Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 08:42:58 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen.  (Read 3284 times)
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
May 31, 2015, 10:24:12 PM
 #1

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
1512981778
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981778

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981778
Reply with quote  #2

1512981778
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512981778
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981778

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981778
Reply with quote  #2

1512981778
Report to moderator
1512981778
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981778

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981778
Reply with quote  #2

1512981778
Report to moderator
1512981778
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512981778

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512981778
Reply with quote  #2

1512981778
Report to moderator
TKeenan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 875



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:29:36 AM
 #2

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!!
Bitware
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 923


weaving spiders come not here


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:37:22 AM
 #3

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.

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?
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:41:03 AM
 #4

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:45:04 AM
 #5

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Bitware
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 923


weaving spiders come not here


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:50:37 AM
 #6

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?
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:53:55 AM
 #7

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:55:13 AM
 #8

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:58:18 AM
 #9

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
melody82
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 06:59:32 AM
 #10

Look at this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075510.0

There is an interview with Gavin on there that makes things a little more clear.  He explains different things and goes over his position very clearly.  It turns out he has very good reasons for wanting the 20mb block size, and it isn't just an ego trip.  It is a really good listen.
Bitware
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 923


weaving spiders come not here


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 07:00:29 AM
 #11

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 my friends and I are most bitcoin users?

Are we users the ones who apply value to any crypto coin, regardless of who mines it and the chain version they mine it on?

Is it the Bitcoin users trust and transaction fees that Bitcoin valuation and the miners revenue relies on?

It sounds like you are ASSuming that miners version requires users to upgrade to the version compatible with what they miners use. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, and I think it quite dangerous and naive for you to be so reliant on that ASSumption.
Cruxer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126

bitcoincoldstash.com


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 07:48:43 AM
 #12

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

bitcoincoldstash.com  | cold storage offline paper wallet | bitcointalk.org | best bitcoin forum out there
TKeenan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 875



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 07:50:52 AM
 #13

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

Remember Coke/New Coke?  That didn't work out well either. 

Bitcoin/New Bitcoin - is going to be a problem.  This time, the death of Bitcoin is probably real.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:07:07 AM
 #14

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
dserrano5
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:20:02 AM
 #15

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

That enforcement is made in code. The changes will be there but they won't be active until 90% of the last N blocks supports them.

turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 08:20:48 AM
 #16

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
The 51% is what you theoretical need to make a double spend(there are models where you need less). People are just to fixed on that number.

But I also don't understand, what "90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork" is supposed to mean.
As far as I understand the network, it can't be that all the full nodes announce to each other, that they are ready(since a full node doesn't see all the other full nodes). Is it about blocks being mined, with the new version?

Edit:
I see, dserrano5 answered my question.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:15:08 AM
 #17

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:17:27 AM
 #18

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.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
virtualx
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:46:48 AM
 #19

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

Democratically yes, but you want to have consesus and stability in the bitcoin network for it to function. If 49% of the people would not use the same version, this is a very high amount of users. To be precise, it means about half of the bitcoin users would be affected. If only 10% uses an old version, it's their lost case. That's why 90% would be better.

AtheistAKASaneBrain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 11:47:16 AM
 #20

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!