Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what
would happen if the network split 80/20.
Check it out:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen)
Many people, me too, think he is wrong.
He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork,
do you ?
He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer).
Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is
willing to admit that.
They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created.
I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought (...) businesses wanting to switch to an
altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.
I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all.
Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.Bitcoin this agreement is defined in
the
software.
No, this is not what I was asking.
Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ?
So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad
with power.
I don't see how what
you think someone else claim is relevant at all here. (Read again – what he wrote is not
what you think he claims.)
Oh, it is extremely relevant.
- Adam Back
is the president of Blockstream.
- Adam Back
lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above- Adam Back
condones censorship.
- Adam Back
has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread.
- Adam Back
wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain.
So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as
bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain.
Nope, I read it again - with
context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.
You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority". Which is
actually the opposite of what he actually wrote: "
majority MUST NOT be able to override minority" I.e.
consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.
Let's sum it up.
- Consensus is NOT what majority wants
- Consensus is NOT what minority wants
Loigically, the only thing left is that
Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants. And that is exactly what I have stated.
So for Adam Back, consensus is what Blockstream wants. Which is clearly visible in his posts.
- He thinks he is smarter than everybody
- He thinks he always knows better
- He actually thinks he invented Bitcoin and it is his to do as he pleases.
This is completely unacceptable for me and should be unacceptable for any Bitcoin user.Consensus is based on the agreement
which was there from the beginning. Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general
agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain. Neither can a majority.
Soe logically by what you are saying is:
- Majority cannot override "consensus"
- Users cannot override "consensus" (
they are the majority !)
So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have
said.
You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any
way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is
the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true"
Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.
You don't get it. Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes.
Not just a majority.
This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work.
You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work.
With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses
becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies.
The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore
highly unlikely.
- Gavin knows this
- Jeff knows this
- All Core devs know this
The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above -
some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit.
Are you telling me you don't support this!? Why do you hate children? Do you kill babies for a hobby?
Stop this offtopic now.
I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here.
Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine. Read it again, and see if you can understand it.
ROFL! Read it again. "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new
protocol consensually."
How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate? At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into
many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or
that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain. (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if
they gain more mining power.)
Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade. SPV clients are mostly safe after a
softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid. (In a
hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending
on
which node it connects to.)
Oh, now I get it.
You and me are talking about 2 different things.
You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus".
I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed.
Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new
system, otherwise there may be problems.
By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the
network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do.
- To do hard fork, actually 60% "consensus" is enough. (but 75% is of course better) The other 40%/25% will
quickly migrate to the winning side of the fork.
- To do soft fork (which Core wants to do), 90% may not be enough.
