The idea that big companies determine the outcome of the fork is false

[Pecunia non olet]

People say that it comes down to what client big exchanges and companies use and that will determine the fork-thing rather than miners' choice.

That is false because:
People can just choose to not use these services. The people resisting Gavincoin can go back to trading like in the early days before exchanges existed if it has to be.
Ultimately the outcome of the fork is determined by those holding the most coins because they can after the fork decide which fork to buy and which to sell. Miners will then mine the more profitable fork.
Big exchanges and services do not matter at all. They will serve the surviving chain. What matters is the opinion of those holding the most coins because they determine the price.

So it's not Gavin or his cronies or exchanges or whoever. It is only holders of large amounts of coins and miners who determine the outcome. For example Satoshi could sink this whole Gavin-fork with his stash if he still has access to them. There should be some more of these ultra Bitcoinrich people. They will have the final say not Coinbase or Bitpay.

[1714079064]

1714079064

[1714079064]

1714079064

[1714079064]

1714079064

[neurotypical]

I dont think it comes down to what people use or move their coins at. Ultimately, there is not bitcoin without the miners and node runners. It all comes down to how many nodes will Core have vs XT.

[RoadStress]

Stop spreading FUD Mircea Popescu!

[achow101]

Ultimately the outcome of the fork is determined by those holding the most coins because they can after the fork decide which fork to buy and which to sell. Miners will then mine the more profitable fork.

It's not really who holds the most, because I could hold tons of coins and not spend them, thus benefiting no one. Rather, it depends on the people who spend and transact the most. Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions. Typically big companies and exchanges are the ones that have the most transactions, so they actually do determine which fork to use. Also, by your logic, the big companies and exchanges hold the most coins so they still choose which fork is used. Also, by your logic, satoshi would choose, but, as I said above, miners don't profit unless transactions are made, so actually wouldn't.

[Pecunia non olet]

I dont think it comes down to what people use or move their coins at. Ultimately, there is not bitcoin without the miners and node runners. It all comes down to how many nodes will Core have vs XT.

Again: miners go where they make profit and that's where the price of the coins is highest longterm. Node count does not even matter that much when Gavincoin is is only worth a fraction of core because if that would be longterm the case miners would go back to core.
 

Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions.

Number of txs also doesn't matter. What matters is the price of the coins. Also on core the txfees are secured for the miners while on Gavincoin they get less. Economical miners would definately go back to core if those coins are worth more.

Stop spreading FUD Mircea Popescu!

I'm not MP you piece of shit

[DooMAD]

Stop spreading FUD Mircea Popescu!

I'm not MP you piece of shit

One of his minions then.  It's difficult to tell where he ends and you begin when you're all so closely attached to his cock and spout his rhetoric at every available opportunity.  It's all one big #bitcoin-asshats circlejerk with you guys.  The epitome of groupthink-gone-wrong. 

[tvbcof]

Stop spreading FUD Mircea Popescu!

I'm not MP you piece of shit

One of his minions then.  It's difficult to tell where he ends and you begin when you're all so closely attached to his cock and spout his rhetoric at every available opportunity.  It's all one big #bitcoin-asshats circlejerk with you guys.  The epitome of groupthink-gone-wrong. 

proudhon would be my guess given the icon thingy.  Either that or Holiday, but I think the former if memory serves.

If proudhon, he's likely a 'minion' of MP in the same way I am which is to say, MP is an artifact of the environment which seems to align with my (and IMHO, Bitcoin's) interests.

[achow101]

For the record, there will only be one coin, not two separate coins, because of the way that the hard fork will be carried out, if at all.

Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions.

Number of txs also doesn't matter. What matters is the price of the coins.

How do the holders of the most Bitcoins effect the price?

Also on core the txfees are secured for the miners while on Gavincoin they get less. Economical miners would definately go back to core if those coins are worth more.

What makes you say that the txfees for miners is less on the new fork than on the current blockchain? There is nothing changing in the fork except for the block size, which doesn't effect the transaction fees.

