All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.
Acutally not. Some of the miners on the 2 MB block size support list mine blocks of 912 or 976 KB. If they really want larger blocks, they could at least produce 1 MB blocks. MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1 000 000 bytes 1 000 000 bytes / 1024 = 976,56 bytesSo current (EDIT:) maximum blocksize limit is 976 kibibytes or 1000 kilobytes. That is the source of "976". But not all mines will always produce maximum blocksize blocks. Some even mine empty blocks. It has always been this way and it probably always will. And they have right to do so. By the way, that is the reason why blocks are full right now. Because there will never be a situation when all blocks are at 1MB, because some miners always mine smaller ones. |
|
|
|
Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.
It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe." Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written, it's until now a mere theoretical construction. Very well, I have misquoted something in a hurry. Thanks for clarification. |
|
|
|
Issue update: Peter Todd is starting to have serious doubts if implementing SegWit as soft fork is the right way to go: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43bgrs/peter_todd_sw_is_not_safe_as_a_softfork/While segregated witnesses is a soft-fork, because it adds new data blocks that old nodes don't relay segwit nodes can't sync from non-segwit nodes and still be fully validating; once the segwit softfork has activated full nodes need witness data to function. This poses a major problem during deployment: if full node adoption lags miner adoption, the segwit-supporting P2P network can partition and lose consensus. While Pieter Wuille's segwit branch(1) doesn't yet implement a fix for the above problem, the obvious thing to do is to add a new service bit such as NODE_SEGWIT, and/or bump the protocol version, and for outgoing peers only connect to peers with segwit support. Interestingly, a closely related problem already exists in Bitcoin Core: neither addrman nor the outgoing connection thread takes what service bits a peer advertises into account. So if a large number of non-block-relaying nodes joined the network and advertised their addresses the network could, in theory, partition even without an explicit attack. (My own full-RBF fork of Bitcoin Core does fix(2) this issue, though by accident!) EDIT: This was said by said by Pieter Wuille: So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that. So basically, Bitcoin Core may no longer be safe - and this is said by (edit:) Core-Team supporter s. And guess what: Peter Todd actually proposes to do a hard-fork in order to make SegWit safe !Gavin Andersen said long ago that segwit as a soft-fork is worse than as a hard fork: http://gavinandresen.svbtle.com/segregated-witness-is-cool |
|
|
|
Here is your concrete:
[image]
OK great, so that's it. You are officially a troll now and this is how I will treat you. Lol the VERified whiners are having a hard time convincing people to follow them in their shitty inflated shitcoin fork.
Another troll pretender ? |
|
|
|
You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored.
Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time.
Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues.
Again, If you did not accept the Fact 1, that those boards are censored, and there are down vote robots that hide every single post that challenges the official narrative, why should I waste my time in further discussion? There were no facts in what you supplied. There was no proof. And downvote robots are everywhere. I am actually starting to believe you may be a robot of some kind. Anybody can photoshop such a fake, this means nothing. Seriously, are you a troll, a child or a mentally disabled person ? I am sorry, but I really don't have time to explain such simple things. I am not paid to convince people. Nobody accused you of being paid, so why are you explaining yourself ? This is suspicious. Now it's like you actually are paid by somebody. You have the freedom to fork back off to reddit, and you can Believe What You Want To Believe.
I have the freedom to believe you are a troll with - No facts - No proof - No arguments Give us something concrete or get out of this discussion. You are really wasting mine, your and everybody else's time. |
|
|
|
r/btc
r/bitcoin_uncensored>credible source of informationYes it happens, even to the brightest ones of us. It's not a shame to admit that one has been deceived. I know it looks really convincing. You have no reason to doubt these places are uncensored and you have completely no proof whatsoever that any of them is censored. Please provide a strong proof or stop wasting my time. Unless you are a troll who is trying to water down the important issues. |
|
|
|
@Luke-Jr The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate. And you responded with: That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.
@Luke-Jr Elaborate, or I call bullshit. |
|
|
|
Guys just ask yourself Cui bono?
We in Germany ask us that at the moment all the time ABout Angela Merkel who is Destroying our countries with mass muslime immigrations ...Who controll her and whats the plan ?
So the Core devs gots shithole of money to do this...they are not stupid people....just Money rulezz
If Blockstream give me 5000 btc i will code whatever they want i would not much care also if the BTC miner get the fees
or Blockstream gets the money.....
They are like our Goverment bought by too much Money....
I am sorry, my brain really cannot process what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.
Incorrect. Not vaporware, code is available, source: https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/693136607659069441Also there are already 48 nodes running, source: http://xtnodes.com/Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.
There is no proof whatsoever about what you are saying. Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.
The "weak chain" will quickly die, but you will able to move your coins to the "stronger chain" any time. No problem with that. Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.
