Hardfork = Mitosis

[Yakamoto]

Updated the OP with Ethereum fiasco hardfork.

Do you really want the same to happen with bitcoin? I hope not. So hardforks are unthinkable!

You got no idea. That's ok, you fit in here.. Bitcointalk.
You have declared yourself "RealBitcoin" Bullshite.
"NXT is the best altcoin", now replaced by "free market capitalist". More bullshite.

As has been said, Mitosis is nothing like a Bitcoin hard fork.
Eth is nothing like Btcoin.
The reason for an ETH hard fork is nothing like a block size increase in Bitcoin.

Your uninformed opinion is irrelevant to a miner led Bitcoin hard fork.

Yea and what do you do when there will be 42,000,000 BTC in circulation because bitcoin splits in 2, so your money is worth half?

Assuming that everyone switches to one of the chains and ditches the other one, your money wouldn't be halved by definition because the other chain becomes defunct because no-one is using it at all.

I agree that hard forks should be avoided when possible, but they do have their uses for fixing things with the technology of the blockchain if there is an issue. All that is required is everyone changing chains.

[RealBitcoin]

Assuming that everyone switches to one of the chains and ditches the other one, your money wouldn't be halved by definition because the other chain becomes defunct because no-one is using it at all.

Wrong assumption.

There are always dissidents, even if the top mining farms agree on hardfork and say 3% of the network doesn't.

The small miners will mine the old chain, because the difficulty will be low there once the big guys get out, and then slowly the miners will come back there because the diffuculty drop incentive as more and more support goes there.

Eventually it will settle at 50-50%, the supply of bitcoin doubles, and your money will be worth half as it was previously. Enjoy that...

[rizzlarolla]

Assuming that everyone switches to one of the chains and ditches the other one, your money wouldn't be halved by definition because the other chain becomes defunct because no-one is using it at all.

Wrong assumption.

There are always dissidents, even if the top mining farms agree on hardfork and say 3% of the network doesn't.

The small miners will mine the old chain, because the difficulty will be low there once the big guys get out, and then slowly the miners will come back there because the diffuculty drop incentive as more and more support goes there.

Eventually it will settle at 50-50%, the supply of bitcoin doubles, and your money will be worth half as it was previously. Enjoy that...

Mining difficulty will not be low. I think that is your fundamental flaw here.
With 3% hash power it will take forever to mine a block.
You can trade all you want on that chain. You will never receive your "bitcoin".

[RealBitcoin]

Mining difficulty will not be low. I think that is your fundamental flaw here.
With 3% hash power it will take forever to mine a block.
You can trade all you want on that chain. You will never receive your "bitcoin".

What? That is nonsense. If the big guys leave the old chain and join the new chain, then the old bitcoin's difficulty will drop to CPU mining levels.

Everyone could just grab their CPU or GPU card and start mining bitcoin again without ASICS.

The old chain would literally be like bitcoin in 2010.


There is of course 2 week period for diffuculty adjustment, so the forkers have 2 week to stabilize their chain. Which I doubt is enough time to do it.

Just watch ETH classic and see yourself, in ETH the difficulty retarget interval is literally 15 seconds.

[rizzlarolla]

Mining difficulty will not be low. I think that is your fundamental flaw here.
With 3% hash power it will take forever to mine a block.
You can trade all you want on that chain. You will never receive your "bitcoin".

What? That is nonsense. If the big guys leave the old chain and join the new chain, then the old bitcoin's difficulty will drop to CPU mining levels.

Everyone could just grab their CPU or GPU card and start mining bitcoin again without ASICS.

The old chain would literally be like bitcoin in 2010.


There is of course 2 week period for diffuculty adjustment, so the forkers have 2 week to stabilize their chain. Which I doubt is enough time to do it.

Just watch ETH classic and see yourself, in ETH the difficulty retarget interval is literally 15 seconds.

Eth block time and retarget is completely different?

There is no 2 week difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin. It is ever 2016 blocks mined.
3% hash would take 5 hours to mine 1 block. (at 1mb, fees would be astronomical, mempool full, you would not get in, ever, on average)

[Cuidler]

There are always dissidents, even if the top mining farms agree on hardfork and say 3% of the network doesn't.

The small miners will mine the old chain, because the difficulty will be low there once the big guys get out, and then slowly the miners will come back there because the diffuculty drop incentive as more and more support goes there.

Eventually it will settle at 50-50%, the supply of bitcoin doubles, and your money will be worth half as it was previously. Enjoy that...

Your 50-50% and the supply of bitcoin doubling is simply nonsence. After first halving, there were few who hard forked and continued mining blocks with 50 BTC reward. Where are they today? How popular is their chain ? And most importantly, did it even doubled the Bitcoin supply ?

