.

[Lauda]

You see, I can differentiate between opinions and facts.
You seem to be unable to do that, so I'm not surprised
you would make this kind of bonehead argument.

Ad hominem to undermine the argument as always. Keep trying.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Not going to happen until there are rational people with relevant knowledge around.

[VeritasSapere]

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

I will try and explain it you again Lauda, even though your posts are becoming increasingly irrational. Miners follow the economic majority because of the incentive mechanism. Miners are the only group that actually have a reliable voting mechanism that can not be manipulated, proof of work. This is part of my theory on Bitcoin governance:

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

Where did I say that?  I dont talk about economic majority because its an derived concept, not entirely relevant to the fork.

I understand what you mean by it, but the decision will be made by others.

[Lauda]

I will try and explain it you again Lauda, even though your post are becoming increasingly irrational.

Irrelevant and false; more fallacies please.

Miners follow the economic majority because of the incentive mechanism. Miners are the only group that actually have a reliable voting mechanism that can not be manipulated, proof of work.

What are you trying to say here? If the miners move to chain X that implies that the economic majority is in favor of it?

Where did I say that?  I dont talk about economic majority because its an invented concept, not entirely relevant to the fork.

I said 'you guys' as in the 'forkers'. Didn't mean you specifically though. I however don't see consensus among the industry; and forking at any random number above 50% does not imply consensus at all.

[topiOleg]

It's not a false statement.   I didn't say anything about "proof".
I have observed that many people here (even those who support the Core team) want 2MB to be implemented.

It is a false statement. Without proper data, your observation is pointless to anyone sensible. I could easily state the opposite:"I have observed that many people here don't want 2 MB implemented.". So who would be right in this case? Since there are "no false statements" are we both right at the same time? You're making conclusions based on a small sample of mostly hand picked data.

Well at least some want Bitcoin Core increase the blocksize to 2 MB soon, like myselves.  I preffer if Bitcoin Core return to reasonable behaviour and stop acting childish in this matter, it only hurts Bitcoin. And no I dont believe in technocracy so few Bitcoin Core developers can have final world in everything concernig whole Bitcoin ecosystem which decsion of few Bitcoin Core developers can have huge impact. And turning to settlement only model is huge Bitcoin change, Bitcoin Core should act much more conservative.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

[
I said 'you guys' as in the 'forkers'. Didn't mean you specifically though. I however don't see consensus among the industry; and forking at any random number above 50% does not imply consensus at all.

It doesn't need to 'imply' anything. It either is or it is not. Miners will take the path that they feel will resolve the issue best and has the best chance of succeeding. 

[Lauda]

It doesn't need to 'imply' anything. It either is or it is not. Miners will take the path that they feel will resolve the issue best and has the best chance of succeeding. 

Classic isn't the right path especially since the miners requested 90% threshold (IIRC) and Gavin refused to listen to them. Albeit you make a point though; there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It doesn't need to 'imply' anything. It either is or it is not. Miners will take the path that they feel will resolve the issue best and has the best chance of succeeding. 

Classic isn't the right path especially since the miners requested 90% threshold (IIRC) and Gavin refused to listen to them. Albeit you make a point though; there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Chinese math. The 60 percent wait for 90 percent consensus. Joke of the year.

[gmaxwell]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

[franky1]

stop with the doomsday speaches and look at the reality of how the network will work.. if miners are not happy that only 70% of implementations are ready, they will just continue with their preferential blocks builds of under 1mb while having the 2mb as an unused buffer until they are happy to make bigger blocks (like some miners still have 0.2mb blocks even with a 1mb rule active).

and orphans will sort out the rest.

the 2mb rule is not a nuclear button that forces miners to make bigger blocks. its just a buffer that sits there until miners are ready.

[figmentofmyass]

in the case of a hard fork, i'll be plugging away on my Core node. if you want 2 chains, you got it. and yes, i'll be doing my best to double spend on the "Classic" chain to make the fork irreparable. just doing my part.

[franky1]

in the case of a hard fork, i'll be plugging away on my Core node. if you want 2 chains, you got it. and yes, i'll be doing my best to double spend on the "Classic" chain to make the fork irreparable. just doing my part.

relax. the core team are not telling people that orphans will take care of the chances of alternate chains. i do love their hypocracy of doomsday scenario's without merit just to try winning favour out of fear.

by hypocracy i mean by them(blockstR3am) not adding 2mb to sit as a buffer. they themselves will be causing the issues if miners decided to move forward but core doesnt allow users to have the setting to cope with the change

[Abiky]

I just hope that the block size issue gets fixed real soon. Whenever it is Classic or Unlimited or whatever new name they would come up with, it should be proved to become an ideal solution to fix this problem. In my opinion, I think the best option would be Segregated Witness considering it is a soft fork while others are hard forks.  