I don't think the words you are saying mean what you think they mean, please elaborate. Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.
We don't need such proposal currently. Bitcoin does not need to scale to VISA levels tomorrow. Rome wasn't built in a day. Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.
Now, this is some kind of hardcore extreme bullshit. Explain in detail what you mean by "spam cannot be detected" and "stress test never ends" and what does it have to do with Bitcoin Classic or hard fork. 0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed. 0 confirmation transactions were never ever safe. So what is your point ? All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block. 1MB is no kind of satoshi nakamoto "rule". 1MB is simply a temporary anti-spam measure. Everybody knows this and Core developers also know this. Some of them are just too deep in shit with their heads to admit it. 1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay
Is $50 a "proper fee" ? Once the network starts congesting, not only will the fees go up significantly, but Bitcoin transactions will become unreliable. This is why RBF was created by Peter Todd for Bitcoin Core. The only way you can make transactions fast & reliable with 1MB blocks is using RBF. But RBF is fatally flawed itself, check this out: RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver. 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42m4po/its_a_sad_day_when_core_devs_appear_to_understand/2. especially: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42lhe7/usability_nightmare_rbf_is_sort_of_like_writing_a/3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zju81/rbf_optin_a_man_walk_in_a_bar_order_a_coffe_drink/In short: You can choose whether to send RBF, you can choose whether to mine RBF, but you cannot choose whether you receive it or not. "RBF is sort of like writing a paper check, but filling in the recipient's name and the amount in pencil so you can erase it later and change it." - /u/rowdy_beaver (on reddit.com/r/btc). RBF could have the potential to completely destroy 0-conf transactions widely & successfully used today. RBF / Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen. |
|
|
|
Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what would happen if the network split 80/20. Check it out: http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen) Many people, me too, think he is wrong. He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork, do you ? He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer). Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is willing to admit that. They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created. I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought (...) businesses wanting to switch to an
altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.
I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all. Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.Bitcoin this agreement is defined in
the
software. No, this is not what I was asking. Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ? So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad
with power.
I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here. (Read again – what he wrote is not what you think he claims.) Oh, it is extremely relevant. - Adam Back is the president of Blockstream. - Adam Back lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above- Adam Back condones censorship. - Adam Back has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread. - Adam Back wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain. So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain. Nope, I read it again - with
context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.
You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority". Which is actually the opposite of what he actually wrote: " majority MUST NOT be able to override minority" I.e. consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants. Let's sum it up. - Consensus is NOT what majority wants - Consensus is NOT what minority wants Loigically, the only thing left is that Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants. And that is exactly what I have stated. So for Adam Back, consensus is what Blockstream wants. Which is clearly visible in his posts. - He thinks he is smarter than everybody - He thinks he always knows better - He actually thinks he invented Bitcoin and it is his to do as he pleases. This is completely unacceptable for me and should be unacceptable for any Bitcoin user.Consensus is based on the agreement
which was there from the beginning. Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general
agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain. Neither can a majority. Soe logically by what you are saying is: - Majority cannot override "consensus" - Users cannot override "consensus" ( they are the majority !) So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have said. You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any
way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is
the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true"
Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.
You don't get it. Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes. Not just a majority. This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work. You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work. With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies. The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore highly unlikely. - Gavin knows this - Jeff knows this - All Core devs know this The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above - some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit. Are you telling me you don't support this!? Why do you hate children? Do you kill babies for a hobby?  Stop this offtopic now. I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here. Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine. Read it again, and see if you can understand it.
ROFL! Read it again. "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new
protocol consensually."
How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate? At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into
many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or
that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain. (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if
they gain more mining power.)
Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade. SPV clients are mostly safe after a
softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid. (In a
hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending
on
which node it connects to.) Oh, now I get it. You and me are talking about 2 different things. You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus". I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed. Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new system, otherwise there may be problems. By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do. - To do hard fork, actually 60% "consensus" is enough. (but 75% is of course better) The other 40%/25% will quickly migrate to the winning side of the fork. - To do soft fork (which Core wants to do), 90% may not be enough. |
|
|
|
Just a quick thread refresh, so we all know what are we dealing with here...Proceeding with the discussion soon... ---- This is what this topic is about. Stop watering it down: While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be Hahahaha. That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there. Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream: Adam Back Gregory Maxwell Luke-Jr Matt Corallo Pieter Wuille That's not all - people above are actually the founders of Blockstream & whole lightning concept. Just a reminder, Adam Back, president of blockstream openly condones censorship: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/Gregory Maxwell also condones censorship: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/And he is a manipulative lying bastard, proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/And he openly supports attacking competing projects: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/...which Adam Back also does. He really likes sabotage, that one: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hc4nu/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.I will repeat this once more, for posterity: Saying that "bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control" is exactly like saying that "car is just horse carriage extended with combustion engine"A person who said such thing must have HUGE ego problems.The source of the quote: https://twitter.com/adam3usMirror in case he changes it:  So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?
