2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen.

[R2D221]

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.

[1715697835]

1715697835

[1715697835]

1715697835

[TKeenan]

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]

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]

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.

[R2D221]

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.

[Bitware]

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]

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.

[Amph]

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

[R2D221]

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.

[melody82]

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]

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]

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.

[TKeenan]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[R2D221]

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.

[R2D221]

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.

[virtualx]

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]

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.

[R2D221]

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.

[Q7]

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.

[turvarya]

I always wonder, when I see this discussion:
Did somebody actually make an estimate, about how many users are against that idea? In reality most people will just upgrade to the new version of their client. Are there developers of popular clients, who don't want to implement the new block size?
For miners, it is going to be mostly the question if the mining pool upgrades. Are there mining pools saying that they don't want to upgrade?

[BillyBobZorton]

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.

[dserrano5]

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.

WTF man? There will be only bitcoin.

[R2D221]

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.

[LiteCoinGuy]

finally more and more clever and old bitcoiners are starting good threads...

[pissedoff]

You are right anyone who continues mining on the blockchain which isn't the main one are complete idiots

[deine mudder]

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.

[R2D221]

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.

[a fool and his money ...]

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.

I think the bahaviour of Gavin and his fanboys is childish. But never mind. This gonna sell off to double or even single digits, then you idiots can sort it all out...

[CIYAM]

Where is the evidence to support that "several powerful miners" have said this or that?

[iCEBREAKER]

If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.

No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.

Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".

This debate is moot.

Fine.  You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:

Gavin has already lost this tug of war.

His inability to accept a consensus he disagrees with has been exposed.  His managerial incompetence and duplicity, in the form of spawning XT in spooky/smokey VC backroom deals with no warning on the normal channels, have been confirmed.

The Gavinista coup is DOA.  They just don't know it yet.

No effective strategy or device exists to counter Mircea's 'GavinCoin Short' WMD:

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

It is by Lord Satoshi's sublime design Bitcoin grants all possible advantages to its defenders, and places all possible economic and technical burdens on attackers.

"Fake version stamps" are just one option available to Mircea and other anti-20mb counterrevolutionaries.

It's adorable how sweet, innocent CIYAM, etc. assume both sides will not try to rig the voting.  But we're going to see Sun Tzu's warfare by deception, in spades.

Like Pinochet, Mircea has the expertise, motivation, and resources needed to "disappear" Gavinista insurgents until they give up and stop forking around.

[Bit_Happy]

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.

You and the OP are fighting for sanity, thank you both for the effort. 

[DooMAD]

If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.

No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.

Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".

This debate is moot.

Fine.  You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:

{insert Mircea-worshipping-propaganda here}

Post what you like, but just know that anyone with a brain will keep ignoring such drivel.  No one in their right mind would trust that crackpot Mircea or any of his fawning, deluded fanboys.  

If the fork doesn't happen in core, then it's only prudent to try it in XT.  One way or another, this is going to happen.  There's always been a certain inevitability about this because the network needs more users to survive in the long term as the block reward diminishes over time.  But in its present form, the network can't support enough users to pay enough fees to incentivise miners to secure the network.

If, hypothetically, there was no block reward right now, based on the transaction volume we are getting now, how much fee would need to be paid on each transaction to give at least the current average level of fees plus the 25 BTC reward?  Last time I bothered to do the math, we were averaging about 750 transactions per block.  By my figures, each transaction would have to have a fee of about .034 BTC just to cover the 25 BTC reward, plus a bit extra for the current fees that are already being paid (so there's no loss of mining revenue).  How many people are going to pay about $8 USD in fees for every single transaction?  If people aren't willing to pay that much, there will be even fewer transactions and that cost will then rise further.  But increase the number of transactions in the block, rather than limiting it, then you can spread that cost over a greater number of users, making it more affordable.  Obviously we can squeeze in a few more than the 750 we're averaging at the moment, but we genuinely do need more users than the system will currently support to make this thing sustainable in future.  

[tvbcof]

Correct; two is the wrong count.  The blockchain will assume the morphology of a hydra.  Most of the heads won't know whether to fight, fuck, or run a foot-race.

XT will be one head and so-called 'core' will be just one more.  Ultimately none of the heads will be innately more valuable than the others and will have to stand on some combination of their merits and the resources that various parties are willing to invest in them.

[cellard]

If Bitcoin XT is launched it will become the dominant one.

No pool, no exchange, no business or no person will keep any substantial amount of coins in any wallet which is outdated.

Further more as soon as the XT client is released, there will be an immediate fear of accepting any coin that was generated "post split".

