Hardfork = Mitosis

[RealBitcoin]

Hardforks 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 because the money will exist on both chains therefore it is like doubling the maximum supply from 21,000,000 BTC to 42,000,000 BTC. 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 eventually.

Cell


Bitcoin


Ethereum



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, and the supply of the coins doubles.

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


Only shills and pundits tell you that in the event of a hardfork the majority absorbs the minority, but we can clearly see that is not the case with ETH at the moment. We shall see how it will unfold, it is a learning lesson for bitcoin.




RECENT NEWS:

That said, this was also unnecessary and off-topic. You know somebody has a weak standing ground if they have to include others every time they attempt to make an argument. I can't stress this enough as this quite bad for any thread. Unless you have any valid arguments for a hard fork here, please stop wasting everyone's time.

I've been making that point for almost a year now but nobody listens.

First they say that a hardfork is no big deal, it just happens and then everyone will jump on to the new one. Then they say that maybe the blockchain can split in 2, but the old one will be quickly absorbed into the new one.

Then ETC is alive for almost 6 months now... How quickly will that old blockchain be absorbed exactly?


It's pointless to argue with irrational people, these people have no sense of reality whatsoever. Even if you look at politics, when has any party had 100% approval rating, it's impossible. Once you create an opposition, people will flow to it, automatically like Osmosis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis

It's this natural behaviour of things that I illustrate in this thread, whether you compare blockchains to cells, it is always the same. Once you break something, you cannot put it back together and glue it, it will never be the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

So the only option is to never break it.


And yes look at ETH, looks like it will be hardforked again: 

https://twitter.com/jeffehh/status/784318008592183298


This is so hilarious, I warned you people, once you create a hardfork, it will be a permanent perpetual hardfork, it wont be just a 1 time solution, it will be abused every single time.

It's like the One Ring, once you put it on, there is no turning back, it will be abused every single time possible.

Next thing you know they will start hardforking your money out of your wallet, because you might be suspected by someone, something, somewhere, sometime....

Seriously, people need to hold their ground, and dont give in to bullshit.

[1714788034]

1714788034

[1714788034]

1714788034

[1714788034]

1714788034

[The00Dustin]

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.

[RealBitcoin]

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

A competition between chains will cause your wealth to evaporate. Therefore bitcoin must be a united entity.

Just like you dont want your leg  or hands to fall off, and you want your own body to stay united.

FYI, hard forks have occurred in the past.

Not in bitcoin.

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

And they would, miners would jump back and forth in panic, and eventually settle at 50-50% equilibrium half of them mining 1 chain and the other half another chain.

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.

Yea, but it still divides your money in half.

[franky1]

its not 50-50 equilibrium... thats what orphaning is about. please stop the usual false rhetoric of altcoins.. and do some more research on the matter.

ill say it again. learn about orphans and how it will sort everything out, making people choose one path.

what you have to realise is that BU, XT, bitcoinJ, bitcoin ruby, classic and every implementation you can think of apart from core.. actually has implementations with the 2mb buffer... they are running today, validating blocks. being checked and used..
there is no future promise or ETA.. the code is publicly available now and people are running the compiled programs that are validating and relaying real bitcoin data..

it is only CORE that are causing a conflict, causing controversy and are going to cause your altcoin analogy(short term). but guess what.. if miners get consensus to activate a hard fork (95%).. it will be core users that see their data rejected and unvalidated making the users of core implementations left many blocks behind the other 95%.. so those 5% wanting to remain full nodes will ofcourse update to the 2mb or be left with an insecure chain(5% hashrate) diluted data(5% distribution) and blocks far behind the main chain.. yes 95%=main chain..

meaning that the "altcoin" doomsday you cry out about will fade out quick..

just wondering.. are you going to throw Luke Jr under the bus in some propaganda scheme, if he releases a core implementation with the 2mb buffer included.
are you that devoted to blockstream that you will throw any coder under the bus if they solve the controversy issue that you are using as your last ditch attempt to avoid real growth??

and please dont ejaculate the rhetoric that segwit is the ultimate capacity solution.. even the guys coding it have publicly said its not designed as the capacity solution

[Ned Kelly]

No one stopping no one  from HF. But they will not do it, because they will fail straight away. All they are doing is trying to put pressure on Bitcoin Core devs.
So, why all this cheap talk? Just fork it. Nobody will even notice. 

