your getting it

and now you lost yourself again.
A is not the longest chain.. u just said it yourself its not.. just one sentance prior.
the only way for 460001a to be the longest chain.. is to not see any peers with 460003b.. which involves .... BANNING B nodes


only if A has banned B

only if A has banned B
other wise A sees 460002A and 460003B and still sees 460003B as the highest height and keeps requesting what B has as they have the heighest height.
again resulting in orphans and being stuck even if 460002a exists.
still requesting 460003 because it can see 460003


unless banning B... 460002A2 is not the longest chain.

i think i am getting where your missing something.
a node doesnt know the contents of a block until it receives it and checks it.

your thinking A sees that 640003 is bad before even downloading it.
sorry but it has to download it to see what it is.

meaning every time it scans the network all it sees is 640003 is highest.
without knowing if its a 640003a or a 640003b unless it requests it to see what it is..

again to avoid getting 640003b it has to ban nodes holding 640003b

A is only longest if A is all it sees... by banning B nodes



when it bans B nodes

LOL
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it
and then
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it
and then
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it
and then
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it
and then
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it
and then
A see it as invalid. but then they look over the network and see others have 460,003 so request it. then realise its B2 again.. and reject it

thus not syncing and A being stuck at 46000A1..
but the B nodes keep growing.

no way would B drop 460003 to go back to 460001
if B accept and happy with 460002B1 460003b2 they continue with it
A stuck at 460001

A then has to decide to:
continue in orphan hell of rejecting B
stay stalled by just turn node off
upgrade and join B
or ban B to not see 460003 and instead able to build on A


now your just making up fairy tales. because they would just not be accepted either.. nothing to do with height. but about not meeting rules.

invalid to A which leaves A stuck (B accepts them so B continues)


no old nodes will see its peers are at 460003. and keep trying to get it to sync to it. but then reject what it gets to be left at 460001a
leading to sync issues.
forcing the user to decide.
join B(upgrading software)
be a numbskull just remaining unsynced requesting and rejecting
ban B to grow A because if A grew A without a ban if A made 460002.. the nodes will still be looking to grab 460003B and rejecting 460002A

now your getting it
now your getting it.

leading to sync issues for A.
forcing the user to decide.
join B(upgrading software)
be a numbskull just remaining unsynced requesting and rejecting
ban B to grow A

lol you really have been fed the spoon of blockstream

"hard fork" is an umbrella term with several possible outcomes below it.

its whoevers script you have read that has sold you into thinking that soft = 1 result best case scenario. and then stroked ur head into thinking only good things will happen

hard=1 result worse case scenario. and punched ur heead into thinking only bad things will happen

please try understanding bitcoin and run MANY scenarios.
it will help you understand bitcoin better

my "doesnt need" was sarcasm because segwit does actually need it.
the sarcasm was pointed at those that think segwit will fix the issues simply by the belief in 'time'

until blockstream decided to avoid consensus by going soft(pool only) and then having extra bits added to bilaterally split to avoid node consensus at activation. if pools stupidly people allow it (26% are all for it as of today)

and then blockstream having their nodes centred nearest the pools as the upstream filters (FIBRE) to filter preferential data downstream...
thus making them the spoon feeders because everything has to feed through them first due to everything else baned out as being an upstream and only accepted as a 'compatible' downstream.

---

segwit wont achieve the quadratic/malleability fixes..(fix is not about activation but disarming voluntary segwit keypair users(malicious people will avoid moving funds to those keys, thus quadratic/malleability will still occur using native keys))
segwit wont achieve the expectant tx count boost..(fix is not about activation but disarming voluntary segwit keypair users(malicious people will avoid moving funds to those, thus maximum expectant boost wont be achieved due to those remaining using native keys))

segwits secret(now public) goal is to grab the network and everyone running their software and needing their rules. leaving anyone else off the chain.

