Hardfork = Mitosis

[rizzlarolla]

RealBitcoin, do you still believe any of your generalised statements about "hardforks" here?

Or did you just mean non Core hardforks,
or just blocksize hardforks,
or just Altcoin hardforks.

When Core talk of a future hardfork to benefit segwit, is that ok?

[calkob]

I understand your logic, but it seems that logic dosnt stand up in crypto world.  I just banked 2 ETH in to a paper wallet and sold 2 ETC for bitcoin which means i have gained something surly...... lol

[rizzlarolla]

I understand your logic, but it seems that logic dosnt stand up in crypto world.  I just banked 2 ETH in to a paper wallet and sold 2 ETC for bitcoin which means i have gained something surly...... lol

Who's logic?

My logic - hardforks are not inherently bad, and will be used for something at some point.
Or RealBitcoin's illogic - hardforks should never happen ever.
(mainly because he misunderstands the difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum, and probably didn't realise Core want to hardfork in the future)

[franky1]

ok lets clear some terminology up
the blocksize is about a change in consensus rules..

a smart plan is that with a high node count and a high hash rate there is no controversy. and everyone moves over. and clients that dont move over stop receiving data, stop relaying and simply shut down. (no replay of transactions, sorry game over minority)

the premiss is at 75% miner flag, the warning bell is rung and people have to actively upgrade.. at 95% active nodes miners feel safe their blocks wont orphan and so the new consensus becomes active..

this is not a "altcoin 50-50" doomsday, but a simple change of consensus where 6000 total nodes become 5700 new consensus and 300 nodes shutdown. eventually back to 6000 when the laggers give up their protest against change.

.. now to create a altcoin/fork.. the minority group (in this case 300 nodes) need to start IP banning the 5700 nodes to ensure they dont cross contaminate the tx data. they also need to hash blocks.. which with bitcoin being such high difficulty means them 300 nodes are only getting 1 block every few hours and the unconfirmed tx's are piling up, causing them 300 nodes to need to rebroadcast their tx's with ever increasing fees to beat everyone else in the minority to be accepted into the next block.

also with a 1 block per couple hours. means instead of 2 weeks. the difficulty adjustment happens after a few months (2016 blocks) and that adjustment wont be a 900% drop either.. so dont expect to wait out for difficulty to drop.

ofcourse with such a minority. trying to find a merchant or service that is also using the minority would be a task in itself. so even in a altcoin survival scenario where 300 nodes pushed to keep their un-upgraded nodes alive by tweaking settings.. the cost of use, and ultimate usefulness of their alt would not last long. social choice including transaction headaches, costs and inability to do anything with it would make them move across to the main chain easy..

also some of the large miners may attack the minority chain by just using a quick spike in hashrate to make a new block thats empty. just to cause more issues for the minority having delays in confirmations

unlike ethereum that never have thousands of merchants or high difficulty, so the choices were never clear or defined..  bitcoins choices would be very visible and the changes and direction would happen very quickly.. with 95% making the choice even before its even activated..


in short..
bitcoin is not proposing an altcoin. nor a fork, but a consensus rule change..
its only the people creating controversy that will use the controversy to prevent it from being a smooth change, and instead being an altcoin by their actions to try creating an altcoin by ip banning and other aspects needed for a survival scenario..

in shorter version
screaming about controversy being the cause of a fork, yet be using controversy to set up a controversial hard fork by resisting change, instead of a smooth change of consensus, is just shooting the minority in the foot. however.. if there is no majority. there is no change

[RealBitcoin]

How come Core is promising a hardfork?

"We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/

Capacity increase =/= Block size increase.

The core roadmap doesnt really have a hardfork

Will there be a hard fork before or as part of the segregated witness implementation?

No. That is not part of the roadmap.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#pre-segwit-fork

[rizzlarolla]

... and we do expect to make hard forks in the future.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#size-bump

[franky1]

How come Core is promising a hardfork?

"We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/

Capacity increase =/= Block size increase.

The core roadmap doesnt really have a hardfork

Will there be a hard fork before or as part of the segregated witness implementation?

No. That is not part of the roadmap.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#pre-segwit-fork

segwit serialized blocksize=4mb
segwit=4mb blocksize increase but still only 1mb traditional transaction space

"real bitcoin" please stop trying to push the 'hardfork=bloat' bait and switch.. its so wrong on so many levels.
the only downside of a consensus change is controversy.

i hope you realise the same tactics needed to make a second chain survive a hard fork are the same changes needed on a soft fork.
people can IP ban any nodes that have upgraded and use the minority hashpower to make non segit blocks.

so softforks are just as controversial as hard forks if they choose to be
if you want to dream that soft forks are better because unupgraded nodes can continue to run after a soft fork. then your delusional again. they are rendered litenodes automatically because they no longer validate full data. no one should describe notes that dont validate as full nodes.

no controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or be left as no longer being a full node.
controversy: even in soft/hard forks there is a choice: upgrade or block upgraded nodes and form a alt..

wake up and stop eating the spoonfed honey you have been treated to.

by the way answer the question i asked before
when luke JR releases CORE segwit 2mb will you finally accept you doomsday of "controversy" is over because the factions ALL have code, and no longer a one team vs another team

[manselr]

Let the smart people work. Core devs are doing a good job by being conservative. Lets keep being conservative and after segwit and so on we can consider a +1mb increase.