[RealBitcoin]

it is only CORE that are causing a conflict, causing controversy and are going to cause your altcoin analogy(short term). but guess what.. if miners get consensus to activate a hard fork (95%).. it will be core users that see their data rejected and unvalidated making the users of core implementations left many blocks behind the other 95%.. so those 5% wanting to remain full nodes will ofcourse update to the 2mb or be left with an insecure chain(5% hashrate) diluted data(5% distribution) and blocks far behind the main chain.. yes 95%=main chain..

Ok so you would admit that it would cause conflict short term but not long term?

So after the chains are divided, and the divide is established, the alternate coin only needs support from the exchanges and wallets and it gets established.

Yes until the altchain is not on exchanges, it is an orphan, but after its on exchanges, it officially becomes an altcoin. Classic already has a wallet.

So the exchanges are the only thing standing between a hardfork and a united bitcoin.

If 1 rogue exchange were to support the hardforked chain, then we are fucked.


However all major exchanges use Core, because Classic cant be trusted with all those "new improvements"

[Ned Kelly]

it will be core users that see their data rejected and unvalidated making the users of core implementations left many blocks behind the other 95%..

Why is that? The blockchain would be the same length.

[propofol99]

If a hard fork like that would come, everybody would pull the money out of bitcoin.
I do not like that idea.

[Vistman]

If a hard fork like that would come, everybody would pull the money out of bitcoin.
I do not like that idea.

There is no need to worry about that. If the longest chain is 75% of the total hashing, miners will will converge.

[franky1]

it is only CORE that are causing a conflict, causing controversy and are going to cause your altcoin analogy(short term). but guess what.. if miners get consensus to activate a hard fork (95%).. it will be core users that see their data rejected and unvalidated making the users of core implementations left many blocks behind the other 95%.. so those 5% wanting to remain full nodes will ofcourse update to the 2mb or be left with an insecure chain(5% hashrate) diluted data(5% distribution) and blocks far behind the main chain.. yes 95%=main chain..

Ok so you would admit that it would cause conflict short term but not long term?

So after the chains are divided, and the divide is established, the alternate coin only needs support from the exchanges and wallets and it gets established.

Yes until the altchain is not on exchanges, it is an orphan, but after its on exchanges, it officially becomes an altcoin. Classic already has a wallet.

So the exchanges are the only thing standing between a hardfork and a united bitcoin.

If 1 rogue exchange were to support the hardforked chain, then we are fucked.


However all major exchanges use Core, because Classic cant be trusted with all those "new improvements"

LOL you make me laugh with you weird assumptions..
so lets clarify things. learning is fun. nd i hope you learn something from this.

you do realise that blocks over 1mb will only be made if there is 95% consensus, because miners wont risk it otherwise.(orphan risk.. learn it)
secondly. if exchanges are using a chain that is rejecting blocks and only has 5% hashpower( leaving them behind) then not only are they not seeing the blocks that contain their own customers deposit transactions, but they are ignoring 95% of all transactions..
no one would use that exchange if their deposits never show up in the exchange.

please think beyond the spoonfed rhetoric.. it does not require "exchanges" to make a chain the master chain. it requires the most accepted distribution of block data and the highest hash power..
those without it (5%) will fizzle out..

[7788bitcoin]

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.

I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

[franky1]

I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

lol if your transaction will be confirmed by the 95% chain.the hopes of you re-transmitting it and successfully getting it relayed by the 5% of nodes in another chain is hard.. to the only pool that is on the other chain.. well.. thats hard too. and then that pool adding it to a block with only 5% hashpower.. even harder.

the only possible way would be to ban IP addresses to ensure the 5% only connect to each other to avoid relay rejections issues.
so thinking about it.. the only people banning IP's to ensure they only talk to the 5% chain just to try keeping it alive.. well thats core! (controversy creators)

[RealBitcoin]

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.

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.

I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

So we have now 15.7 million bitcoins available roughly which represent 10.6 billin $ and 670$ price

In a hardfork, we will have 31.4 million bitcoins, each of them real ones, representing 10.6 billion (- the money leaving in the panic).

Therefore the price of each coin will now be ~335$. If the the chains converge into 1, then you lose your money if you sold the winning chain, so you are exposed to 50% risk.

If both chains survive, then you have to install the new software of the 2nd chain to be able to use it, and it will severely disrupt bitcoin economy.

Imagine all the merchants and bitcoin sites now will have to decide which bitcoin to accept.

It will be total chaos. So we should try to avoid this shit.

[franky1]

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.

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.