retaining majority for 6 months leads to many more than 6 months for the minority to try over taking. because they are many blockheights ahead.
losing advantage/chance as time goes on

for the last 8 years people have debated the whole 51% attack vector that can undo months/years worth of work.
but that those fears are dismissed when you actually calculate what is required for a minority to overtake to then gain blockheight(and chainwork).

if 51% A - 49% B
in the first block
460,000X0 - (event trigger)
then
hashrate vs hashrate B 'could' get height become majority
but chances are A get the next block

460,000X0 - 460,001A1
B then see 460,001 and reject it.
B then see 460,001 and reject it.
blah blah blah. they cant sync

at worse B ban communication to A for B to build their own chain(altcoin)(lets imagine B they reconfigure their node in 10 minutes (quick recode and banning) meaning A gets ahead in that setup period that B is wasting
A: 460,000X0 - 460,001A1 - 460,002A2
B: 460,000X0
by which time B are then a block or 2 behind.
B then start mining and making a block, but ofcourse A is also making blocks too
460,000X0 - 460,001A1 - 460,002A2 - 460,002A3
460,000X0 - 460,001B1

over an average of a day(144 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~3 blockheight
460,144A - 460,144A
460,141B - 460,141B

over an average of a week(1008 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~50 blockheight
461,007A - 461,008A
460,957B - 460,958B

so now B chances of overtaking are slimmer.

over an average of 2 weeks(2016 blocks) with a 2% differential. A could gain ~100 blockheight
462,015A - 462016A
461,915B - 461,916B

B have not created 2016 blocks in 2 weeks. so their difficulty drops(meaning they can make blocks with less chainwork)
you may think this makes B have the advantage because now they can make blocks faster. but... here is the clincher

if B accelerated by having a few % lower chainwork needed advantage due to lower difficulty. they are still 100 blocks behind. so aswell as building blocks they have to make up for the loss. meaning
if A just made 2016 blocks in the next 2 weeks. B has to make 2116 just to get even.

and here is the punch line.
chainwork.
if it got to a point of
464,031A - 464,032A
464,031B - 464,032B

464,032B's chainwork will be lower than 464,032A chainwork.
imagine each block cost 100 chainworks per block to solve
over the 4 weeks A has a chainwork of 403200 for block 464034A
over the 4 weeks B has a chainwork of 389088 for block 464034B

meaning if B joined the network to attempt an over throw, it gets orphaned anyway, not due to blocksize, not due to hashpower, not due to blockheight, but due to chainwork.

carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
carlton wants BU to altcoin.. he even calls it an altcoin..
carlton pretends to cry fears of an altcoin
(his pretense changes by the hour)

yet its blockstream that will trigger the altcoin.. and thats carltons real fear.. blockstream having to trigger because they are an altcoin or fear the community where blockstream is being left as the minority. and not owning and controlling the network.

they hate anything not blockstream
all of the implementations that are not blockstream have been attacked.
rather than seeing them as part of consensus and the diverse decentralised nature of bitcoin

carlton doesnt care about bitcoins consensus or diverse decentralisation of multiple implementations. he just wants his king to control it all

FTFY


if blockstream want to ban anything thats not blockstream then they can play on their 26% hashpower(today stats) all they like. and pretend its achieved 100% by just ignoring the other 74% of the network.. they are still going to be on a minority and less height altcoin chain.

carlton doesnt understand consensus and orphans (the main security mechanism built into bitcoin and what BU USES)
strangely he doesnt realise its his kings wishes to avoid consensus and where blockstream have added code to ban opposition.
where as BU has not.

end result.
if BU triggers. one network with orphan risk for the minority, leaving minority unsynced(BU will not do any banning to cause a split)
if segwit triggers. 2 chains, because segwit will ban pool(nodes) and their blocks that try to build old blocks ontop of segwit, (to avoid segwit getting orphaned)

but yes if BU triggers.. the minority 'could' LATER split. by the minority CAUSING a split because the minority want to keep away from BU rather than accept consensus and switch to the majority(BU).

in short
BU wont CAUSE a split by banning minority.. but the minority to BU can cause a split by refusing to join the majority and refusing to just give up

though BU could trigger at low majority. they wont actually do it. they would wait a bit longer and do whats safe and not risking the rewards due to orphans.