[RealBitcoin]

... and we do expect to make hard forks in the future.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#size-bump

I see, well I am still against hard forks, or at least let's not rush it. We will have segwit soon, and then we will see what will happen it the future with it.

Let's just sit back and observe.

[rizzlarolla]

... and we do expect to make hard forks in the future.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#size-bump

I see, well I am still against hard forks, or at least let's not rush it. We will have segwit soon, and then we will see what will happen it the future with it. Let's just sit back and observe.

Ok.. you can be against whatever you randomly choose to be against. I know Core like people to get confused about the hard fork issue, as seen here.

I have taken your "I see" to mean you now understand hardforks are not inherently like mitosis? (they could be, but they certainly needn't be)
(i can only suppose you have deduced this because Core would not otherwise consider such a thing?)
And also a possibility you will have changed your mind on Franky's question you didn't answer?

You are quite likely just as confused about segwit?

[RealBitcoin]

Well ETC is looks like have became a stable coin and it looks like it could have a market cap similar to ETH one day.

So my 50-50% theory was correct after all, a hardfork does split the money into 2.

ETC just stole 100 million $ from ETH, it's a 1-9 ratio currently, but who knows what the future holds.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

Well ETC is looks like have became a stable coin and it looks like it could have a market cap similar to ETH one day.

So my 50-50% theory was correct after all, a hardfork does split the money into 2.

ETC just stole 100 million $ from ETH, it's a 1-9 ratio currently, but who knows what the future holds.

Nope.

Your 50-50 theory is looking pretty bunk at the moment.

ETC peaked at about 30% of ETH's value. This was about the time Barry Silbert and Samson Mow were pumping it hard on twitter.

It's been a slow bleed since then, it's lost more than 50% of its value, now at just over 12% of the value of ETH. It's been interesting watching the forces of free minds and free markets sort out their philosophical differences. Too bad BTC's soft fork salad upgrade plan keeps us in an unhappy and sometimes abusive relationship... while the kids are fleeing to altcoins like monero just to get away from the bickering and unhealthy stasis.

[Decoded]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

[botany]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

The point to note is whether the combined market cap after the split is more than the market cap of Bitcoin pre-split. If that is the case, the split has in fact created value.

[jvper]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

The point to note is whether the combined market cap after the split is more than the market cap of Bitcoin pre-split. If that is the case, the split has in fact created value.

Bitcoin rely a lot on its network effect, which means it is the most known/accepted token, because it was the first one. If it splits and both chains go on, the network effect may be broken nearly by half, which would weaken bitcoin as a whole.

[Harlot]

It depends really. What do you think the prices will be when Miners run out of BTC being mined? Do you think the prices will go up? or go down? Most of you will say it will go up, and I think so as well. But if you want prices to be stable just like FIAT we want to generate new btc into the system and let the demand make the prices up. Just think of it as Stock Companies giving Stock Dividends, instead of money. After the exdate the prices will tremendously drop but overall you have more stock and the price has a tendency to rise. Which it would in time.

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

.... and the price has a tendency to rise. Which it would in time.

Rise in due time, rise in due time, yes it will. 


Future Legends of Crypto.

[panju1]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

The point to note is whether the combined market cap after the split is more than the market cap of Bitcoin pre-split. If that is the case, the split has in fact created value.

Bitcoin rely a lot on its network effect, which means it is the most known/accepted token, because it was the first one. If it splits and both chains go on, the network effect may be broken nearly by half, which would weaken bitcoin as a whole.

One of the reasons advanced by Roger Ver for the split is that Ethereum as a whole (ETH + ETC) has risen in value after the hard fork.
So not all forks result in destruction of value.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

The point to note is whether the combined market cap after the split is more than the market cap of Bitcoin pre-split. If that is the case, the split has in fact created value.

Bitcoin rely a lot on its network effect, which means it is the most known/accepted token, because it was the first one. If it splits and both chains go on, the network effect may be broken nearly by half, which would weaken bitcoin as a whole.

One of the reasons advanced by Roger Ver for the split is that Ethereum as a whole (ETH + ETC) has risen in value after the hard fork.
So not all forks result in destruction of value.

I'd expect Roger to be a little better in math than that.  The sum of $11.26 plus $1.44 is less than ETH's $20 price just before the hard fork.

[Vistman]

You will technically have double the coins. But since a hard-fork will support the same functionality as the other, it's highly possible that the value could split.

The point to note is whether the combined market cap after the split is more than the market cap of Bitcoin pre-split. If that is the case, the split has in fact created value.

Bitcoin rely a lot on its network effect, which means it is the most known/accepted token, because it was the first one. If it splits and both chains go on, the network effect may be broken nearly by half, which would weaken bitcoin as a whole.

One of the reasons advanced by Roger Ver for the split is that Ethereum as a whole (ETH + ETC) has risen in value after the hard fork.
So not all forks result in destruction of value.

I'd expect Roger to be a little better in math than that.  The sum of $11.26 plus $1.44 is less than ETH's $20 price just before the hard fork.

I think the price of the Etheruem (both ETH and ETC) are consolidation. They will rise a lot in the next few months.