Gavincoin Short works. At minimum, all that is required is for an exchange (or merchant) to accept my Gavincoins, while my Bitcoins stay safely in the Trezor. No fiat is required. Please learn WTF you are talking about before spewing misinformation. I'm "deftly" (lol such tryhard fuckwit) referring to XT because its Jan 11 trigger date just passed, without even 1 in 1000 recent blocks mined in its favor. Don't you think XT's wimpering nothingburger of a demise is worth remarking upon? Or would you prefer everyone ignore and forget that embarrassing failure? So some large pools/miners/exchanges support a bump to 2MB, in addition to a few of the soundly defeated Gavinistas. Let's see them agree on the timing of that bump, the (contentious?) percent required to trigger its hardfork, and the algorithm (or lack thereof) for future increases.
Done? Good. Now the Gavinista-Redditurd Joint Engineering Committee must decide on whether or not to include RBF (and what flavor), SegWit, and CLTV. Good luck with that.  One does not simply raise the blocksize. You should know that by now! The Old English word gedæfte, which means "mild" or "gentle," is the root of the word deftly, whose meaning still has that sense of doing something both skillfully and gently, or effortlessly. So now you know.  You skillfully, gently, and effortlessly substitute XT for your real fear, which is now Bitcoin Classic. A distinction you are cautious to publicly ignore, for good reason. You, of all people, know I have been more of a Garzik guy than a Hearn guy, and never was stridently supportive of XT... even during the days of the gold thread that shall not be named. If a fork happens... Mircea dumps his "gavincoins" and keeps the worthless ones, I get it. We get cheap coinz in the moment his rage is absorbed. Happy and heady days. |
|
|
|
A hard fork is the honest way to force nodes to upgrade. A soft fork is a way to break them and suggest they upgrade.
1) Segwit isn't optional for a full node. And it gives only 0.4 to 0.75MB gain for a full bushel of complexity via an opcode hack.
How does a softfork break old nodes? The bugs exist with or without the new changes and one can backport any bugfixes to previous versions that don't want new features like segwit. Yes, segwit is indeed optional for full nodes, non-upgraded full nodes will continue to work and verify non segwit tx's,if and when you are the last non-segwit node than that is one of the most ideal examples of consensus we can have, where 99.99% of other nodes have switched over and you are the only one remaining , much fairer and flexible than a hard fork with lower consensus numbers. You have a strange definition of bugs. After segwit activation, formerly full nodes not running the latest release will not be verifying signatures on witness data. Period. Full stop. 2) We are talking open source code here where miners can get the modest increase in max_block_size they requested without all the extra "benefits", Classic.
Are you suggesting the miners aren't excited about the features and benefits of segwit and are instead merely salivating over the extra tx fees from a mere 0-0.3 MB in capacity increase that classic is possibly proposing above segwit? Hopefully you are not suggesting that only the variable maxBlockSize needs to be changed for Classic either- CVE-2013-2292. I'm not sure how excited miners are about segwit. If you have any statements or acknowledgements from Pool admins stating that they support segwit as a solution well into 2017 I'm open to read them, is eloipool still a thing? My personal opinion is that segwit would be cleaner, more thoroughly analyzed, and be better prepared for if released without the time crunch and soft fork provisos. In the end, my opinion doesn't matter much, that's why I bitch on these fora so much. The only influence I have is my node, a few rigs, my funds, and my words. Classic seems to be more collaborative in the way they approach miners and users about these issues... I agree that they are not fully fleshed out in terms of the distant future, but collaboration is messier than dictatorship, and this is the important issue of the day... imo. jtoomim goes into more detail here: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ygu5d/blocksize_consensus_census/cydpcob |
|
|
|
@iCE Deftly keep referring to XT, while Bitmain, BW, (BTCC?), OKcoin, Coinbase are giving support to a simple BIP 102 type bump to Core 0.11 in the form of Classic. Have you asked MP his opinion on the Power Ranger's roadmap? Any big exchanges and miners signed on to the roadmap? (Not sure if Blockstream counts as big, is anyone using Liquid yet?) The MP suicide short is a great incentive to have fiat on the exchange when a fork happens. Like "opportunity of a lifetime" style if he has the stones to do it. (I'm doubtful anyone would take the trouble to list the <25% chain... but if they do, I bet I won't be the only one on the other end of that trade.) |
|
|
|
Unlike Coinbase, their employees and founders (currently) have and are exercising the power to veto any hardfork, even a bump to 2MB.