BU relies on consensus..
segwit relies on bypassing consensus(first going soft to avoid node consensus, then banning opposition to avoid orphan risk)

no
the 5% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 5%. reject it
and again
the 5% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 5%. reject it
and again
(which as you say is 5% not syncing and either die(stuck) or change to the majority to rejoin)

---

the 25% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 25%. reject it
and again
the 25% minority see the blockheight (bu being higher) request the blockheight. see its a rule breaker to the 25%. reject it
and again
(which as you say is 25% not syncing and either die(stuck) or change to the majority to rejoin)
meaning in short MORE nodes having the headache. but in both cases no second chain(just 1 chain and some dead nodes(the less the % the less dead nodes)

for the 5% or 25% to build on a LOWER height. they have to ignore (ban) dis-commnicate / split from the majority. to then only see the minority as the highest height. to then sync to that without the orphan game of unsyncing them.

this is called a bilateral split (intentional ban).
consensus mechanism (orphaning) exist for a good reason. to keep one chain that the majority can agree on.
to make a second chain exist and survive without orphans requires avoiding the majority by banning from it, to not see the majority blockheight, to then not fight it

even ethereum done this by their '--oppose-dao-fork' to know which nores to white list and which nodes to blacklist to avoid orphan drama and only see the blockheigh of the chain they prefer

but this is where the rules need to be defined. so that if a malicious pool did add it. the LOWER tx sigops would be knowingly rejected by consensus so pools wont bother.

by keeping it at 16,000 malicious pools 'could' accept it and know its a valid block and only have to worry about 'timing' as the disincentive, rather than RULES.

however if you prefer not to have RULES and just rely on belief or faith of pools.. then that is a weakness.
however if belief and faith were strong for such an occurrence not to happen. than quadratics has never been a problem and never be a problem because bitcoin is protected by belief that it will get orphaned due to 'time'.

meaning segwit doesnt need 100% of users to move their funds to segwit keys (weeks after activation) just to possibly get a segwit fix to fix it(never gonna happen anyway), because belief alone in 'time' has protected the network thus far and will continue to

though any majority will lead to gaining the blockheight. the FIGHT(orphan risk) for blockheight is much more if the majority was say 51% rather than say 91%

the higher the % the less orphan risk and the better chance of a stable chain thats not orphaning all the time.

some deem 95% too high because its tough to get random people to near unanimously agree on anything
some deem 51% too low because its just increasing the orphan arguments (much like the scottish and EU referendums of slight majority, still arguing and wanting another referendum)

hence a middle ground of say 75% reduces orphan risks and arguments but more of an attainable agreement by a safer majority than say 51%

this is where your 2-dimensional thinking falls apart.
at this point . without A banning communication with the network
lets use blockheight numbers

For BU nodes: 460,001A1 - 460,002B1 - 460,003B2
for old nodes: 460,001A1 - 460,002A2

ALL nodes will still see 460003 and ask to get it to sync to highest height.
old nodes get the data. and reject it.
old nodes get the data. and reject it.
old nodes get the data. and reject it.
old nodes get the data. and reject it.
(endless orphan drama for minority and not syncing)

to get the old nodes to see 460,002A2 to sync.. they have to avoid seeing 460,003B2 by banning communication.or to get the majority(hashpower to get height) by pushing passed 460,003B2 so that there was a 460,001A1 - 460,002A2 - 460,003A3 - 460,004A4

in which case
ALL nodes  see
460,001A1 - 460,002A2 - 460,003A3 - 460,004A4 as the height
and BU orphan their  - 460,002B1 - 460,003B2 and go with
460,001A1 - 460,002A2 - 460,003A3 - 460,004A4 as the height

because A rules are acceptable to BU.