This debate is moot.

Fine.  You keep preemptively asserting GavinCoin's flawless victory, and I'll keep xposting this:

Gavin has already lost this tug of war.

His inability to accept a consensus he disagrees with has been exposed.  His managerial incompetence and duplicity, in the form of spawning XT in spooky/smokey VC backroom deals with no warning on the normal channels, have been confirmed.

The Gavinista coup is DOA.  They just don't know it yet.

No effective strategy or device exists to counter Mircea's 'GavinCoin Short' WMD:

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

It is by Lord Satoshi's sublime design Bitcoin grants all possible advantages to its defenders, and places all possible economic and technical burdens on attackers.

"Fake version stamps" are just one option available to Mircea and other anti-20mb counterrevolutionaries.

It's adorable how sweet, innocent CIYAM, etc. assume both sides will not try to rig the voting.  But we're going to see Sun Tzu's warfare by deception, in spades.

Like Pinochet, Mircea has the expertise, motivation, and resources needed to "disappear" Gavinista insurgents until they give up and stop forking around.

I don't get all the fuss about it. At the end of the day, the consensus will be reached by Bitcoin miners and people running nodes, not by the devs. Isn't it better that the people reach consensus, and not the devs?

[iCEBREAKER]

One way or another, this is going to happen.  There's always been a certain inevitability about this

That's exactly what Hillary supporters said in 2008, and still say, to justify her coronation.  But we're not going to just sit back and enjoy it.

If Mircea is such a "crackpot" why does he have so many more Bitcons than you?

I look forward to seeing how Gavinistas and Bitcoin Foundation fanboys handle MPEX's 'GavinCoin Short' response.

[R2D221]

If Mircea is such a "crackpot" why does he have so many more Bitcons than you?

They are not mutually exclusive.

[CIYAM]

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

[tvbcof]

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

[iCEBREAKER]

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

It's endearing how the simpletons among us believe an uncontroversial, uncontestably beneficial fork with widespread consensus is in some way usefully comparable to a controversial fork of dubious utility and limited popularity.

[adamstgBit]

2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen.

I think it's possible just like there are altcoins there CAN be 2 coexisting bitcoin forks running at one time.

But if there is a fork with 1MB limit that poeple are still mining in the morning, someone will make them see the usefulness of a 20MB block limit by spamming them with >1MB worth of transactions every 10 seconds at no cost because coins on this lesser chain would be considered worthless.
 
the gr8 digital currency wars will last no more than 12mins

[tvbcof]

It's endearing how the simpletons among us believe an uncontroversial, uncontestably beneficial fork with widespread consensus is in some way usefully comparable to a controversial fork of dubious utility and limited popularity.

What I get a kick out of is people who use their own image as a avatar when they have a doe-eyed appearance which screams 'rob me'...and turn out to be exactly as so.  There was another guy who was like this also.  He was famous for making a post talking about how the future of Bitcoin was making big money on things like pirateat40's ponzi which he was involved in (as a victim.)  It was not more than a few weeks after that that the ponzi blew up.  I cannot remember that guy's screen name and have not seen him for a while.

Yes, it's wrong (in a few ways) to judge people by what they look like, but it's amazing how spot on one can be as often as not.

[DooMAD]

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

It's endearing how the simpletons among us believe an uncontroversial, uncontestably beneficial fork with widespread consensus is in some way usefully comparable to a controversial fork of dubious utility and limited popularity.

Seriously?  Of all the people on this forum whose intelligence you could choose to call into question, you pick CIYAM?  This is the guy who just helped lay the foundations for completely decentralised trade without third party exchanges.  Something that could potentially revolutionise transactions and lessen the number of hacks, thefts and other negative headlines that exchanges tend to attract.  What groundbreaking contributions have you made to crypto lately? 

If you still can't comprehend the simple facts here, that:

a) more users on the network means more fees collected and a greater incentive for miners to secure the network when the block rewards start to diminish,
and
b) the fork is required if we don't want those additional users to be left waiting for an available block because the next one is full,

then I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously when you start calling other people simpletons. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

It's endearing how the simpletons among us believe an uncontroversial, uncontestably beneficial fork with widespread consensus is in some way usefully comparable to a controversial fork of dubious utility and limited popularity.

Seriously?  Of all the people on this forum whose intelligence you could choose to call into question, you pick CIYAM?  This is the guy who just helped lay the foundations for completely decentralised trade without third party exchanges.  Something that could potentially revolutionise transactions and lessen the number of hacks, thefts and other negative headlines that exchanges tend to attract.  What groundbreaking contributions have you made to crypto lately? 

