How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork

[tvbcof]

I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.

This echo's Hearn's experience that investors want a 'benevolent dictator' management structure so that shit can get done.  Another reason to fork the thing already and give this segment what they want.  Then we can all just move forward.

[MarketNeutral]

I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!

I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.

This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.

Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.

This echo's Hearn's experience that investors want a 'benevolent dictator' management structure so that shit can get done.  Another reason to fork the thing already and give this segment what they want.  Then we can all just move forward.

It is thus ironic that Hearn has caused investors to reconsider Bitcoin.

Not that I'm a fan of what the Core devs are doing either; they need to get their shit together too, but at least they're not trying to push blacklists and backdoor IP bans, which would jeopardize fungibility and decentralization, two pillars upon which bitcoin derives it's value in the real world.

Yet what else do investors, especially affluent investors, desire, besides scalability? Consistency and stability in the protocol, thereby making meaningful risk analysis possible.
A hard fork is anything but stable. It has been accomplished in the past without issue, however the previous hard forks were not caused by a hostile takeover of the protocol.
Among all Bitcoin luminaries, I can think of few that would be worse than Hearn in the role of 'benevolent dictator.'
Karpeles would be worse, I suppose.
Gavin was actually doing a decent enough job until Hearn whispered sweet nothings in his ear.

If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

[Carlton Banks]

If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.

People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"

But if we followed that logic in extremis, every git commit would get put to the "electorate". Useful development couldn't take place under those conditions, simple misunderstanding could hold back vital or urgent changes that would be effective. Divisive, corrosive top level designs might end up under serious consideration....


Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

[uxgpf]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

[Carlton Banks]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.

[brg444]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.

Gavin & Mike settled on it because it's a chinese lucky number for "prosperity". True story!

[uxgpf]

Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

I think Linux has managed quite well with huge number of contributors (thousands?). Linus has been it's benevolent dictator from the day one (although he has been delegating his work to trusted "leutenants" more and more). It seems that large software projects need to have clear hierarchy in order to move things forward (someone has to have the final say on what patches get accepted).

Obiviously some people will sometimes disagree in direction taken and it will result in a fork. But the impression I get from Core is that it has no direction (no one has the final say in what should be done), just bunch of devs with different ideas on what should be done.

[brg444]

Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

I think Linux has managed quite well with huge number of contributors (thousands?). Linus has been it's benevolent dictator from the day one (although he has been delegating his work to trusted "leutenants" more and more). It seems that large software projects need to have clear hierarchy in order to move things forward (someone has to have the final say on what patches get accepted).

Obiviously some people will sometimes disagree in direction taken and it will result in a fork. But the impression I get from Core is that it has no direction (no one has the final say in what should be done), just bunch of devs with different ideas on what should be done.

Bitcoin development is quite unlike any other open source software.

You are not the first one to bring up the Linux parallel. Unfortunately it doesn't apply.

[tvbcof]

...
If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

From his writings it doesn't sound like he'd take the job.

I also remember Maxwell mentioning that he thought it would be unwise for any American (or USian I guess) to have formal leading role in Bitcoin.  It was either stated or implied that this nationality status could result in unhealthy and unwelcome political pressure.

[maokoto]

At least, let's expect that coin value is not lost if there is a fork. If the fork comes, old coins will be in the two chains, and likely halve their value, forcing people to have the two wallets to maintain their coin value.

Am I right?

[knight22]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

You must be kidding right? http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

I wonder who's being dishonest with his arguments 

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin development is quite unlike any other open source software.

You are not the first one to bring up the Linux parallel. Unfortunately it doesn't apply.

There is some value to the comparison IMO.

Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

I think Linux has managed quite well with huge number of contributors (thousands?). Linus has been it's benevolent dictator from the day one (although he has been delegating his work to trusted "leutenants" more and more). It seems that large software projects need to have clear hierarchy in order to move things forward (someone has to have the final say on what patches get accepted).

Obiviously some people will sometimes disagree in direction taken and it will result in a fork. But the impression I get from Core is that it has no direction (no one has the final say in what should be done), just bunch of devs with different ideas on what should be done.

Somewhat agree. The hierarchy is definitely important, there cannot be deadlocks to progress, even if that means progress goes in the "wrong" direction. It also demonstrates how a less patient character can also be effective, although whether Torvald's demeanour is what actually motivates people to do the job well is debatable.

The Bitcoin dev team does have a hierarchy, but it's not enforced by a strong character. The strong characters are amongst the immediate lieutenants, not the people with commit access (who I believe are currently Wladimir, Pieter Wuille and Jeff Garzik). When contemplating the alternatives, there is no-one that I think has the right temperament for a role that requires more trust than Torvalds'. We'd possibly already have a solution, but possibly a host of new problems too.