You are very confused. Core cannot force the miners , nodes, processors, and users what code to use. The veto is completely within our power. All I have to do I download a copy of Bitcoin XT or unlimited and I vetoed Core. A 12 year old child can create and alternative implementation and we can collectively veto core. Core only has power insomuch as we give them power and it can be taken away quickly in a moments notice. I'll forego the introductory insult. You're right in explicit terms, I was speaking in practical terms. What you describe may be exactly what will happen, aside from the 12 year old child part and swapping an overambitious BIP101 with BIP102. Soft forks don't require consensus.
They require consensus with adoption. If you don't upgrade you don't adopt segwit. And your former full node is knocked back to SPV+ mode without your request or permission. Do you know what happens to the (real, verifying) node count when segwit happens?
Sure... but let me guess a few of your disagreements. Soft forks are voluntary but than the old nodes won't get the lower fees and won't be able to verify properly new segwit txs making them obsolete. A soft fork forces nodes to upgrade to insure they get bug fixes otherwise they will be vulnerable. Let me address these two concerns: 1) The tx fees comparing now to after segwit on non-upgraded nodes will remain the same unless a fee event occurs which is the exact same scenario with or without segwit. If you don't like the bundling of the other features with capacity improvement than that is what other implementations are for. 2) We are discussing open source code here, which means we can take all the bugfixes and backpatch them to previous versions so they remain segwit free and secure. A hard fork is the honest way to force nodes to upgrade. A soft fork is a way to break them and suggest they upgrade. 1) Segwit isn't optional for a full node. And it gives only 0.4 to 0.75MB gain for a full bushel of complexity via an opcode hack. 2) We are talking open source code here where miners can get the modest increase in max_block_size they requested without all the extra "benefits", Classic. |
|
|
|
big blockers seem too well acquainted with random bad luck ... or maybe they are just losers who don't know squat?
Weak. Try harder. yawn .. you guys are just a bunch of jealous blowhards who've never actually produced anything, except lots of noise and fanboy hero worship for the Gav and Hearn the huckster. same old, same here it seems ... why bother dropping in to listen to broken record troll-hards? We've had news, you can now add Jeff Garzik to the list of hucksters. https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/687352747465830400 |
|
|
|
I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.
Why not just soft fork it down to 0.5MB to clear up some of this cruft sooner than later? Bitcoin is a value storage and transfer tool of the wealthy elite, poors may use doge and litecoin. |
|
|
|
Did I say LN? I can think of 21 million reasons that there will be more solutions than just open source pre-paid payment channels.
Sure, Like their product "Liquid"? Why Shouldn't hard work and innovation be rewarded whether its with Blockstream product liquid, Coinbases products like shift , or any other company. We all benefit from these competing products. Not necessarily like Liquid, but yes, proprietary software and networks where money can actually be made. Like Coinbase, their investors want ROI. Unlike Coinbase, their employees and founders (currently) have and are exercising the power to veto any hardfork, even a bump to 2MB. Your fears are completely misguided as you assume some sort of control or lock-in with developers or code when the reality is that we can go completely down the rabbit hole of core with LN framework and easily revert back to an XT model. The greater concern should be on the centralization of ASIC manufacturing, node count and Pool mining.
