So basically a) a fork will have to happen rather it is a month from now or a year and b) it only has negitive outcomes? This is where I think bitcoin gets really confusing.  Of course you're confused. Where did you get that there are only negative outcomes? Clearly one decision is the right one. The problem is people don't agree on which one. |
|
|
|
If Mircea is such a "crackpot" why does he have so many more Bitcons than you?
They are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Several powerful miners have announced to pretend to use XT and to switch back after the fork so, yes, baby ther will be two chains because people will not be blackmailed into 20MB blocks.
I don't believe they are serious, though. Either you support the fork or you don't. Switching back and forth just seems childish to me. |
|
|
|
That's other fork. “Fork” in Bitcoin means something else. |
|
|
|
This clears up a lot of confusion and misconception people are spreading around. I don't see it as an issue because either the fork goes along well and the new blockchain gets accepted or most likely a large portion of the community members refused to upgrade to the newer client version and the old blockchain remains. Perhaps the concern here is whether if 51-49 percent between the yes and no group or somewhere near that region that leaves the community generally undecided, would that actually cause the network to become unstable and prone to attack.
It's a big problem not as easy as that. If you are running a business, will you switch to XT or stay in core? Will Da Dice pay us in Core or in XT BTC? for example. You're not paying attention. Please read the original post again. |
|
|
|
in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?
That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork. still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority Afaik 51% just means danger zone activated, but it doesn't necessarily mean at soon as you hit 51% attacks are effective. We're not talking about attacks here. Please read the topic before commenting. |
|
|
|
in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?
That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork. still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority Well, if you just left it at 51%, the network is still unstable and can still go either side. With 90%, the probability of success is increased. |
|
|
|
If I wanted what the "rest of the world" wanted I would just put fiat in a bank. By your definition, we are already on the "losing side" because we use Bitcoin over fiat.
Bitcoin adoption is growing. I don't get how's that being on the losing side. I use Bitcoin for certain reasons, and if Bitcoin forks into something I don't agree with, I will continue to use OldBitcoin, even if it's not accepted at Starbucks like NewBitcoin.
Very idealistic, but we need consensus for a reason. |
|
|
|
in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?
That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork. |
|
|
|
What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?
What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?
While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there. So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted? Because you're on the losing side. You will only have a blockchain for you and your friends, and it will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is actually using. |
|
|
|
What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?
What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?
While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there. |
|
|
|
So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied. When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains. Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD. But what if I spend all my BitcoinA AND then also spend all my BitcoinB - will that be 'double spending'? Will I actually get to buy twice as much stuff now? It seems like this will result in 21M X 2 bitcoins in total. I like this idea. I've been trying to find an easy way to double my money. I say go with the fork!! No, you still don't understand. There won't be “Bitcoin A” and “Bitcoin B” at the same time. Either one or the other exists, and you won't be able to exchange between. |
|
|
|
The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?
Sidechains All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem? Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read? Look at Greg Maxwells github page. Can you be more specific? I see a lot of projects in his page. |
|
|
|
In theory, a powerful enough quantum computer could bruteforce anything.
No, I don't think that's true. There are mathematical problems that are complex enough that even quantum computers wouldn't make a difference to them. |
|
|
|
The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?
Sidechains All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem? Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read? |
|
|
|
The forum isn't a video a game. New ranks can be added as and when needed just like Legendary was. The ranks are just a way to show the age / activity of an account.
The forum isn't a video game, but there's no reason why we can't implement gamification in it. The Stack Exchange network does something similar (with points and achievements), and I think it works fine, encouraging people to give useful answers. |
|
|
|
So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied. When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains. Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD. |
|
|
|
You're not wrong. You are missing the fact that you now have two separate groups of devs each advancing different clients at the same time. What do you suppose that's going to create?
Why 'two'? Afaik there's no general consensus among all of those who oppose XT. Core and XT - two. But if there's no consensus in 'core' group (some want 1mb to stay, some want to increase it but not the 'XT' way etc) then you can hardly call them 'group of devs', they'll either further divide or stagnate if no consensus is reached. There are four key devs supporting core and against XT. Gregory Maxwell Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access. Pieter Wuille Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access. Matt Corallo Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits Luke Dashjr Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose? |
|
|
|
As only block size is being increased, wont bitcoin core coins be compatible to bitcoin XT as their block size is lower than the proposed one for bitcoin XT ? Just wondering  Yes. basically. A fork will only happen the moment the first > 1 MB block is created, which as knightdk just said, will happen only after more than 90% of the network is running the new version. |
|
|
|
That's not Gavin, but Peter Todd. What Gavin is proposing is still 20 MB blocks, even if other people say otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