[Carlton Banks]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

You must be kidding right? http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

I wonder who's being dishonest with his arguments  

The irony is delicious, more replies to statements that are subtly but importantly different to the statement I actually made.

You're not fooling anyone, it's totally disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[knight22]

One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.

I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

You must be kidding right? http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

I wonder who's being dishonest with his arguments  

The irony is delicious, more replies to statements that are subtly but importantly different to the statement I actually made.

You're not fooling anyone, it's totally disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Sorry for pointing out some facts you dislike

[uxgpf]

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

BIP 101 has had a lot of support from businesses in bitcoin ecosystem and when it comes to dishonest tactics neither side is clean. If you're asking me if I'm everyday user, then yes, I've been using bitcoin since early 2013. Like with most bitcoin users, until this debate I've had no interest in writing to BCT so that's why my account is new.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.

It's basically just to kick the can forward to some point where it doesn't matter so that better solutions can be made (if even needed). 8 MB is just something which miners and businesses have already given some support so easiest point to find quick consensus.

If you ask me I'd be happy in lifting the limit completely as it's not even mentioned in the whitepaper.

[tvbcof]

At least, let's expect that coin value is not lost if there is a fork. If the fork comes, old coins will be in the two chains, and likely halve their value, forcing people to have the two wallets to maintain their coin value.

Am I right?

I think probably you are not right, but at the end of the day there is a lot of hand-waving and speculation involved in a lot of this stuff.

For values, I believe it very unlikely that reality would prove a split to be a zero-sum game.  In other words, that the value would 'half'.  I personally feel that the future of Bitcoin is most bright as a backing store (or reserve currency or source-of-truth or whatever one wants to call it) providing a foundation for subordinate chains.  A split would cause me to consider my own stash more dear because I believe that the other group is a detriment at this point and we could move forward more easily without them.

On the flip side, as has been stated, the investor class wants a more nimble management team among other things.  They might value the solution more if it could move more quickly to the roles that they envision.

So, a split might result in a significant increase in total net value.  Conversely, people might think that such a split could be repeated time and time again and it makes blockchain technology as expressed by Bitcoin families of crypto-currency less valuable.

---

To your question about 'two wallets', I would say no.  What you would need is a wallet which could evaluate each UTXO that you control and decide how to optimally structure spends so you don't get burnt.  I would anticipate such things being commonplace by the time they are needed...which, unfortunately, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will use them so some people who are not paying attention or who choose to trust the wrong people will probably get burnt.

[Carlton Banks]

XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users.

BIP 101 has had a lot of support from businesses in bitcoin ecosystem and when it comes to dishonest tactics neither side is clean. If you're asking me if I'm everyday user, then yes, I've been using bitcoin since early 2013. Like with most bitcoin users, until this debate I've had no interest in writing to BCT so that's why my account is new.

What you actually mean is that BIP101 has support from a handful of large incumbent businesses. And I'm not referring to you when talking about dishonest tactics, you've been straightforward in what you've said.

And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others.

It's basically just to kick the can forward to some point where it doesn't matter so that better solutions can be made (if even needed). 8 MB is just something which miners and businesses have already given some support so easiest point to find quick consensus.

If you ask me I'd be happy in lifting the limit completely as it's not even mentioned in the whitepaper.

Whitepaper was the blueprint, not the final spec. Your idea is a bad one. With no limit, the whole dynamic eventually collapses. Or the miners continue at a loss.

[monsanto]

To your question about 'two wallets', I would say no.  What you would need is a wallet which could evaluate each UTXO that you control and decide how to optimally structure spends so you don't get burnt.

Yeah I could see there being wallets that incorporate both bitcoin versions. A dual wallet that determines the best way to store/spend your funds.

[knight22]

Whitepaper was the blueprint, not the final spec. Your idea is a bad one. With no limit, the whole dynamic eventually collapses. Or the miners continue at a loss.

How is this even possible? The miners that are at a loss will drop out resulting in a difficulty adjustment. Those who aren't at a loss due to their competitive environment will just continue mining, like it is the case actually. Difficulty will simply adjust to the marginal cost of the sum of the transaction fees.

[Q7]

The most damaging aspect is how the rest of the people not within the circle of community, on what they would think and will view bitcoin. They will see it as something not reliable and with uncertainty surrounding it, nobody is going to put in more money. Surely they are not going to take that kind of risk on investment.