If it was as simple as you describe it, Bitcoin would be already worth almost nothing as every hard fork from small group of people would create long lasting chain somehow mysteriously settling at equeal popularity and everytime reducting the Bitcoin market cap by half. How clever attack! Except it doesnt work this way...

[RealBitcoin]

Eth block time and retarget is completely different?

There is no 2 week difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin. It is ever 2016 blocks mined.
3% hash would take 5 hours to mine 1 block. (at 1mb, fees would be astronomical, mempool full, you would not get in, ever, on average)

2016 blocks == 2 weeks with current mining power.

Of course if the hardfork happens just 1 day before the difficulty adjustment, then its a worse.

Plus it only takes 1 big miner to support the fork until the difficulty changes, and then it becomes self sustaining.

Yes in bitcoin it's easier to maintain the majority status quo, but a dissenting fork could still happen.

[RealBitcoin]

Your 50-50% and the supply of bitcoin doubling is simply nonsence. After first halving, there were few who hard forked and continued mining blocks with 50 BTC reward. Where are they today? How popular is their chain ? And most importantly, did it even doubled the Bitcoin supply ?

First of all, back then there were only a few hundred people, now there are millions of people.

Harder to persuade millions of people than a few hundred (especially if we play this politics game now)


Imagine convincing your neighbors vs convincing your country of something.

The difficulty is larger with more people, because the entropy grows and you need to use more and more force to counter that.

Why do you think the trolls are banned from this forum? If they had their way, bitcoin would have already broken into hundreds of hardfork altcoins...


Everyone with their silly ideas, how stupid is this political game and infighting...

[Cuidler]

Why do you think the trolls are banned from this forum? If they had their way, bitcoin would have already broken into hundreds of hardfork altcoins...

You giving too much importance to this forum. Banning spammers might just help this forum to be readable better, but it can not have much impact on preventing broking Bitcoin into hundreds of altcoins via hardforks... The reason is it is not so easy to have two chains sustainable longterm, you need good support from people for both chains so these can exist longterm, otherwise one chain simply gets forgotten after some time no matter if someone continues mining it.

[RealBitcoin]

Why do you think the trolls are banned from this forum? If they had their way, bitcoin would have already broken into hundreds of hardfork altcoins...

You giving too much importance to this forum. Banning spammers might just help this forum to be readable better, but it can not have much impact on preventing broking Bitcoin into hundreds of altcoins via hardforks... The reason is it is not so easy to have two chains sustainable longterm, you need good support from people for both chains so these can exist longterm, otherwise one chain simply gets forgotten after some time no matter if someone continues mining it.

Ok lets just agree to disagree for now, and watch what happens to ETH and ETC, it is a live example of this situation.

And we shall see then who is right and who is wrong.

[rizzlarolla]

Ok lets just agree to disagree for now...

No. Let's just agree you are clueless.

Evidence? Read this thread.

[RealBitcoin]

Ethereum classic is at 13% mining capacity now.

So now my 50-50% equilibrium theory doesnt sound so stupid after all? Stupid optimistic sheeps!


How stupid can people be for to think that 1 chain can totally absorb the other without dissent? There can never be 100% consensus, it is impossible.

That is why a hardfork should never happen in bitcoin.

[franky1]

by devs not releasing code to allow open choice for the entire population to choose features, and twist it into a dictatorship of stay with BS(core) and we will push you over to sidechains because bitcoin is too expensive to use.. or move away from BS)core) and be afraid of (imaginary) doomsdays.. will i agree never get 100% consensus..

however. releasing the code which luke JR (part of BS and core) should be doing soon will atleast stop debates about dictating "factions" and be purely about code/features. allowing for more true open and free choice of consensus..

so "realbitcoin".. are you going to throw lukeJR under the REKT bus when he solves the controversy? or accept it and resign to the fact that the "factions controversy is finally over

[RealBitcoin]

by devs not releasing code to allow open choice for the entire population to choose features, and twist it into a dictatorship of stay with BS(core) and we will push you over to sidechains because bitcoin is too expensive to use.. or move away from BS)core) and be afraid of (imaginary) doomsdays.. will i agree never get 100% consensus..

however. releasing the code which luke JR (part of BS and core) should be doing soon will atleast stop debates about dictating "factions" and be purely about code/features. allowing for more true open and free choice of consensus..

so "realbitcoin".. are you going to throw lukeJR under the REKT bus when he solves the controversy? or accept it and resign to the fact that the "factions controversy is finally over

Release the code. But then again the issue is more of a logical/political issue not a programming one.

Bitcoin should not descend into idiocracy, so some standards have to be kept. I dont know why you bash constantly the bitcoin core team because they have made bitcoin what it is today 10 billion $.

If bitcoin were to descend into idiocracy, then let the 60 IQ monkeys program the bitcoin/bitcoin repository and see how well that will work out.

In fact, go get a team of janitors and start building your BTC 2.0, I will be curious of your results.

