Hardfork = Mitosis

[raphma]

and unfortunatelly, there are a lot of people buying eth just because of the hardfork... as if it was a good thing.

[hv_]

A hard fork can be seen as a phase separation like a liquid turns into a gas on heating up.

if a decent intensive variable is reached the status change is immediate and no liquid is left in a sudden.

For a soft fork there can be spots left in different stati - It is a mess!

[Xester]

I have been thinking hard lately on hardforks and on smallblock vs bigblock debate, and I have realized now that hardfork should be avoided at all cost.

A hardfork of a blockchain, can be exactly compared to the mitosis of a cell. The DNA of a cell is copied from 1 nucleus to the other, and then the cell is divided. The same way the blockchain (which is like the genetic code of bitcoin) is copied, and then the chain itself is divided.

(Yes ladies and gentlemen,Bitcoin literally is an artificial living organism like a cell.)

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half. Yes many shills are telling you that a hardfork will stabilize fast and everyone will jump to 1 chain or the other. But that is never the case in nature, it's always a 50-50% equilibrium.

Cell


Bitcoin



Therefore if a Bitcoin hardfork were to occur, most likely your money will be halved, because both chains would be equally valid, and they will both coexist.

So only an idiot would support a hardfork, which is literally begging for your money to be halved.


Now Ethereum will have a situation pretty soon where a hardfork can occur, so people should watch that closely, because it can set an example what would happen to bitcoin in an event of hardfork.

If ETH hardforks, and it gets 50-50%, those people will lose half of their money.

It will be interesting to see what will happen.

This is a very interesting topic and the author has made it more interesting by making a concrete explanation using the cells and how it reproduce. But at this moment I will not comment about its validity, there are some points but I need to research thoroughly about this matter.

[European Central Bank]

surely it's 100% to do with why a hard fork is taking place? if it's because of a technical glitch or disaster then there's zero risk of any type of divergence as everyone's vested in following the functioning fork.

if it's because of the core/classic stuff, the majority already has to be in place for it to happen. the loser's gonna wither in no time at all apart from weird little bunches of holdouts. if the majority choose to go down that road then there's no way they're popping back any time soon.

[DooMAD]

Sorry to be blunt, but a hard fork is nothing whatsoever like mitosis, there is no 50/50%, money doesn't automatically get divided in half and this is about as far from what happens in nature as you can get.  There are risks with both hard and soft forks.  Neither is without its flaws and to pretend otherwise is asinine.  By all means speculate and raise concerns, but don't scaremonger.

[hv_]

After the ETH HF, still anybody wants to fear-spread?

Yes , BTC market cap is 10x higher, still. So why not wait with the HF until we reach parity?

 

[Cuidler]

I doubt there can be many causes where both coins after hard fork could co-exist. Most likely the losing side just joins the wining side, or just sell offs because it fits its interests better than basically turning to irrelevance with their smaller and very soon unsupported chain by all the services and exchanges.

I talking about the most likely situations like 80-20 or 70-30, actually close to 50-50 should happen very rarely. But the upcoming ETH fork is nice example, and I dont expect much drama, the coin wont split to two about equally succesfull coins, but instead only one coin going to exist after a while, at least thats my prediction. If Im right, it proves there is no worry doing hard forks, quite opposite as it can move the coin forward and restore people trust.

[hv_]

I doubt there can be many causes where both coins after hard fork could co-exist. Most likely the losing side just joins the wining side, or just sell offs because it fits its interests better than basically turning to irrelevance with their smaller and very soon unsupported chain by all the services and exchanges.

I talking about the most likely situations like 80-20 or 70-30, actually close to 50-50 should happen very rarely. But the upcoming ETH fork is nice example, and I dont expect much drama, the coin wont split to two about equally succesfull coins, but instead only one coin going to exist after a while, at least thats my prediction. If Im right, it proves there is no worry doing hard forks, quite opposite as it can move the coin forward and restore people trust.

