2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen.

[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.

[1714135956]

1714135956

[1714135956]

1714135956

[1714135956]

1714135956

[1714135956]

1714135956

[1714135956]

1714135956

[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!