(I guess this should be the key issue here)
Correct. Proceeding with developer list. Please note the metric used (number of commits) is far from perfect (Not done by me - found on reddit):  So basically, Bitcoin Core is clearly under direct strong influence by blockstream.-------------------------------------------------
The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.
Tell me moreHere you are: 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/2. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/3. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/4. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/5. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/6. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxy4fpx?context=37. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxxvep4?context=38. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/EDIT: Oh, almost forgot these. These are golden: 9. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/10. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40qvwd/bitcoin_classic_hard_fork_causes_chaos_on/All done by small blockists & blockstream employees & blockstream supporters. If you genuinely want what is good for others, you don't use evil tactics to achieve it. ------------------------------------------------- Please remember that even if you don't understand Bitcoin technically, you can still vote correctly in the blocksize debate: How ? The only thing that you actually need to consider is the actions taken by both sides of the debate. There is only one side of the debate here that repeatedly tries to stifle discussion by resorting to censorship, DDoSing, outright lying while simultaneously pretending that nothing is actually happening. Check out yourself. If they wanted the best for Bitcoin users, they wouldn't have to lie, censor and directly attack their opponents. Such actions clearly show their evil intentions and their ulterior hidden agenda. Words are often meaningless. Words are cheap. These days you can actually detect bullshit and real intentions of evil people only by watching their actions. This is at least a 2000-year old truth. "You will recognize them by their fruits" it said in some ancient book. So basically, the side of the debate that resorts to censorship, lying, manipulation and attacks, is 99,99% of the time the dishonest side which is trying to do something evil while pretending to do something good.
|
|
|
|
New archived thread backup (in case of censorship): https://archive.is/eYLZrEDIT:Well, that's enough for me today. Goodnight everybody. |
|
|
|
No, miners don't matter. If a miner break consensus, users and merchants won't accept their blocks. They will just make themselves irrelevant, mining worthless coins. Nobody wants to have software with critical bugs. It is quite easy to achieve consensus about that. I remember the one back in 2010 when someone discovered they could make 184 billion BTC for themselves in the coinbase transaction due to an integer overflow bug. That one was resolved quickly as well. In both cases the hard fork was caused by an unintentional bug. Bitcoin is still i beta. Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what would happen if the network split 80/20. Check it out: http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen) Irrelevant. My dictionary still have the same defintition of consensus as it always had. Let's get on the same page. What actually is your definition of consensus ? So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.
I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here. (Read again – what he wrote is not what you think he claims.) Nope, I read it again - with context and I still think my argument stands. Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding. Bitcoin is built on some hard rules which cannot change unless all users agree to the change. As long as some (or in this case most) users don't agree to change the rules, it is impossible. You can only add new more restrictive rules, not change or remove existing rules. People who cannot live with the rules as they are, have to use something else. There are plenty of altcoins to choose from, and it shouldn't be a problem to anyone. Wait a minute... what exactly is your point ? Are you trying to say that if 100% users don't agree to change, then the change cannot happen ? Am I getting this right ? Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way. I can never remember bitcoin beeing about what a majority wants. Bitcoin wasn't designed that way. Can I run a campaign to make 100 BTC extra for UNICEF? Just 100 BTC? That's not much, and I'm sure it will help a lot of children. I will probably get at least as as many supporters as those who want to change the maximum block size rule. Perhaps make it 1000 BTC. Or even more. It is a good cause. You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any way you want. If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true" Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it. However the probability you could pull something like this is almost equal to zero. The only change a majority can do, is to impose new rules, i.e. stricter rules which will be imposed on new blocks. Blocks adhering to the new rule will still be valid to old nodes, but blocks may have to confirm to an extra rule to be accepted by upgraded nodes. This is called a soft fork. Soft forks are typically activated only after 95% of the hashpower enforce the new rules. Otherwise false confirmations may show up to old nodes whenever an old node mine a block.
This is basically completely wrong and has no basis in anything. I don't think you understand what a soft fork and hard fork is. Here is a pretty good explanation: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-forkIn short, I would say that hard forks are the ones that split the network in 2 separate ones - old and new - and make a "clean cut", while soft forks "pretend" to all old clients that nothing has changed, so the old clients can keep working (but important: the old clients are not working 100% correctly while not knowing that anything happened). So basically, hard fork is kind of more open and honest way of doing changes, while soft-fork is more of a "sneaky" way that makes a change and pretends that nothing has happened to the network. I think I explained it right. |
|
|
|
Not really just business, say, you are buying bitcoins yourself. In fact, in which case, the smaller the hashrate remains on the old chain, the more dangerous it became for those left behind.
