ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[Lauda]

-snip-

Let us review it from another angle (summary):

SegWit soft fork

• Clients that do not upgrade are unable to validate 'new format' signatures
• All interactions between new and old clients possible
• Services that do not upgrade function normally

2MB hard fork

• Clients that do not upgrade are completely cut off
• Services that do not upgrade stop functioning
• Interacting between new and old clients impossible

Keep in mind that this is a summary, not a technical explanation of any points (in detail).
There may be scenarios in which some point proves to be false (e.g. services operating on wrong chain)

[1713951869]

1713951869

[1713951869]

1713951869

[1713951869]

1713951869

[1713951869]

1713951869

[franky1]

-snip-

Let us review it from another angle (summary):

SegWit soft fork

• Clients that do not upgrade are unable to validate signatures
• SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE
• Services that do not upgrade function kind of normally but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

2MB hard fork

• Clients that do not upgrade are ok until there is 95% consensus. then and only then will those not upgraded will be completely cut off
• Services that do not upgrade stop functioningonly when there is overwhelming consensus for miners to risk increasing size
• Interacting between new and old clients impossiblewhen 95% of people are happy with >1mb block

remember miners that want to actually mine wont want to have their blocks orphaned. and so they wont make bigger blocks until they are sure that the network is ready. if the network is not ready then even nefarious large blockers will have their blocks orphaned when non nefarious small blockers dont have that nefarious block in the chain.

[gmaxwell]

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

[Lauda]

-snip-

Thank you for answering this. I was about to write something similar and post but I'm having network related issues. What I wrote about, was the situation after deployment (consensus does not matter then, since the activation already happened) in both cases.

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

Exactly. It is impossible to measure how many users/services have upgraded and thus a hard fork needs much more time. Rushing one is very bad.

[franky1]

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

well its not impossible.. a hint, (bip14):useragent.....  and bitnodes..
though im not sure why you think knowing just the version type someone has suddenly made having the blockchain irrelevant.. (secretly i know you mean if there was a central means of communications then why bother decentralizing the blocks.. but thats not the point)

was the blockchain irrelevant when searching for nodes was done via IRC.. or dns?

[BitUsher]

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

well its not impossible.. a hint, (bip14):useragent.....  and bitnodes..
though im not sure why you think knowing just the version type someone has suddenly made having the blockchain irrelevant.. (secretly i know you mean if there was a central means of communications then why bother decentralizing the blocks.. but thats not the point)

was the blockchain irrelevant when searching for nodes was done via IRC.. or dns?

It is extremely tricky to not be gamed and sybil attacked. The best we have come up with thus far is PoW and that is far from perfect. It would be great to roll out some tests on a sidechain and attempt to game them. 

[franky1]

It is extremely tricky to not be gamed and sybil attacked. The best we have come up with thus far is PoW and that is far from perfect. It would be great to roll out some tests on a sidechain and attempt to game them.  

i agree that knowing what versions people have can then be sybil attacked by biased people adding a crap tonne of nodes of their particular preference.. but the flip side is that the different band camps can argue forever saying team gavincoin is winning.. then 2 seconds later team blockstream say they are winning without either ever having to show proof.. because they both wont allow or trust actual version statistics to be publicized, and if then publicized they'd simply debate more that the numbers must be fake.

id say its not impossible to get a fair understanding of what the implementation preference is, just not easy to guage what is honest numbers versus sybil attack numbers... impossible is too strong a word..

[watashi-kokoto]

I think of the user agent as a last line of defense mechanism.

We actually could deploy an upgrade where node would copy the same user agent used by the node speaking to.

This way we would not get REKT/banned by hadfork nodes keeping bug-for-bug compatibility at all costs.

[Cconvert2G36]

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

Good news, we've been instructed on how such issues are settled on the network:



What a relief.

[iCEBREAKER]

I won't waste my time going through the basics again. There's a security risk, i.e. new attack vector. Whether you believe that someone is going to try abusing it or not does not change the fact of its existence.

What is the difference between a 1mb block size and a 1.001 mb block size? Is there any logical boundary why the 1mb is the block limit or is it only arbitrary?