Huh?  The ETH HF already happened and it is a 90-10 still....

[pedrog]

OMG ethereum forked and now it's worthless...

[RealBitcoin]

OMG ethereum forked and now it's worthless...

In my eyes it is, i simply cannot trust a currency that can be manipulated at will, its no different than fiat.

We should avoid this at all cost in bitcoin.

[The00Dustin]

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

Not in bitcoin.

The core devs may want to change the definition of a hard fork in order to make this claim, but it has.  If it had never hard forked, you could still run the original client, but IIRC, at some point an alert was sent out about any client older than 0.5.x not validating blocks after a certain block number due to a fork.  At the time, there were months of notice, but multiple pools were still running 0.3.x and not happy about being "forced" to upgrade.  They weren't forced to, and there was no "core" yet, but they were the economic minority, and even then, without fear-mongering, and even though bitcoin had tanked from $40 to $2, they still wanted to stay on the longest chain.  If an old client won't work anymore due to the change, the fork was hard, period.  That having been said:

Yes, bitcoin has had a hard fork in the past.

No, there won't be two relevant chains.

ETA: relevant is a key word in that second point.  There may be a subset of the 25% or 10% or even 5% (depending on what percentage is treated as "consensus" in any intentional hard fork) who continue to work on the old chain intentionally or otherwise, but even if some exchange validated that short insecure chain, nothing would happen but dumping, because there wouldn't be any demand for it.

Now, regarding hard forks being dangerous, unintentional hard forks (or even intentional ones that don't have "consensus") could certainly be dangerous and lead to separate continued chains for a longer period of time, but "because we're core and we said so" doesn't really have much to do with consensus, and if the right set of pools and exchanges got together and decided they wanted to fork, they could likely do so without the support of any other nodes and ram the change through regardless of what anyone on this forum prefers.

[pedrog]

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

Not in bitcoin.

History of Hardforks and Rollbacks in Bitcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702755.0

[Rampion]

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

Not in bitcoin.

History of Hardforks and Rollbacks in Bitcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702755.0

All forks were bug fixes at a protocol level.

[RealBitcoin]

The core devs may want to change the definition of a hard fork in order to make this claim, but it has.  If it had never hard forked, you could still run the original client

It's debatable what you call bitcoin, the network can only be what it is if all people agree.

Back then everyone agreed on that, plus satoshi was still present, so I think those improvements were legitimate. Not to mention that bitcoin was worth almost nothing, so it was no big deal.

However with ETH at 1 billion market cap, we have to draw a line, and say that that is enough, and keep the status quo, otherwise powergrabbers will start implementing all sorts of "patches".

A hard fork with 10 billion $ worth of bitcoins is unthinkable.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4twge6/the_ethereum_hardfork_demonstrates_why_full_nodes/

I myself will become a full node from now on, to show support for Bitcoin Core, join me!

[The00Dustin]

The core devs may want to change the definition of a hard fork in order to make this claim, but it has.  If it had never hard forked, you could still run the original client

It's debatable what you call bitcoin, the network can only be what it is if all people agree.

Back then everyone agreed on that, plus satoshi was still present, so I think those improvements were legitimate. Not to mention that bitcoin was worth almost nothing, so it was no big deal.

However with ETH at 1 billion market cap, we have to draw a line, and say that that is enough, and keep the status quo, otherwise powergrabbers will start implementing all sorts of "patches".

A hard fork with 10 billion $ worth of bitcoins is unthinkable.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4twge6/the_ethereum_hardfork_demonstrates_why_full_nodes/

I myself will become a full node from now on, to show support for Bitcoin Core, join me!