Well it is not really dangerous. Your money will not be lost. The worst thing that could happen is you get but scammed but - as I said - it is not so easy a scam to pull. Also, generally when running business it is your goddamn job to make sure that everything is ok. If you don't know that, you should not even start a business.
A merchant using USD certainly should not be expected to keep up with Fed's monetary policy, waiting for x confirmations is as much due diligence as should be expected from him. Well yeah, but what kind of comparison is this ? USD is not a new, dynamically developing technology. I am sure that after 50 years Bitcoin will also stabilize and become the "boring, old Bitcoin" that everybody knows. But not now, not today. The grace period is actually much much longer, because the whole situation will be widely known at least few months before that happens. So companies actually have months to change, not weeks.
Assuming the information is equally accessible to all corners of the world, this economy is way larger than we think. Well sorry, but if some merchant on the other end of the world is many months behind what is happening in Bitcoin world, then that is seriously his problem. The technological landscape & Bitcoin landscape are moving & changing extremely fast. You have to keep up just to stay alive. That is kind of normal.But anyway, I know I am not going to convince you,
To convince me, you need stronger arguments. The ones you have given are not super-strong and absolute. Well, you could be correct to some extent. What you say may even be true and might happen, but the probability of that happening is rather low. I am just saying not all anti-Classic people have evil agendas, that's all.
Nowehere I said that you have a hidden agenda. Lately I am becoming better and better at detecting bullshit. I don't see any bullshit in what you are saying. Just average arguments. |
|
|
|
Also, I think the important point is: let's just not say if your 'grace period' is too short, what if you see 5% of nodes hanging out there and have not upgraded? 15%, 25%? What if they still haven't upgraded after the fork because, well their admins could just go on vacation or something? What would happen to all the SPV clients connecting to them? Are you going to back down in this hypothetical situation? If they won't upgrade, the new clients will not even sync with the old relays, because blocks will be seen as invalid by the clients. If we are talking about SPV clients, which don't see any blocks, then their money will also not be lost. They will regain the control of their money once all of them (relay/processor + client) upgrade. The money will not be lost in (almost ?) any case.Also, generally when running business it is your goddamn job to make sure that everything is ok. If you don't know that, you should not even start a business. The grace period is actually much much longer, because the whole situation will be widely known at least few months before that happens. So companies actually have months to change, not weeks.Well, I think that covers it. |
|
|
|
In the 2013 accidental fork, which lasted for 6 hours, someone managed to successfully double spend Okpay, this time an attacker would have months of time ahead to prepare for one. But now everybody will have a lot of time to prepare for such scams. Also payment processors have insurance, so not so big problem really. |
|
|
|
No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks. Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ? Everyone running a node that retrieves a full copy of blockchain, so all of them except SPV clients. So relays it is. I will tell you now how to reach hard-fork "consensus" using relays. 1. Make all relays (or let's assume 75% of relays) upgrade to the Bitcoin Classic 2. The old software that the relays are not using becomes irrelevant 3. Miners, seeing that they are mining using outdated software (and thus are/will be on the wrong chain) quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic, because otherwise they would lose all profits. 4. Big payment operators, seeing what is happening, also quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic All happens within days, if not hours. 5. All the rest of the network (laggards) upgrades to Bitcoin Classic (this may take little longer time) Boom ! Consensus reached, baby. Also note that the money left on the old version aren't lost. Users just need to upgrade to use them. Nah, merchants using old full nodes, who would accept transactions on the old chain, would possibly get scammed through no fault of their own. You cannot just fork and pray that the best will happen, in a security-critical system. Exactly. This is why there is a 2-week (or a month - was it ?) "grace period". So, after number of Bitcoin Classic nodes reach 75% it gives few weeks time to everybody to upgrade. Yes, of course - there will be some problems, perhaps even some people will get scammed. But I don't think it will be much. All payments processors will surely upgrade in time, so it will be only single rare cases of users that do person-to-person transactions (but scamming this way would only work if the scammer knew that the person has old version of software). Such scam will not be easy to pull. |
|
|
|
No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks. Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ? Everyone running a node that retrieves a full copy of blockchain, so all of them except SPV clients. So relays it is. I will tell you now how to reach hard-fork "consensus" using relays. 1. Make all relays (or let's assume 75% of relays) upgrade to the Bitcoin Classic 2. The old software that the relays are not using becomes irrelevant 3. Miners, seeing that they are mining using outdated software (and thus are/will be on the wrong chain) quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic, because otherwise they would lose all profits. 4. Big payment operators, seeing what is happening, also quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic All happens within days, if not hours. 5. All the rest of the network (laggards) upgrades to Bitcoin Classic (this may take little longer time) Boom ! Consensus reached, baby. Also note that the money left on the old version aren't lost. Users just need to upgrade to use them. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