[Pecunia non olet]

For the record, there will only be one coin, not two separate coins, because of the way that the hard fork will be carried out, if at all.

Those who move coins around a lot indirectly choose the fork because the miners will mine the most profitable one, which has the most transactions.

Number of txs also doesn't matter. What matters is the price of the coins.

How do the holders of the most Bitcoins effect the price?

Also on core the txfees are secured for the miners while on Gavincoin they get less. Economical miners would definately go back to core if those coins are worth more.

What makes you say that the txfees for miners is less on the new fork than on the current blockchain? There is nothing changing in the fork except for the block size, which doesn't effect the transaction fees.

Don't be so sure there will only be one coin when this fork is carried out.
China btw holds 50% of hashpower and they have low bandwidth so they are not going to mine Gavincoin.

Holders of most Bitcoin affect the Price of the tradingpair "Gavincoin/Bitcoin core" so in case two chains are fighting each other the last word about the outcome will the market (the largest holders of coins) have.


Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?  

-----------

@tvbcof
@DooMAD
lol, guys. I have never talked to any of these while you sheep are busy sucking Gavins' dick. So please STFU and keep your ad hominem attempts to yourself. Thanks.

[achow101]

Don't be so sure there will only be one coin when this fork is carried out.

This fork can and will be carried out in a way that there will only be one coin. Otherwise, bad shit will happen, Bitcoin will be devalued, and Gavin will have screwed up. This fork is only going to be carried out when almost the entire network, at least the miners, have switched to the new protocol. The switch will probably occur when 999 out of the last 1000 blocks mined conform to the new rules. Then the hard fork occurs when a block greater than 1 Mb is mined.

Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?  

To allow large numbers of transactions to be confirmed in a timely manner. The blocksize increase is not to reduce fees, it is so that there aren't too many unconfirmed transactions so that confirmation times still stay reasonable.

[Pecunia non olet]

Don't be so sure there will only be one coin when this fork is carried out.

This fork can and will be carried out in a way that there will only be one coin. Otherwise, bad shit will happen, Bitcoin will be devalued, and Gavin will have screwed up. This fork is only going to be carried out when almost the entire network, at least the miners, have switched to the new protocol. The switch will probably occur when 999 out of the last 1000 blocks mined conform to the new rules. Then the hard fork occurs when a block greater than 1 Mb is mined.

Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?  

To allow large numbers of transactions to be confirmed in a timely manner. The blocksize increase is not to reduce fees, it is so that there aren't too many unconfirmed transactions so that confirmation times still stay reasonable.

-Certain people have announced to only pretend to switch to XT and switch back to core after the fork so even if you see a mayority in the network it doesn't mean it's real. There is some rest of risk that can not be avoided.

-large blocks do also mean less fees because it lowers the minimum fee one needs to pay to expect fast confirms. This translates to more junk on the chain and more microstransactions and thus a bloat of the blockchain, but this has been said many times by many people.
On the other hand when you have full blocks (it's not nearly the case right now) the first thing that happens with full 1MB blocks is not that the sky is falling but that the junk microtransactions and gambling is pushed off the chain btw. So really no need to worry at all about full blocks. Once it happens the sky is still not falling and everyone who sends with fees can still get fast confirms. Really all that propaganda here about urgency and 'sky is falling if we dont fork' is unbearable

[tvbcof]

...
@tvbcof
@DooMAD
lol, guys. I have never talked to any of these while you sheep are busy sucking Gavins' dick. So please STFU and keep your ad hominem attempts to yourself. Thanks.

I'm not commonly accused of slobbing Gavin's knob and have refrained pretty much forever so your not 'talking to these folks'(?) while I am so engaged is a as meaningless as it is baffling.  Furthermore, my suggesting that you've used the same avatar image as a previous poster here and it might lead one to guess that you are of the same sock-puppet clan is not exactly an ad-hominem.  Don't worry about it to much, though, since it is about the most mis-used assertion in the history of the internets.

[achow101]

-Certain people have announced to only pretend to switch to XT and switch back to core after the fork so even if you see a mayority in the network it doesn't mean it's real. There is some rest of risk that can not be avoided.

