Don't mine on Eligius

[Grix]

Just a warning. I just asked a question in the eligius thread, and the owner of seems completely out of touch with the current happenings in bitcoin, namely the forking issues. He refuses to answer questions on whether he would follow the most popular chain in the event that a hardfork occurs, and banned me from his thread after I pressed him, because it's a very simple yet extremely important question to answer. Very worrisome behavior. I fear he is liable to mine on the original chain even if the majority switches, out of spite at what he adamantly calls "altcoins", jeopardizing his user's money. If you value your money I wouldn't mine there, especially if a hardfork begins to seem likely in the near future.

[ZephramC]

Just a warning. I just asked a question in the eligius thread, and the owner of seems completely out of touch with the current happenings in bitcoin, namely the forking issues. He refuses to answer questions on whether he would follow the most popular chain in the event that a hardfork occurs, and banned me from his thread after I pressed him, because it's a very simple yet extremely important question to answer. Very worrisome behavior. I fear he is liable to mine on the original chain even if the majority switches, out of spite at what he adamantly calls "altcoins", jeopardizing his user's money. If you value your money I wouldn't mine there, especially if a hardfork begins to seem likely in the near future.

So Eligius will likely mine on original chain and consider all >1MB blocks invalid even under pressure of majority mining power, economic actors, popular "vote" and government?

[sturle]

Just a warning. I just asked a question in the eligius thread, and the owner of seems completely out of touch with the current happenings in bitcoin, namely the forking issues. He refuses to answer questions on whether he would follow the most popular chain in the event that a hardfork occurs, and banned me from his thread after I pressed him, because it's a very simple yet extremely important question to answer. Very worrisome behavior. I fear he is liable to mine on the original chain even if the majority switches, out of spite at what he adamantly calls "altcoins", jeopardizing his user's money. If you value your money I wouldn't mine there, especially if a hardfork begins to seem likely in the near future.

It may be a wise decision by the pool operator.  Note the fact that the parameters chosen by at least two of the current forks, "Classic" and "XT", are specifically chosen to ensure a very small majority will eventually trigger the fork.  Even a lucky minority can do it.  I think a pool operator refusing to take the risk of making a premature decision is only doing his job.  See this explanation by organofcorti from long before "Classic" was conceived.  The evenly distributed hashrate between the forks means it may take weeks to discover which fork is the most popular.  It would be best to use this time wisely, as miners may announce false support for a fork, and stay on the standard bitcoin chain when it is time to switch.  A variant of this happened after the BIP66 soft fork, which was triggered on a 95% majority, resulting in a long chainfork which took hours to resolve.

Most miners will probably leave due to unprofitability when the price crashes on the uncertainty surrounding the fork.  How this sudden drop in hashrate will change the support for the different forks is completely unpredictable, but must be taken into account when choosing which fork to mine.  If the "Classic", "XT" or "Unlimited" fork is chosen, and the real majority ends up following the old consensus rules, all work done on the forks may be lost.

I wish the forkers were more responsible when choosing their parameters.  Either they don't know better, or their goal is drama and destruction, not change.  If they think an economic majority want larger blocks, they could launch a sidechain with 2 MB blocks, and see most bitcoins moved over there.  This sidechain would become the de-facto bitcoin chain with no harm to Bitcoin, and larger sidechains would be easy to deploy when needed or wanted.

[kano]

... as miners may announce false support for a fork, and stay on the standard bitcoin chain when it is time to switch.  A variant of this happened after the BIP66 soft fork, which was triggered on a 95% majority, resulting in a long chainfork which took hours to resolve.
...

The only variant was the SPV miners forgot to check the header properly and fucked up.
They didn't check the version number.
So no that argument against 95% holds no water at all.
For 95% to be reached, the network will be above 95% ...
Any few tiny miners not switched over, adding some random extra length to that process will in no way guarantee anything.
They've already missed the boat, and may well continue to miss it for who knows how long.

[sturle]

... as miners may announce false support for a fork, and stay on the standard bitcoin chain when it is time to switch.  A variant of this happened after the BIP66 soft fork, which was triggered on a 95% majority, resulting in a long chainfork which took hours to resolve.
...