now.. this is the thing your also forgetting.
although BU 'could' trigger at low majority. POOLS wont trigger with low majority because they know the orphan risk of their own blocks is increased. so they wont trigger unless they know the risk of losing their block reward was little to non.

meaning it will take alot of effort of the minority to try to overtake the majority because the majority would be significantly higher

---

this is why as of today and for the last 2 years of being on the network, BU has NOT:
banned communication with the network - because they dont want an altcoin (they laughed in gmaxwells face when gmaxwell begged them to 'f**k off'
triggered at low hashrate - because they dont want high orphan risk

---

this is why as of today and for the last 2 years of being on the network, XT has NOT:
banned communication with the network - because they dont want an altcoin (they laughed in gmaxwells face when gmaxwell begged them to 'f**k off'
triggered at low hashrate - because they dont want high orphan risk

---

this is why as of today and for the last 2 years of being on the network, classic has NOT:
banned communication with the network - because they dont want an altcoin (they laughed in gmaxwells face when gmaxwell begged them to 'f**k off'
triggered at low hashrate - because they dont want high orphan risk

---

they want high consensus and will only trigger with high safe consensus

which blockstream is scared of. and has been crying, pleading, fudding, fake doomsdaying, bait and switching, playing victim card of.
while secretly(now public) knowing its only blockstream that will bilaterally split to keep their segwit rules alive (as an alt) rather than just giving up and saying the community just doesnt want it.(if consensus is not reached). or creating the altcoin if consensus is reached to ensure their chain is not overtaken

you have been mis sold the fake dooms day speech by blockstreamers
hard and soft are umbrella terms.. below these umbrella terms are sub categories of what can happen


even in a soft (pool only) event can lead to a bilateral split
even in a hard (node and pool) event can lead to a consensual one chain agreement,

you have been mis sold by blockstreamers only mentioning best case scenario of soft and worse case scenario of hard. and false promoted it as being the only 2 conclusions

nodes see the highest block height. request the data. and then realise its a rule breaker and orphan it.
nodes see the highest block height. request the data. and then realise its a rule breaker and orphan it.
(endless orphan clusterf*ck where the node never syncs)

for a node to get this (lower 1mb block) it needs to sever communication with the chain thats 5blocks higher.. then it only see's the 1mb block as the highest height to then sync to that. without the orphan drama




your thinking too 2-dimensional. one argument your only considering the rules. next argument your only considering hashrate. next argument you only considering blockheight. next your only considering pools and next your only considering nodes.

your not running multi-dimensional scenarios where all aspects interplay

bitcoin has many dimensions that all enforce each other.(as thats the masterpiece of why bitcoin consensus works) and come to the conclusion of(soft or hard):
not banning= orphans and unsynced(dead) nodes for minority
banning= no orphans and minority nodes synced to a less higher chain because you cant see the opposition, thus able to build a second chain without a fight


i have many times. its you that over use soft and hard like there are only 2 results

lol bitcoin and litecoin are different coins. etc and eth are different coins. they have their own networks.
they have their own mempools.
they do not intercommunicate. because they only connect to the side they like and ban from talking to the side they dont like. to avoid the orphan drama.

yes i agree initially it was a consensus/controversial event. but then turned into a bilateral split. by nsuring they avoided the orphan drama by avoiding inter-communication

no

ethereum intentionally split by banning opposing nodes (google it: --oppose-dao-fork)
hence why you can spend coins on eth but keep coins on etc because they do not inter-communicate to add the coin to the mempools of both sides

---

this is different than a consensus where only one chain survives and the opposition simply cannot sync because it has different rules and simply ends up orphaning everything it see's

---

to avoid being left unsynced, it needs to ban the opposition so that it doesnt see the oppositions higher blockheight and also doesnt see thier own attempts getting orphaned and doesnt end up trying to grab the highest height just to orphan and remain unsynced.