If you still can't comprehend the simple facts here, that:

a) more users on the network means more fees collected and a greater incentive for miners to secure the network when the block rewards start to diminish,
and
b) the fork is required if we don't want those additional users to be left waiting for an available block because the next one is full,

then I don't think anyone is going to take you seriously when you start calling other people simpletons. 

Yes, simpleton.  A Rain Man, idiot-savant kind of simpleton.

Great at low-level coding and abstract things like math/algorithms; inept at understanding the complex social dynamics and economic concerns which must be evaluated and weighed in a far-ranging policy debate.

Only a gentle simpleton with King Tomlin levels of naivete would reason about a controversial fork-of-choice in terms of a widely-supported past fork-of-necessity.  It's either that, or he's being purposefully dishonest.  I'm being nice by giving him the benefit of the doubt.   

Gavin is already backpedaling to 8MB, because he messed up the math he thought supported 20MB.  What else did he miss?

[CIYAM]

Hint to others - "don't feed the trolls".

Posts from forum members that resort to putting words in others mouths and then calling people names rather than any sort of mature reasoned argument/discussion should just be ignored.

Unfortunately some (or perhaps many) members of this forum equate "freedom of speech" with "freedom to be an ass". Unfortunately that is just the way it is.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Hint to others - "don't feed the trolls".

Posts from forum members that resort to calling people names rather than any sort of mature reasoned argument/discussion should just be ignored.

Unfortunately some (or perhaps many) members of this forum equate "freedom of speech" with "freedom to be an ass". Unfortunately that is just the way it is.  

You were trolling by making an outrageously invalid comparison between the last fork and the Gavincoin proposal.

You got called out for it:

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

and I piled on.

If you want to be an ass by conflating highly controversial forks with straightforward ones, I will respond in kind.

If you are too thin skinned to take what you dish out, don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.   

[CIYAM]

You got called out for it:

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

You can tell the difference between CIYAM and tvbcof can you or were you just in such a hurry to reply that you got the wrong quote?

In any case I have no interest in furthering this rather now unenlightening discussion so sorry if you are now busy coming up with a better reply as I am unwatching this topic now.

[iCEBREAKER]

You got called out for it:

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

You can tell the difference between CIYAM and tvbcof can you or were you just in such a hurry to reply that you got the wrong quote?

I believe I quoted tvbcof criticizing your conflation of highly controversial forks and straightforward ones.  No hurries here mate!   

Any comment on Gavin backpedaling to 8MB?

Any comment on f2pool's op asking for a slow, smooth increase to discourage fragmentation, orphans, and block_size gaming?

Any comment on how signals such as version stamps survive and avoid weaponization in the Great Schism's fog of war?

Any comment on the possibility of MPEX's well-funded and aggressive 'Gavincoin Short' destroying one or more competing/mutually cannibalizing forked chains?

[tvbcof]

You got called out for it:

I remember the last fork.  It was progress.  It made sense to everyone, and nobody tried (successfully) to take advantage of an unhappy situation so it was rather straightforward to obtain consensus.

Gavin moving Bitcoin under Hearn's Bitcoin-XT project with against the will of the rest of the dev team represents a very significant regression to a lot of people.  I'd be surprised if he actually tries it except in the event that someone badly needs a temporary shake-up in the Bitcoin ecosystem so that can execute some operation in fiat-land and they need a window of time when Bitcoin is not a viable wealth preservation tool.

You can tell the difference between CIYAM and tvbcof can you or were you just in such a hurry to reply that you got the wrong quote?

I read it as iCEBREAKER pointing out how I spanked you and gave it as a concrete example.

I suspected that you were being deceitful and figured that older posters who did remember/understand the fork would not see your post or bother with it and it would have an impact on newbs or the innately ignorant.  iCE seems to think you are just natively dense...at least in some ways.  Whichever the case it doesn't look good for you.

Probably some people will remember your post and it will detract from your effectivness going forward.  In fairness, however, I am guilty of using half-truths such as 'moving Bitcoin under the XT project.'  I probably should refrain from such rhetoric for the same reason although it's probably to late.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[Elwar]

If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.

Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?

[iCEBREAKER]

I read it as iCEBREAKER pointing out how I spanked you and gave it as a concrete example.

Yes, that's exactly what happened.  This is kind of Rain Man thing I was talking about.

Genius when it comes to making AT happen.

Simpleton when it comes to understanding the resistance to GavincoinXT (or following a very straightforward conversation).

That sweater is a brave choice tho.  Respect.   

[hdbuck]

There is Bitcoin. And there is Gavincoin BitcoinXT.