The only variant was the SPV miners forgot to check the header properly and fucked up.
They didn't check the version number.

Not only the header; they didn't check the validity of the block at all.  They announced support for the new consensus rules, without actually supporting them by checking if blocks were valid or not.  I.e. a variant of false support announcement.

I made no argument against 95%, btw.  However 95% of the last 1000 blocks will be triggered by less than 95% (see explanation by Organofcorti).  95% of one difficulty period (2016 blocks, fixed measurement points) is much more likely to be a certain 95%.  At 95% of the last 1000 this somewhat premature activation doesn't carry a high risk of a prolonged fork, so it probably doesn't matter as long as there is a cut-off date where the soft fork will fail if not achieved.

[kano]

I hold true that the network must be above 95% for 95% to be reached.
The simplest argument is that every miner must convert to the 'new fork' before they can find a 'new fork' block.
That time that they convert will be, on average, half way between their 'previous fork' block and their 'new fork' block.
When miners are producing 'new fork' blocks they obviously must have convert before that.

[sturle]

I hold true that the network must be above 95% for 95% to be reached.
The simplest argument is that every miner must convert to the 'new fork' before they can find a 'new fork' block.
That time that they convert will be, on average, half way between their 'previous fork' block and their 'new fork' block.
When miners are producing 'new fork' blocks they obviously must have convert before that.

950 of the last 1000 blocks (what they actually test for) is not necessarily produced by 95% of the hashrate, and certainly not 95% of the network (most nodes don't mine).  Again, I refer to Organofcorti's blog for the explanation and details.

[kano]

I hold true that the network must be above 95% for 95% to be reached.
The simplest argument is that every miner must convert to the 'new fork' before they can find a 'new fork' block.
That time that they convert will be, on average, half way between their 'previous fork' block and their 'new fork' block.
When miners are producing 'new fork' blocks they obviously must have convert before that.

950 of the last 1000 blocks (what they actually test for) is not necessarily produced by 95% of the hashrate, and certainly not 95% of the network (most nodes don't mine).  Again, I refer to Organofcorti's blog for the explanation and details.

That's discussing 75% where the XT morons tried to make it lower and screwed up coz they didn't work out the side effect on probabilities when dropping it so low ...

Edit: see point 4.

[sturle]

950 of the last 1000 blocks (what they actually test for) is not necessarily produced by 95% of the hashrate, and certainly not 95% of the network (most nodes don't mine).  Again, I refer to Organofcorti's blog for the explanation and details.

That's discussing 75% where the XT morons tried to make it lower and screwed up coz they didn't work out the side effect on probabilities when dropping it so low ...

Do you think 75 is some kind of special number, and with 95% it is impossible for e.g. 94.9% to produce 95% of the blocks for a while?

Edit: see point 4.

See my previous posts.  I wrote a summary of point 4 above:

I made no argument against 95%, btw.  However 95% of the last 1000 blocks will be triggered by less than 95% (see explanation by Organofcorti).  95% of one difficulty period (2016 blocks, fixed measurement points) is much more likely to be a certain 95%.  At 95% of the last 1000 this somewhat premature activation doesn't carry a high risk of a prolonged fork, so it probably doesn't matter as long as there is a cut-off date where the soft fork will fail if not achieved.

[kano]

950 of the last 1000 blocks (what they actually test for) is not necessarily produced by 95% of the hashrate, and certainly not 95% of the network (most nodes don't mine).  Again, I refer to Organofcorti's blog for the explanation and details.

That's discussing 75% where the XT morons tried to make it lower and screwed up coz they didn't work out the side effect on probabilities when dropping it so low ...

Do you think 75 is some kind of special number, and with 95% it is impossible for e.g. 94.9% to produce 95% of the blocks for a while?

No, it's just way less likely, that's the point it seems you've missed.
That's the whole point of using 95% vs 75%
Poisson distribution statistics aren't linear ...

Edit: see point 4.