---

when it comes to which to choose and what happens next is dependant on what the oppositions do.
for instance without there being a banning event.

its either consensus (high acceptability rate by the network) where by the high acceptability will see low orphan rate because they win the height more often and where the minority orphan out ALOT but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced because although they see the highest blockheight they will orphan it because the data wont meet their rules.

or controversial(above medium acceptability rate) where by the above medium acceptability will see more orphans rate because they win the height but have orphans happening often as there is a bit more of a fight for height.. but ultimately one chain. and the minority just dead and unsynced

---

whether its soft (change occurs only by pools trigger) or hard (change occurs by NODES and pools trigger)
consensus, controversial .. or worse intentional split(banning AKA bilateral split) can happen.

yes even going soft, core(managed by blockstream) can (and admittedly will) split the network
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

---

the minority "could" then ban the opposition and only communicate with pools the nodes can accept and this is then allowing the minority to build their own chain

---

BU, classic, xt and about a dozen independent implementations do not want to ban nodes and create an altcoin.
they want to stick with one network that grows using consensus

only core(managed by blockstream) want to split... but blockstream are trying to push fake doomsdays that their opposition will create an altcoin, but secretly(well now public) it will be blockstream that will cause the altcoin but they want to play the 'victim card' pretending its their oppositions fault

dinofelis

you cant have 2 chains that inter communicate. the nodes would orphan one chain off and the network then follows the chain with the highest height

they would need to ban each other. meaning you get to spend coins on Y while holding onto coins on X, without having to worry about spending coins on Y being broadcast to also spend it on X

thats why eth and etc dont co mingle.

---

for instance clams is a clone of BTC.. but ever since they banned communication with btc to create the alt, the transactions i do on btc do not end up in a block on clams.(even if the tx data is the same and the UTXO is the same) they dont broadcast between each other because they intentionally banned communication with btc.

if clams was to inter connect to see the tx's being relayed. then the clusterf*ck of orphans would occur because thats a consensus safety mechanism. leading to there being just one chain and a clusterf*ck of orphans fighting over who can or cannot get to be the next block ontop of the blockheight.
where by the pools and nodes are not building ontop of height say 400k if they see that there is a 460k height available they would build ontop of the heighest height and the network will accept the highest height

this is why even in segwits softfork, segwit will intentionally ban opposing pools and nodes to avoid the orphan drama and chance of segwit blocks being orphaned out. maning blockstream cause an intentional split. not simply by having hash. but BANNONG BLOCKS AND NODES that are opposing them

it isnt just a simple 'trigger date/% achieved' and thats it.
there is more to it then that

you have been sold alot of BS
1. exchanges are the nodes. if they orphan block X.. your TX in that block doesnt exist = you cant spend because they dont see it
2. if a friend is using a node and you pay that friend. if they orphan block X.. your tx in that block doesnt exist  = you cant spend because they dont see it

with each node calling out the blockheight. they all grab data from the highest block height. if that blockheight is blocks of rules that dont match
then they orphan those blocks. and end up unsynced.

the only way to sync is either change your rules to rejoin the majority.
or.
BAN the majority to not see the block height to not be endlessly clusterfu*ked to then start building on a minority that you can accept.
if you dont ban. your minority is not treated as a valid chain due to it not having the height.

its a security feature.
otherwise someone could copy the blockchain. kill off say 2 years of blockheight and then just build ontop of it.(at a healthier difficulty) and then build their own chain
but that requires not communicating with the rest of the network by banning the nodes following the highest blockheight, so that the blockheight mechanism doesnt kill off the minority due to the minority height reject mechanism.

like i said many times it involves intentionally banning nodes to not see a bigger height. otherwise orphan games begin fighting over the rules

YOUR FORGETTING NODES aswell as POOL
learn real consensus

also your forgetting without banning communications. the minority see the blockheight. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
then see the blockheight.. but then orphan it because the rules dont match.
endlessly.

BU wont ban the other community nodes.. only blockstream would ban the community nodes.
and that would only happen if blockstream were minority. because the community wont trigger unless they had majority.

and thats what blockstream fears.. losing their control where by the dozen other independant node brands continue.

remember and learn consensus

FTFY