I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

So we have now 15.7 million bitcoins available roughly which represent 10.6 billin $ and 670$ price

In a hardfork, we will have 31.4 million bitcoins, each of them real ones, representing 10.6 billion (- the money leaving in the panic).

Therefore the price of each coin will now be ~335$. If the the chains converge into 1, then you lose your money if you sold the winning chain, so you are exposed to 50% risk.

If both chains survive, then you have to install the new software of the 2nd chain to be able to use it, and it will severely disrupt bitcoin economy.

Imagine all the merchants and bitcoin sites now will have to decide which bitcoin to accept.

It will be total chaos. So we should try to avoid this shit.

if consensus is reached.. its reached. any attempt to cause more controversy after that point should be laughed at

LOL there wont be 31.4million bitcoins unless core starts IP banning 95% of the network to keep the 5% chain alive and waits atleast 6 months for the 5% chains difficulty to drop to allow fluid block creation at a reasonable time for that insecure chain..

core is creating the controversy and will need to create more controversy for your "second chain" survival to exist.

imagine the risk of 51% attacks on a chain with only 5% hash power.. the many issues that the 5% chain would have..

well i can think of 10 reasons why the remaining 5% would move to the 95%.. rather than pushing the controversy further.

screw it.. lets list them
1. weak insecure chain easy target for 51% attack
2. only confirming a block every 3hours 20 minutes (20 blocks average time) containing only ~2500tx
3. tx fee sky rockets with 50,000tx left in mempool (2500 per 10 minutes for 3 hours) fighting to be next in line for a space of only ~2500
4. only 5% of services accepting these delayed blocks
5. takes 6 months to sort out difficulty
6. segwit doesnt fix the capacity/bottleneck fixes everyone was hoping for (reference point 2 and 3) yet the 95% chain is
7. segwit doesnt fix the tx fee discount everyone was hoping for (reference point 3) yet the 95% chain is
8. peoples funds get accepted into blocks. but the recipient declines their existence and does not honour refunds due to wrong chain
9. node count at 250 nodes(5%) compared to 4750(95%)
10. nodes crash due to mempool overflow

[Lauda]

Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).

There is no need to worry about that. If the longest chain is 75% of the total hashing, miners will will converge.

Your percentage is trivial. I wouldn't consider 75% consensus.

[RealBitcoin]

Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).

Yes it would cause chaos, and in the end both chains would lose to Litecoin or other coins, and bitcoin would be over.

I doubt people would reach a quick consensus in a few days to save bitcoin, so a hardfork would definitely ruin bitcoin.

We shall see what will happen to ethereum (grab your popcorn), and we will have experimental evidence, not just trollings around here.

[franky1]

Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).

Yes it would cause chaos, and in the end both chains would lose to Litecoin or other coins, and bitcoin would be over.

I doubt people would reach a quick consensus in a few days to save bitcoin, so a hardfork would definitely ruin bitcoin.

We shall see what will happen to ethereum (grab your popcorn), and we will have experimental evidence, not just trollings around here.

silly silly silly..

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.
put it this way. miners are not going to make bigger blocks at 50%, 60%, 70% or even 80% due to risk of the network orphaning their hard work..

technically they could make bigger blocks at the 75% "warning period". but they are smarter then that.

what will happen logically realistically and practically.. is that at 75%(block flag consensus) there will be a big social push to tell people that things are going to change. and get people prepared. miners have time to upgrade (25% remaining) but it will wait for 95% of the entire network(nodes) before miners would risk making bigger blocks.

the 75% threshold is just a neon sign of the miners.. based on blocks with flags... simply put, a glowing big fat sign to warn people of changes.. but miners wont push bigger blocks until they see the USER node count (view able on bitnodes) showing a high upgrade count

the 75% is about blocks..
the 95% is about compatible nodes.

2 distinctly different things

[RealBitcoin]

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.

Maybe yes maybe not.

If Classic gets 50% of users, and they decide to still roll out the hardfork, just to prove their point, that would be very bad. And I can imagine them doing that.

But then again what is consensus? If 90% of miners agree, but then later they backstab eachother?

They will fight and bitcoin splits.It will stabilize at 50-50%, that is the equilibrium state.


So the only way bitcoin will win is to not fight.

Any amount of fighting will only destabilize bitcoin.

[thejaytiesto]

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.

Free market has talked and has said that don't want the Classic shit anywhere near Bitcoin. Classic developers are complete amateurs and we can't let morons take control of the most important ship ever. Leave the best developers (Core devs) do the job and stop trying to be smarter than you are.

[franky1]

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.