[coinsocieties]

So you call yourself a "Free Market Capitalist" but you are afraid of a free market?  Wow, I'm impressed.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

FYI, the only way both forks would continue on is if a subset of miners kept mining each fork.

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.

That is what I was thinking would happen.  If the chains would split, you would generally have the one half of the original amount on each of the two halves which would equal what you originally started out with.

[RealBitcoin]

So you call yourself a "Free Market Capitalist" but you are afraid of a free market?  Wow, I'm impressed.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

FYI, the only way both forks would continue on is if a subset of miners kept mining each fork.

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.

That is what I was thinking would happen.  If the chains would split, you would generally have the one half of the original amount on each of the two halves which would equal what you originally started out with.

Minus the shock from the panic.

Just like with stock splits, there almost always goes down some.

Most people on bitcoinocracy have voted that they will sell their coins in hardfork, which means that we could see big drop in price.

[coinsocieties]

So you call yourself a "Free Market Capitalist" but you are afraid of a free market?  Wow, I'm impressed.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

FYI, the only way both forks would continue on is if a subset of miners kept mining each fork.

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.

That is what I was thinking would happen.  If the chains would split, you would generally have the one half of the original amount on each of the two halves which would equal what you originally started out with.

Minus the shock from the panic.

Just like with stock splits, there almost always goes down some.

Most people on bitcoinocracy have voted that they will sell their coins in hardfork, which means that we could see big drop in price.

I agree there will be selling, but there will also be buying.  This will make for a strong return.  It is kind of like hitting a pothole.  The price will go down and then when everyone realizes that the whole panic i was for no reason, they will get back in.  I will be buying and selling the day this happens.

[RealBitcoin]

So you call yourself a "Free Market Capitalist" but you are afraid of a free market?  Wow, I'm impressed.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

FYI, the only way both forks would continue on is if a subset of miners kept mining each fork.

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.

That is what I was thinking would happen.  If the chains would split, you would generally have the one half of the original amount on each of the two halves which would equal what you originally started out with.

Minus the shock from the panic.

Just like with stock splits, there almost always goes down some.

Most people on bitcoinocracy have voted that they will sell their coins in hardfork, which means that we could see big drop in price.

I agree there will be selling, but there will also be buying.  This will make for a strong return.  It is kind of like hitting a pothole.  The price will go down and then when everyone realizes that the whole panic i was for no reason, they will get back in.  I will be buying and selling the day this happens.

Except if both chains continue, then it will be fucked, merchants will have to double their expenses and everything will go up in price.

So maybe the inflation aspect would really halve bitcoin's value.

Imagine if you have 1000 $ of BTC loaned out, and then you get only 500 $ of BTC back. How would that make you feel?

[franky1]

Release the code. But then again the issue is more of a logical/political issue not a programming one.

Bitcoin should not descend into idiocracy, so some standards have to be kept. I dont know why you bash constantly the bitcoin core team because they have made bitcoin what it is today 10 billion $.

If bitcoin were to descend into idiocracy, then let the 60 IQ monkeys program the bitcoin/bitcoin repository and see how well that will work out.

In fact, go get a team of janitors and start building your BTC 2.0, I will be curious of your results.

the arguement is about programming .. and you have lost every point you have tried to raise in regards to programming. so u have tried to play the political factions card. which.. when lukeJR releases a implementation, settles the political argument too..

so im glad ur atleast willing to see the light to finally accept programming instead of trying to continue pushing the politics to push centralized control.

bitcoin should have never been about politics (dev control) anyone and everyone should have equal power, equal chance and equal freedom to make their wn implementation. so stop the political game when bitcoin core devs finally get back on the same playing field by having a implementation that other dev groups already have..

then its a free and open choice

[rizzlarolla]

Ethereum classic is at 13% mining capacity now.
So now my 50-50% equilibrium theory doesnt sound so stupid after all? Stupid optimistic sheeps!

How stupid can people be for to think that 1 chain can totally absorb the other without dissent? There can never be 100% consensus, it is impossible.
That is why a hardfork should never happen in bitcoin.

As stated,

Eth block time and retarget is completely different?

Even with 13% hash power on your 2nd chain, you will only mine LESS than 1 block per hour. (maybe 2 blocks in 3 hours)
The 1st chain will mine NEARLY 5.5 blocks per hour.

Your 2nd chain, at 1mb, will confirm about 1500 median transactions per hour.
The 1st chain, presumably with a block size increase, will be able to confirm somewhere near 20 times that. 30,000 transactions per hour.

It will be months and months before difficulty STARTS to come down on your chain.
Difficulty on the 1st chain will be back to full speed in about 2 weeks. (after loosing half a block an hour, but presumably confirming more transactions in bigger blocks)

There will never be 100% willing consensus.
The outcome above is what forces the last few laggards to concede.

Do not confuse Ethereum with Bitcoin, RealcluelessBitcoin.