Who is this we you're talking about? Soft forks don't require consensus. 60% of current nodes are not running the latest Core release. Do you know what happens to the (real, verifying) node count when segwit happens? The free market will handle ASIC and Pool concentration, as it always has. It may concentrate further, it may not... not to be "fixed" by the central Core politburo and their apparatchiks. |
|
|
|
Blockstream may hope that alternative is them, and they need Bitcoin to still function as a settlement layer...
I keep hearing these insinuations that Blockstream is going to control the payment channel layer (LN) . Do you guys really think that LN isn't going to be open source and available for any node to to compete with Blockstream settlement nodes with? Do you really believe that any of us will bother touching any payment channel that isn't open source? Did I say LN? I can think of 21 million reasons that there will be more solutions than just open source pre-paid payment channels. |
|
|
|
The sheer intellectual candlepower being demonstrated in this thread is nearly blinding. To continue in the vein of the previous poster, lemme add to it by way of the Mircea vault |
|
|
|
-snip-
THEREFOR: We will hit the limit and have a network congestion failure. The price will crash. It is almost inevitable now. The only question is when. My best guess is two months.
THEREFOR we are fucked.
Hitting the cap and negating use cases for the network isn't a fireworks explosion, we've been over this. It's a slow bleed away of utility. Some "store of value because reasons™ people", some illicit commerce, some off chain speculation, will all still be around to a degree... It may take years to fully squander the first mover advantage to other alternatives. Blockstream may hope that alternative is them, and they need Bitcoin to still function as a settlement layer... See, it's not as bad as it could be. If you still have any concerns, please consult the roadmap. Moderators are standing by to assist you. |
|
|
|
Our gracious politburo has deemed this information unfit for your consumption. https://archive.is/UsUH3Summarily deleted. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining is more like a cartel rather than a free market. When 4-5 people have supermajority, it's an issue.
A little different when these 4-5 people are backed by thousands who contribute hashes to them, and will move their hashes if they vehemently disagree with their decisions. In development, we have even fewer people with permanent veto power to block any change involving a hardfork, because consensus. Oh, and these people happen to have formed a company, and have been given $21 mil to build a profit seeking business that can provide the medicine for a disease that they incubated... an issue indeed. |
|
|
|
(Agree that Marshall Long is a bit of a douche... but Antminer, BW, OKcoin, BTCC? etc etc are pretty serious endorsements)
And what exactly are they endorsing? Changing a constant to 2MB? The only people who can seriously do development and maintenance work are core devs. Not bitpay, or coinbase, or the miners. Anyone can set the constant to whatever value and say "this is bitcoin xt, unlimited, classic" etc. You really think that all people capable of developing Bitcoin are on Blockstream's payroll? That doesn't sound very promising for our decentralized, trustless network. The Core devs had a chance and a clear endorsement by miners to start planning a hardfork after Hong Kong. They ignored it and offered to shoehorn in segwit with a soft fork to gain 0.6MB, with NO hardfork in the cards at all for the foreseeable future, and with the added side "benefit" of knocking possibly a majority of current nodes to SPV+ mode. Some miners didn't like that, this is how they demonstrate their disapproval. If Core devs can't stand being second guessed by the free market... this is the way the free market could gently show them the door. If it never hits 75%, they have nothing to worry about and were right all along. It would be a clear vote of confidence in their chosen direction, a win-win. |
|
|
|
This drop is brought to you by the good folks at Bitcoin Classic.  Hopefully ya'll enjoy being hard forked into double digits prices  What is Bitcoin Classic? So basically the fork we've been waiting on? Why is that a bad thing? Because forks, especially controversial ones, can mean trouble. 75% of the last 1000 mined blocks to activate means the remaining 25% will switch sides very fast or be left trying to mine worthless coins at an extreme difficulty. This is how Bitcoin was designed to resolve disputes. If it never hits 75%, nothing happens. Now you know. (Agree that Marshall Long is a bit of a douche... but Antminer, BW, OKcoin, BTCC? etc etc are pretty serious endorsements) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