If so, then raising the block size from 1mb to 1.001mb would cause any harm? Or the mere fact of raising the block size is the issue here (due to panic, dividing the userbase, and creating division in users)?


I`m just trying to understand things here.

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary.  That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

[bob123]

Im interested in seeing how this will work out in future.

[Lauda]

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary.  That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

[franky1]

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

weldone. thank you for making my point about the 95% consensus.
even i hate that gavin has lobbied miners and exchanges before users.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

[Carlton Banks]

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

weldone. thank you for making my point about the 95% consensus.
even i hate that gavin has lobbied miners and exchanges before users.

explain how to successfully poll all bitcoin users for their preference, Franky. I think someone amply demonstrated the problem with the "95% of trolls support Bitcoin x" line

[iCEBREAKER]

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

Non-contentious hard forks (historically) addressed some outstanding issue that threatened Bitcoin's functionality.  IE, they fixed something that was indisputably broken.

Contentious hard forks seek to fix or improve what "isn't broken" from the perspective of some non-negligible faction of the socioeconomic majority.

Block size is the perfect example of this.  It pits the 'payment network' vs the 'store of value' clans.

Fortunately for the small block militia, Bitcoin was designed to protect minority opinions from the tyranny of the majority, by giving them nigh-infinite veto power.

Another way to say "contentious hard fork" is "breaking Bitcoin."  They are functional equivalents, and equally impossible AFAIK.

Bitcoin was engineered to withstand a continuous, coordinated attack by all the world's nation states, banks, and hax0rz.  It's not going to change just because some Gavinista-cum-Toominista assclowns make a lot of noise on Reddit about "Capacity Cliff" and "Hard Landing" FUD.

The "Free transactions 4eva" dimwits never had one iota of a chance in hell of perturbing Honey Badger.

The funniest thing is they know that, but refuse to accept it.  

[iCEBREAKER]

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary.  That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

It is quite likely that they are testing various forms of attack on Bitcoin, including this one. If Hearn or Toomin had a little bit sense they would not even consider forking under 90-95% consensus. Forking around 70% means that they do not really care about the ecosystem but rather for their own agendas. Even if we wanted to increase the limit, it would only be safe if we scheduled a hard fork for early 2017 (12 months from now).

I agree that XT was a probing attack, never intended to succeed.

Too bad for the hard forkers that all the best thinkers are on Team Cypherpunk and wish to keep Bitcoin diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

The attackers only have force of numbers and uncreative strategies on their side.  Poor things.

This sums up the frustrated Tooministas approach to subverting Bitcoin for the business requirements of the BIS:

[RealBitcoin]

The 1MB limit was originally arbitrary.  That was 7 years ago.

Now it is logical, because Bitcoin has ossified around it and the trade-offs (cost vs benefit) of changing it are overwhelmingly in favor of status quo.

The long-standing (but de facto tabled) blocksize debate is being used as a thin wedge to push a governance coup, whereby Core will be deposed and replaced by Hearn's bankster-friendly shitlord buddies (they call themselves, in the best traditions of Orwell, The Blockchain Alliance).

The point is to make Bitcoin easier to control, and no longer above the law, by destroying its unique and interesting antifragile (diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient) property.

Bitcoin should remain sovereign, if it is to be a succesful global currency. I hope the majority of bitcoin users dont let the trojan horse in their gates.

[jonald_fyookball]

SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE

What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content

No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus

95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy

Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.

So what's the difference between a hard fork and a contentious hard fork?

Consensus...yeah....

I'm pretty sure the Blockstream team could come to a consensus amongst themselves
on how to scale Bitcoin.

They just don't agree with the rest of the community (Gavin, coinbase, bitfury, etc)

It's easy to say "there's no consensus" when you're the one who's preventing it.

[BillyBobZorton]

What kind of moron is still supporting Bitcoin classic? I mean the information is already out there, we all know it's better to do segwit than force a hard fork risking a lot of stuff and ruin a lot of people running nodes on modest hardware. Are these guys just trolling at this point? I understand some corporations have agendas, but some guy posting in a forum? what does he gain unless he just doesn't still get the facts straight? i doubt they are being paid to post this crap so I guess they legitimately think raising the block size now is a good idea because they aren't capable of understanding the tradeoffs.