1) Satoshi was long gone by the time of the event I am referring to.  In fact, he was long gone before I heard of bitcoin.
2) As in war, the winners will write history, and bitcoin will be what they say it is.
3) The segwit soft fork that core is pushing so hard will allow existing full nodes to function, but they won't truly be functioning as full nodes were meant to anymore since they don't have all of the data to validate.  Moreover, the newer version will support a "lighter" "full node" function that has these same flaws by design, while I'm not implying as much, this could be a false-flag-style attempt to reduce network security, so IMHO, your argument regarding power grabs seems to fall a bit short when you turn around and support core.

[RealBitcoin]

3) The segwit soft fork that core is pushing so hard will allow existing full nodes to function, but they won't truly be functioning as full nodes were meant to anymore since they don't have all of the data to validate.  Moreover, the newer version will support a "lighter" "full node" function that has these same flaws by design, while I'm not implying as much, this could be a false-flag-style attempt to reduce network security, so IMHO, your argument regarding power grabs seems to fall a bit short when you turn around and support core.

The SEGWIT represents progress and it no way or shape is a powergrab, it actually helps everyone, not to mention the lightning network which can really help bitcoin scale, and improve it in many ways. There are always pros and cons, but overall it's an improvement.

The ETH hardfork was a powergrab, a minority of people decided over a majority issue. Only the small nodes and miners could vote, so individual ETH investors were just spoonfed.

Thats not even a democracy to begin with, its just a tiny elite controlling the narrative.

[Yakamoto]

now your dreaming.

consensus is where its deemed safe.

eg. 75% is just a warning bell, a kick up the back side.. to shout in people ear that things will change

but miners wont physically make bigger blocks unless they are sure of 2 things
1. their blocks wont orphan where it matter most. meaning they get to spend their reward when it matures
2. acceptance (private trade /exchange) where people happily accept funds shown on the chain.

stop imagining things and stick to reality.

Exactly, there is no way that a hardfork would cause things to be 50-50, and the market would choose a blockchain to stick with and nothing would happen on the other chain, aside from those who are spiteful and would keep it going.

And thinking that you lose 50% of your money, this guy... I don't think he's done enough research into the past hardforks.

[The00Dustin]

3) The segwit soft fork that core is pushing so hard will allow existing full nodes to function, but they won't truly be functioning as full nodes were meant to anymore since they don't have all of the data to validate.  Moreover, the newer version will support a "lighter" "full node" function that has these same flaws by design, while I'm not implying as much, this could be a false-flag-style attempt to reduce network security, so IMHO, your argument regarding power grabs seems to fall a bit short when you turn around and support core.

The SEGWIT represents progress and it no way or shape is a powergrab, it actually helps everyone, not to mention the lightning network which can really help bitcoin scale, and improve it in many ways. There are always pros and cons, but overall it's an improvement.

I agree that it represents progress, but I believe it should have been implemented as a hardfork to fix the very "softfork" security issues it takes advantage of and without the "lighter" "full nodes".  However, my point above was that another of your anti-hardfork arguments isn't holding water.

The ETH hardfork was a powergrab, a minority of people decided over a majority issue. Only the small nodes and miners could vote, so individual ETH investors were just spoonfed.

Thats not even a democracy to begin with, its just a tiny elite controlling the narrative.

I don't care enough about ETH to have an opinion here, but I already pointed out that not all hard forks are good in an earlier post, I'm only still commenting because not all hardforks are bad.

[RealBitcoin]

I agree that it represents progress, but I believe it should have been implemented as a hardfork to fix the very "softfork" security issues it takes advantage of and without the "lighter" "full nodes".  However, my point above was that another of your anti-hardfork arguments isn't holding water.

That is a misconception, there is a very good reason why it is not implemented as hardfork.

Besides this is the only smooth way to transition, otherwise we would risk the entire network with a synchronized hardfork, that is too dangerous.

[franky1]

i find the OP funny..

he was a NXT fanboy, categorizing his crappy alt desire as bitcoin 2.0 (that was funny)
he also in this topic admits he doesnt even run a full node before today..

the OP should be a comedian