Why should they not monitor the other chain and instead close down completely? That makes no sense businesswise.
You can't just watch as you are risking the loss of your fiat - so any sensible business is going to put up a sign like this: "Sorry - no fiat withdrawals until the fork situation has been resolved." |
|
|
|
You are right, they will chose one chain. But that doesn't say that they can check incoming deposits against the deposit on the other chain. When they received the bitcoins not only on their chosen chain but on the fork too then they can accept that deposit because it is riskless.
Why should they not monitor the other chain and instead close down completely? That makes no sense businesswise.
You are talking nonsense (again) - if you accept coins that end up being on a failed fork then you cannot spend them. Got it? So if I am exchange A and I accept coins on Fork A and am giving someone fiat for those coins then I've already spent the fiat and end up becoming a bag-holder of a useless alt. Now tell me why any business is going to take on such a risk? |
|
|
|
but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...
There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not). |
|
|
|
Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?
If you mean that the tx capacity should increase by around twofold then yes. |
|
|
|
I don't see why it is fine for you to run a softfork that activates after 75% of the hashpower is using it or a hard fork that goes life after similar thresholds. Double standards? It would still show that the majority supports something.
All soft forks so far have only been enforced after a 95% threshold (and this will apply with SegWit as well). The only people trying to push for a 75% hard-fork are Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin XT (the latter being now defunct). |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a democracy (have you not even read Satoshi's paper?).
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
|
|
|
|
Fake bitcoin classic nodes would not be able to raise the percent of support since they aren't actual miners. At the end the amount of hashrates are mattering.
Hashers can throw their power behind a classic miner then later withdraw their hashing power. And when a fork happens then when support for this new system raises a high value which means everyone will switch then since it is very unlikely that they will drop again then.
As I've stated I don't think we are just dealing with sensible people making sensible decisions. If Bitcoin Classic were to stick to the way that soft forks have so been done (95% before activation of the new feature) then all of this controversy would go away. If the vast majority of people do want 2MB blocks then I don't see that 95% should be a problem (and for the record I don't really care if the blocks are 1MB or 2MB). |
|
|
|
I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?
One bug would have resulted in the block reward coming back (at 50 BTC per block) when it should have been zero (so the supply was not actually 21M). He didn't even predict GPU mining (that seemed to take him completely by surprise and he basically asked people not to do it). (and there are plenty of other things) |
|
|
|
I think they need only to check if the coins reached on the deposit address on both chains. Then these coins are safe. It doesn't matter then which chain will win since they have the bitcoins on both chains.
Huh? You are not making sense. An exchange is going to on one fork or the other (not both unless they want to be giving away fiat). If your exchange decides on Fork A and then Fork B finally wins out then that exchange will go "belly up" (as all the coins it has had deposited would be unsalable). |
|
|
|
To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly.
Satoshi made quite a few mistakes so hero worshiping of him is not really an answer to anything. |
|
|
|
Did you buy this account? Your recent posts don't strike me as the CIYAM of old.
For one, why do you think 'two weeks' is in any way relevant?
Seriously? Two weeks is just a guess so feel free to interpret that as two months if you prefer (it doesn't really change the issue one way or the other). Previously I've steered clear of any "politics" on this forum but with all of the misinformation that is being posted on behalf of those wanting a hostile takeover of the project to occur I felt it was time to "make a statement". |
|
|
|
I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).
Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays. If people want to keep on insisting that Bitcoin should do the impossible (and then whine when it doesn't) then that really isn't my fault is it. |
|
|
|
|
If the Bitcoin Classic was going to use 95% then I wouldn't have a problem but unfortunately they have stated that they are going to enforce their new rules at 75%.
The reason that this is so dangerous is that for certain there will be an equivalent of NoXT appearing (meaning that they don't actually have 75% of nodes but maybe not even 50%).
So if you have enough resources then you create a few thousand nodes (not too hard to believe possible) then prepare to sell all your BTC on the fork and once you have removed the fiat you "switch back" and then you sell it all again.
|
|
|
|
No, I am legitimately concerned with the block size stalemate, just like the original poster, and I'm just trying to understand the dilemma better. I believe in Bitcoin and want it to succeed....I want to have access to a decentralized, non-regulated, pseudo-anonymous currency with small transaction fees that will be accepted globally. That's all.
If you have legit concerns then you could just PM me or someone else (but I don't think you'll do that as you want to have your posts seen - especially as you have a rather big ad sig). |
|
|
|
Yup, that's why there is a 75% threshold so your scenario won't happen. 75% is more than enough. It means on the worst case, 75% agreed to leave at most 25% behind. I doubt 25% will stick with the old chain anyway.
I guess you didn't closely follow about what happened with NotXT. I can guarantee you that there will be fake BitcoinClassic nodes created so that it seems that 75% is achieved and then after one day - that 75% will disappear (and this is why all exchanges will simply stop exchanging as they know that this will happen). Irrelevant. Miners won't mine on faked nodes and mine will be very real. That's all I care. An idiotic statement. If the exchanges shut down then miners will stop mining. |
|
|
|
Then you don't understand how the actual fiat system works.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? If you are exchanging fiat for BTC and your blockchain ends up being deleted (due to a fork) then you just lost your fiat. (as you should well know there are now refunds so the criminals are all waiting and hoping for this fork so that they can steal) |
|
|
|
I mean, R3CEV has invested more on research than the entire marketcap of Bitcoin. And Ethereum has capabilities that far surpass Bitcoin....are we going to let an Alt win, even though we have all the brains on our team?
Thanks for making it clearer who is actually paying you to post. |
|
|
|
Yup, that's why there is a 75% threshold so your scenario won't happen. 75% is more than enough. It means on the worst case, 75% agreed to leave at most 25% behind. I doubt 25% will stick with the old chain anyway.
I guess you didn't closely follow about what happened with NotXT. I can guarantee you that there will be fake BitcoinClassic nodes created so that it seems that 75% is achieved and then after one day - that 75% will disappear (and this is why all exchanges will simply stop exchanging as they know that this will happen). |
|
|
|
STOP SPREADING FUD!
Sorry - no FUD here - if you think an exchange is going to risk losing all their fiat on a fork you are sadly mistaken. (exchanges don't actually work for a loss) |
|
|
|
Of course they didn't because NO ONE actually think they will go bankrupt for switching to Classic and increase bitcoin's capacity.
If the vast majority do not agree then you end up with 2 Bitcoins. Do you not understand this? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