See my previous posts.  I wrote a summary of point 4 above:

I made no argument against 95%, btw.  However 95% of the last 1000 blocks will be triggered by less than 95% (see explanation by Organofcorti).  95% of one difficulty period (2016 blocks, fixed measurement points) is much more likely to be a certain 95%.  At 95% of the last 1000 this somewhat premature activation doesn't carry a high risk of a prolonged fork, so it probably doesn't matter as long as there is a cut-off date where the soft fork will fail if not achieved.

No, you've made the clear mistake of taking probabilities and saying something "WILL" happen.
Obviously something can happen, but if you decide a low probability is an issue, then you can never do a fork, since you can never reach 100% certainly that every miner has switched.
You choose a high confidence interval.
75% is low.

[sturle]

No, it's just way less likely, that's the point it seems you've missed.
That's the whole point of using 95% vs 75%
Poisson distribution statistics aren't linear ...

It less less likely to be triggered by a minority (<50%), but it is in no way failsafe against getting triggered by less than 95%, as Organofcorti points out.

Edit: see point 4.

See my previous posts.  I wrote a summary of point 4 above:

I made no argument against 95%, btw.  However 95% of the last 1000 blocks will be triggered by less than 95% (see explanation by Organofcorti).  95% of one difficulty period (2016 blocks, fixed measurement points) is much more likely to be a certain 95%.  At 95% of the last 1000 this somewhat premature activation doesn't carry a high risk of a prolonged fork, so it probably doesn't matter as long as there is a cut-off date where the soft fork will fail if not achieved.

No, you've made the clear mistake of taking probabilities and saying something "WILL" happen.
Obviously something can happen, but if you decide a low probability is an issue, then you can never do a fork, since you can never reach 100% certainly that every miner has switched.
You choose a high confidence interval.
75% is low.

Yes, it will happen if the hashrate is stable on both sides.  If the divide is 94.5% vs 5.5%, and the 5.5% share have bad luck for a day, it will trigger.  Since the test is done every ten minutes by average, the chance of the 5.5% having bad luck for long enough at some point is very high.

[kano]

No, it's just way less likely, that's the point it seems you've missed.
That's the whole point of using 95% vs 75%
Poisson distribution statistics aren't linear ...

It less less likely to be triggered by a minority (<50%), but it is in no way failsafe against getting triggered by less than 95%, as Organofcorti points out.

Relevance zero - no one but a fool would say what "WILL" happen.
Ooc's post is all about probabilities and confidence, not what "WILL" happen as you have YET AGAIN made the same mistake below.
I've also posted to him what he missed regarding the fact that nodes convert before they produce a block.

Edit: see point 4.

See my previous posts.  I wrote a summary of point 4 above:

I made no argument against 95%, btw.  However 95% of the last 1000 blocks will be triggered by less than 95% (see explanation by Organofcorti).  95% of one difficulty period (2016 blocks, fixed measurement points) is much more likely to be a certain 95%.  At 95% of the last 1000 this somewhat premature activation doesn't carry a high risk of a prolonged fork, so it probably doesn't matter as long as there is a cut-off date where the soft fork will fail if not achieved.

No, you've made the clear mistake of taking probabilities and saying something "WILL" happen.
Obviously something can happen, but if you decide a low probability is an issue, then you can never do a fork, since you can never reach 100% certainly that every miner has switched.
You choose a high confidence interval.
75% is low.

Yes, it will happen if the hashrate is stable on both sides.  If the divide is 94.5% vs 5.5%, and the 5.5% share have bad luck for a day, it will trigger.  Since the test is done every ten minutes by average, the chance of the 5.5% having bad luck for long enough at some point is very high.

Sigh - OK you've lost the plot.
Nothing is "IT WILL HAPPEN" - even you've just said "if .... something else happens" so that's not even a "IT WILL HAPPEN"

[sturle]

Sigh - OK you've lost the plot.
Nothing is "IT WILL HAPPEN" - even you've just said "if .... something else happens" so that's not even a "IT WILL HAPPEN"

Given infinite time, the likelihood of this happening approaches infinity.  I.e. it will happen.  It is also very likely to happen with a real hashrate support below 95%, unless it is on an increasing trend and well above 95% already.