Who announced this? Either way, the fork does not happen if there are more XT nodes than Core nodes, rather it happens when a large percentage of the last 1000 or greater blocks in the longest blockchain is of the new version number. And switching back to core would be less beneficial to them since that blockchain is no longer the one used by the super-majority.

-large blocks do also mean less fees because it lowers the minimum fee one needs to pay to expect fast confirms. This translates to more junk on the chain and more microstransactions and thus a bloat of the blockchain, but this has been said many times by many people.
On the other hand when you have full blocks (it's not nearly the case right now) the first thing that happens with full 1MB blocks is not that the sky is falling but that the junk microtransactions and gambling is pushed off the chain btw. So really no need to worry at all about full blocks. Once it happens the sky is still not falling and everyone who sends with fees can still get fast confirms. Really all that propaganda here about urgency and 'sky is falling if we dont fork' is unbearable

How does it lower the minimum fee? Currently there is still quite some amount of space in blocks, but if you pay less than the minimum fee, then the likelihood of the transaction being confirmed rapidly decreases.

[Pecunia non olet]

@tvbcof
No, haven't talked to any of these people. Why should i? I've been reading a lot and have my own opinion on things. This profile pic can be found all over the net. It's nothing unique as it is kind of viral content.

 

-Certain people have announced to only pretend to switch to XT and switch back to core after the fork so even if you see a mayority in the network it doesn't mean it's real. There is some rest of risk that can not be avoided.

Who announced this? Either way, the fork does not happen if there are more XT nodes than Core nodes, rather it happens when a large percentage of the last 1000 or greater blocks in the longest blockchain is of the new version number. And switching back to core would be less beneficial to them since that blockchain is no longer the one used by the super-majority.

-large blocks do also mean less fees because it lowers the minimum fee one needs to pay to expect fast confirms. This translates to more junk on the chain and more microstransactions and thus a bloat of the blockchain, but this has been said many times by many people.
On the other hand when you have full blocks (it's not nearly the case right now) the first thing that happens with full 1MB blocks is not that the sky is falling but that the junk microtransactions and gambling is pushed off the chain btw. So really no need to worry at all about full blocks. Once it happens the sky is still not falling and everyone who sends with fees can still get fast confirms. Really all that propaganda here about urgency and 'sky is falling if we dont fork' is unbearable

How does it lower the minimum fee? Currently there is still quite some amount of space in blocks, but if you pay less than the minimum fee, then the likelihood of the transaction being confirmed rapidly decreases.

Can't be sure about malicious miners and hashpower that lies dormant and would be switched on to core in case of the fork. I'm fairly sure core will survive in any case even against a supermajority simply because it would still be supported by at the very least 20% to 30% of the community according to the polls.

----

About fees: correct and on the Gavincoin less fees will be required. I've been reading that somewhere from someone who must know on reddit.

You guys ask questions, man. I need to bookmark each and every relevant statement by a dev or miner or anyone that i read next time so i can link it ...

[achow101]

Can't be sure about malicious miners and hashpower that lies dormant and would be switched on to core in case of the fork. I'm fairly sure core will survive in any case even against a supermajority simply because it would still be supported by at the very least 20% to 30% of the community according to the polls.

If 20% - 30% of the community (assuming miners are distributed evenly), then super-majority won't be achieved and the fork won't happen. If say those 20% -30% aren't miners, then they are screwed, as their blockchain would become stale, insecure, and unused by everyone else. Even if a few miners stayed, they wouldn't have the hash rate to make that blockchain usable at its current difficulty which would stay there until the next difficulty retarget.

[tvbcof]

...
Can't be sure about malicious miners and hashpower that lies dormant and would be switched on to core in case of the fork. I'm fairly sure core will survive in any case even against a supermajority simply because it would still be supported by at the very least 20% to 30% of the community according to the polls.

Count on it.