P.S. Seeing that Gavin has finally came up with the 2MB proposal, really means progress.

[illinest]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

I tend to agree.

Could you tell us from a technical perspective -- assuming a 75% trigger, what % of the hashpower could conceivably achieve that (accounting for lucky runs, etc)? I would guess closer to 65-70%?

[franky1]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

I tend to agree.

Could you tell us from a technical perspective -- assuming a 75% trigger, what % of the hashpower could conceivably achieve that (accounting for lucky runs, etc)? I would guess closer to 65-70%?

a 70% trigger, just changes a 1000000 into 2000000... which sits as a buffer, miners can still make small blocks nothing will force miners to make blocks over 1mb until they personally choose to(which could be months or years, whenever they choose to). its not a nuclear trigger.. and just a buffer increase when the consensus shows that there is a possibility that capacity may grow soon. even after the 28 days are up, if miners think the risk of orphan is still high due to many other things. they wont push the envelope. and that 2000000 will just sit there as nothing more then a buffer

[madjules007]

in the case of a hard fork, i'll be plugging away on my Core node. if you want 2 chains, you got it. and yes, i'll be doing my best to double spend on the "Classic" chain to make the fork irreparable. just doing my part.

relax. the core team are not telling people that orphans will take care of the chances of alternate chains. i do love their hypocracy of doomsday scenario's without merit just to try winning favour out of fear.

by hypocracy i mean by them(blockstR3am) not adding 2mb to sit as a buffer. they themselves will be causing the issues if miners decided to move forward but core doesnt allow users to have the setting to cope with the change

What do you mean by the bolded? I can't really figure out what you're saying. Are you suggesting that in a 75% hard fork scenario, that multiple surviving chains are impossible?

How is that hypocrisy? Why would we do a 2mb hard fork when segwit give us nearly that or more? If miners move forward with 2mb without Core -- and I think that is highly unlikely (I think you and others greatly overestimate the stupidity of large-scale miners) -- that would be their fault. It would be their fault for running a barely-tested version of bitcoin and expecting the rest of the ecosystem to do the same on very little notice, on the word of a ragtag minority of devs who have done nothing to suggest they are capable of maintaining bitcoin.

And you might just find that, in such a situation, a good deal of that hashpower makes its way back to the original (1mb limit) blockchain shortly before or after the hard fork is triggered.

a 70% trigger, just changes a 1000000 into 2000000... which sits as a buffer, miners can still make small blocks nothing will force miners to make blocks over 1mb until they personally choose to(which could be months or years, whenever they choose to). its not a nuclear trigger.. and just a buffer increase when the consensus shows that there is a possibility that capacity may grow soon. even after the 28 days are up, if miners think the risk of orphan is still high due to many other things. they wont push the envelope. and that 2000000 will just sit there as nothing more then a buffer

What are you talking about? You can't talk about "miners" as a single entity. A node is either running one version of the software or the other, assuming they are incompatible (in this case, the are). That means that after the hypothetical 28 days, if 70% are running node software that accepts > 1MB blocks, once any single miner or pool publishes a block that is valid based on 2mb parameters but not 1mb, we have passed the point of no return. "They won't push the envelope?" How could you pretend to predict the actions of every single CPU contributing hashpower to the network?

You've already predicted that 0% out of 100% of hashing power will publish a block breaking the old consensus rules -- that the new limit "is nothing more then a buffer," even if 70% ran the node software at some point in order to activate the new rules. On its face, that is extremely unlikely given that it only takes one actor with a modicum of hashing power to cause the node software of a majority of miners to enforce the new consensus rules.

So once Gavin's 28 days are up and any one miner or pool publishes a >1MB block, hashpower ceases to be the question at all. The question becomes which chain node operators consider valid.

Do you then go on to predict that 100% of nodes will be running one version of the software (1mb limit) or the other (2mb limit)? Because if not, we will inevitably have an irreparable chain fork.

If you want to know whether a hard fork activating with 70% of hashing power can break bitcoin into multiple blockchains (presumably forever, as too much value will have changed hands to conceivably "roll back")... the answer is unequivocally YES.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

If you want to know whether a hard fork activating with 70% of hashing power can break bitcoin into multiple blockchains (presumably forever, as too much value will have changed hands to conceivably "roll back")... the answer is unequivocally YES.

Can Gavin's objections to the Core roadmap be that strong that he's willing to risk this?^

What am I missing? Has he come out in support of splitting the network?

[blunderer]

If you want to know whether a hard fork activating with 70% of hashing power can break bitcoin into multiple blockchains (presumably forever, as too much value will have changed hands to conceivably "roll back")... the answer is unequivocally YES.

Can Gavin's objections to the Core roadmap be that strong that he's willing to risk this?^

What am I missing? Has he come out in support of splitting the network?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^You one of 'em?

[blunderer]

^You one of 'em?