This thread should be moved to the alt section.

[Krona Rev]

It's clear that 2 blockchains coexisting technically can happen. Whether or not it will happen is yet to be determined. Reading these 1MB vs. 20MB threads for the past several months, I think it's quite possible that it could happen. For it not to happen will require one side or the other to accept that they lost this battle, and I see a lot of indications that neither side will be willing to accept they lost.

Even if it's 90% vs. 10%, 10% is enough to sustain a fork as long as it can make it through the first difficulty adjustment.

Ultimately this shouldn't be so scary though. Real consensus requires the freedom to divorce, and maybe the max block size limit is turning out to expose irreconcilable differences.

One interesting side effect of such a divorce is that it will (once again) demonstrate the difference between those who know their private keys and those who don't.

[hdbuck]

If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.

Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?

Bitcoin's difficulty changes after a certain amount of blocks found (2016 blocks), not after a certain amount of time passed. It just happens to normally take about 2 weeks. It would take much, much longer if blocks were 100 minutes apart.

I imagine merged mining would be possible if there were 2 coexisting forks of Bitcoin (but I'm not certain of that). In that case, both chains could be mined by 100% of the existing miners.

The only thing that determines whether or not a coin (or fork) continues to exist is supply and demand.

i doubt chineese miners would mine some MITlab coin.

[tvbcof]

If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.

Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?

Bitcoin's difficulty changes after a certain amount of blocks found (2016 blocks), not after a certain amount of time passed. It just happens to normally take about 2 weeks. It would take much, much longer if blocks were 100 minutes apart.

I imagine merged mining would be possible if there were 2 coexisting forks of Bitcoin (but I'm not certain of that). In that case, both chains could be mined by 100% of the existing miners.

The only thing that determines whether or not a coin (or fork) continues to exist is supply and demand.

I believe that a modest tweak needs to be made in order to allow merge mining.  Just a bit of space per block iirc.  I think it would be a good addition for anyone who is going to do a hard-fork (which I believe might be necessary, but I could be wrong about that.)

Actually, I'd be really interested to see a different proof-of-work scheme upon hard fork.  A random (or weighted) selection of CPU-friendly algorithms do solve blocks seem to me that they would result in two worthwhile goals:  1) making it feasible for independent nodes to mine again which would produce incentive for broad node distribution, and 2) precluding attack from the build-up of sha256 asic farms.  The current mega-miners obviously would not like it, but what are they going to do other than to try their level best to make a pure sha256 fork be dominant and use whatever money/power they can muster to attack the fork in standard ways available to most everyone?

My interest in Bitcoin has been as a backing store (a-la sidechains) from pretty much when I got started back in 2011.  My rational for wanting Bitcoin to be as ultra-lightweight as possible is that I would see everyone who is running sidechains of any type as also running Bitcoin nodes.  That is how I would see the infrastructure supporting the solution be broadly distributed.  If sidechains compete among themselves for settlement on the backing store, and need the backing store to be rock solid, they have several incentives to support it irrespective of the payout for doing so.  Running Bitcoin infrastructure at a profit or at least a break-even would be great and likely quite possible.

I'm lobbying for the Blockstream guys to take the opportunity offered by Hearn and Andresen to do some major hard-fork changes of their own.  Possibly along he lines of what I mentioned, or other.  If I have to choose a fork anyway, I'm anxious to choose one which I think has long-term potential.  I see the best outcome for humanity coming out of a total war, and Hearn+Andresen drew first blood.  Alternately, I'm fine to see a split be amicable and each fork can stand on it's own merits.  I'd still want to see a highly defensive posture and MAD-inspired strategies ready to be called into action if necessary.

[Elwar]

If only 10% of miners are mining on "Blockchain B" then they will still have the same difficulty resulting in each block being found on average every 100 minutes for about 2 weeks.

Who will still be using a blockchain where the block discovery slows by 10X?

Bitcoin's difficulty changes after a certain amount of blocks found (2016 blocks), not after a certain amount of time passed. It just happens to normally take about 2 weeks. It would take much, much longer if blocks were 100 minutes apart.

I imagine merged mining would be possible if there were 2 coexisting forks of Bitcoin (but I'm not certain of that). In that case, both chains could be mined by 100% of the existing miners.

The only thing that determines whether or not a coin (or fork) continues to exist is supply and demand.

I did not think of that. So without merged mining there would be 5 months of 1 hour, 40 minute blocks.

I doubt that chain would succeed. And most likely other miners would bail to the point that it could be years of multiple hour blocks.

[btcbug]

Thanks for this information. This thread should remain at the top!