Most of us old timers are perfectly capable of compiling our own code and will do whatever is necessary to protect our asses.  Most of us are easily capable of standing by for months at a time before our top-ramen supply runs out if that's what it takes to solve the XT problem, and very few of us will get suckered into pushing the 'upgrade now' button on our MultiBit^ch GUI client.

There are also a contingent of whales who may or may not have these skills, but they are certainly savvy enough to find someone who does.  Else they would not be whales.

[tvbcof]

...
I've been meaning to tell you, BTW, thanks for some of your recent posts. You are one of the few people I enjoy reading on this forum.

Thx!  I presume that that does not necessarily mean you agree with me on everything.  Some of the people I enjoy reading most are ones with whom have a pretty different viewpoint.   I should be getting something useful done but sometimes Bitcointalk is just to entertaining.  Lately I've been getting a kick out of iCEBREAKER.  When he gets on a roll he can tear it up.  He did a number of Justusranvier the other day which had me in stitches.

[RoadStress]

Stop spreading FUD Mircea Popescu!

I'm not MP you piece of shit

I thought we established that you are on his payroll in the 20MB Fork thread. You can deny it, but you can't prove it wrong.

China btw holds 50% of hashpower and they have low bandwidth so they are not going to mine Gavincoin.
...
Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?  

So we shouldn't raise the block size in order to protect the miners that are on the floating line with their profits? What will we do when the block reward is halved? We will decrease the block size in order to help the miners? This is a non-argument. China can mine on their own fork if they will not afford/accept the lower fees. The rest of the world will mine on the 8MB Fork. I am sure that Bitpay, Coinbaise and Bitstamp will not care about the chinese miners and their abject and scamming "cultural differences"!

[achow101]

China btw holds 50% of hashpower and they have low bandwidth so they are not going to mine Gavincoin.
...
Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for?  

So we shouldn't raise the block size in order to protect the miners that are on the floating line with their profits? What will we do when the block reward is halved? We will decrease the block size in order to help the miners? This is a non-argument. China can mine on their own fork if they will not afford/accept the lower fees. The rest of the world will mine on the 8MB Fork. I am sure that Bitpay, Coinbaise and Bitstamp will not care about the chinese miners and their abject and scamming "cultural differences"!

Since miners in China are a significant portion of the miners and they contribute a large portion of the hashrate, if they don't agree to the new change, then Bitcoin can't fork because the super-majority won't be achieved. Sure they could mine their own fork, but that would mean that someone had to convince the miners to fork and mine their own altcoin, which will not happen. If they forked Bitcoin into the 1 MB blockchain and the larger blockchain for the Chinese miners, then there would be more problems because of the whole issue with two chains. This scenario will not happen because the fork requires a super-majority to agree to the switch.

[tvbcof]

I presume that that does not necessarily mean you agree with me on everything.

Not everything, no. Although, I find myself agreeing with you more in the past year or so than I did say...  3 years ago? Take that for whatever it's worth, I consider myself on the fringes of society (intentionally). I don't think I've changed much in the past few years, but that may not be easy to see from my perspective.

You just have a way of putting things that makes me feel like I'm getting something genuine as opposed to what people might want or hope to hear. That's valuable to me.

Likewise on the 3 years ago thing.  I've changed more than others though it pains me to admit it.  Bitcoin had little to do with it I think.

You are right about my being genuine (fwiw.)  I've no ties to anyone but myself, and I've already capitalized so although I would like to make some more money or whatever, that probably is only a reasonable fraction of my incentive for doing one thing or another.  In actual fact, my strongly held beliefs about Bitcoin would, I feel, serve both myself (in a way I'd eventually feel in the pocketbook) and humanity simultaneously.

I normally don't exactly try to be a shock-jock, but when I see something forming up that way I admit to going back and tuning it to be more so.  Earlier I used to hammer on Libertarians and Anarchists, and in a funny way it was because we have more than a little commonality.  I did the same thing with 2nd amendment folk decades ago.  Cannot help it I guess and find it amusing.

IIRC I mis-read you early and some of your stuff surprised me at one point due to this.  I would agree that you seem to kind of march to a different drummer.  I've always felt that that's inherently cool in a general sense.