Hardfork = Mitosis

[hv_]

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.

Very good points here. So bitcoin's 'Slow' difficulty adjustment is superior and key for saver forks.

Very funny that again alt coins are good playground and help bitcoin to better understand those dynamics.

Anything else preventing from HF, still?

[RealBitcoin]

anyone and everyone should have equal power, equal chance and equal freedom to make their wn implementation.

They do have but nobody takes them seriously. Plus if you want 1000000 different versions of bitcoin, go ahead, but dont cry when nobody invests in your altcoin.

There is a reason why bitcoin is 10 billion $, and not 10 cents. If you break the unity, you break the market cap, and many people would not like that.

Anything else preventing from HF, still?

Wait a few more months to see how the ETC fiasco settles down, it's too early to celebrate yet...

[rizzlarolla]

Wait a few more months to see how the ETC fiasco settles down, it's too early to celebrate yet...

You have been informed, but not addressed the fact, that Bitcoin is not like Ethereum.
Current Bitcoin difficulty will kill off any chain with 10% hash power.

Unlike Eth, a Bitcoin chain with 10% hash will be unusable, and unsustainable, for a long period of time.
When a 1mb block is mined on your 10% chain, every hour or two or three, for months on end, very few users will be able to move any coins.

Just imagine the size of the Core dynamic fee!, the mempool congestion, the spam, the endlessness of delays.
(ok, I admit, that sounds like the current Core road map anyway, but think again. it's even worse!)

Bitcoin difficulty is not like Ethereum difficulty.
Please stop making out it is, or explain how.

[nova-rider]

That's bad for the reputation of crypto.
Many companies that intended to use it, certainly will stay away from it.

[rizzlarolla]

That's bad for the reputation of crypto.
Many companies that intended to use it, certainly will stay away from it.

What is bad?
What companies? use what? stay away from what?

Edit. Actually... Don't bother.

[RealBitcoin]

Unlike Eth, a Bitcoin chain with 10% hash will be unusable, and unsustainable, for a long period of time.
When a 1mb block is mined on your 10% chain, every hour or two or three, for months on end, very few users will be able to move any coins.

The number of users split too not just the network, a  forked chain with 10% hash power (but with say 10mb blocks) will be used by 0.0001% of bitcoin users, initially? So it wont be congested.

And by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain. It immediately gets added to some lower profile exchanges, then by greed, the big ones add it too, it can become standalone pretty fast,and then we are fucked.

Stop ignoring the fatal threats that a hardfork brings to bitcoin, there is a serious issue with hardfork, it's not just gossip or trolling.

[rizzlarolla]

Unlike Eth, a Bitcoin chain with 10% hash will be unusable, and unsustainable, for a long period of time.
When a 1mb block is mined on your 10% chain, every hour or two or three, for months on end, very few users will be able to move any coins.

The number of users split too not just the network, a  forked chain with 10% hash power (but with say 10mb blocks) will be used by 0.0001% of bitcoin users, initially? So it wont be congested.

And by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain. It immediately gets added to some lower profile exchanges, then by greed, the big ones add it too, it can become standalone pretty fast,and then we are fucked.

Stop ignoring the fatal threats that a hardfork brings to bitcoin, there is a serious issue with hardfork, it's not just gossip or trolling.

Your still just making all this stuff up, based on your misunderstanding that Eth works in any way like Bitcoin. It doesn't.
Your first line makes no sense whatever.
Users are not split. Core only have 1mb blocks, 0.0001% of say 10,000,000 bitcoin users is 10 people initially using your chain?

so when I ask, "Bitcoin difficulty is not like Ethereum difficulty. Please stop making out it is, or explain how."
Your explanation is "by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain."

Some kind of magical difficulty setting? It readjusts "when users catch on"


Your trolling here is built on gossip, and BS stuff you made up.

[franky1]

They do have but nobody takes them seriously. Plus if you want 1000000 different versions of bitcoin, go ahead, but dont cry when nobody invests in your altcoin.

what a silly fool. having a different implementation EG bitcoin ruby, bitcoinj, bitcoinxt bitcoinBU bitcoincore.. are not "altcoins".
stop trying to presume anything not coded by non blockstream employees must be an altcoin.

the truth is that all bitcoin implementations are actually handling bitcoin data..
dont confuse implementations by other groups with fork proposals.

core AKA blockstream should not have any decision making power to restrict the communities desires. and if you think that "core" has been the guys that have made bitcoin a $10bill industry then you are so wrong..
the current coders you deem as the "core" devs were not even around a few years ago. so please stop trying to make them out as the inventors or the masters of the crypto universe.

now

to add details to rizzlarolla point.. because i think "realbitcoin"(the NXT/sidechain fanboy) is missing the whole point that has been raised a few times

there are 6000 bitcoin nodes.. so if "realbitcoin" thinks the minority chain will retain 0.0001% users.. thats not even 1 node..
even if "realbitcoins" under 0.000x% is a funnier number that helps show forks are not dangerous (slapping himself in his own face about controversy risks, using his own words) lets atleast stick with facts,
and so truth is.....
initially if a fork happens it will happen at 90%.. meaning 5400 have already converted to the new code for the fork to be acceptable to go live..
leaving 600 nodes on the old (now minority chain)


the reason for this is that miners will flag their blocks and when it hits 75%, that is the warning bell to get people to realise its time to move over.. then miners will wait until there are an acceptable amount of nodes to ensure their blocks wont get orphaned to actually start making those new blocks, knowing they will be accepted and their rewards are spendable..

so presuming there are now 600 nodes on a minority chain due to a fork happening, that minority chain will only getting 1 block every 2 and a half hours* and soon they would get peed off with having to rebroadcast their transactions, to try keeping them in the mempools. for these reasons:
1. the 5400 wont retransmit the transaction because technically its already confirmed in the majority chain.
2. the minority chain will have to start IP banning 5400 nodes to try to find a successful route to a minority pool.
3. the mempool of the old nodes/pools are full of ALL transactions. 2500tx every 10 minutes = upto 40,000tx with only a gap of 2500 in a block
4. every time those 37,500 tx that we not added to the minority chain each 2.5 hours* have to go through the headache of rebroadcasting again with a higher fee..

this would cause merchants WITHIN HOURS would see the delays, the increasing tx fee costs and the headaches so they will switch..
leaving only a few laggers circle jerking themselves with coins that are costly to move, slow to move and unable to buy real world things with..
it would take MONTHS for the difficulty to adjust on the minority chain, but hours for users to see the problems and move away from it. in short killing off the minority chain.

this is why bitcoin is different.. bitcoin has real world uses and real decisions will be made in hours.. ethereum however is just a sandbox with no real world infrastructure, thus ethereums choices are not as apparent and people are just juggling the vapour of 2 coins that both do nothing so both have no positive choices of use to cause any fast decisions

*i say 2.5 hours(15 blocks) instead of 9 blocks, because 10% hashpower mathematics works differently in reality

[Cuidler]

The number of users split too not just the network, a  forked chain with 10% hash power (but with say 10mb blocks) will be used by 0.0001% of bitcoin users, initially? So it wont be congested.

And by the time users catch on, the difficulty readjusts ,and it becomes a standalone chain. It immediately gets added to some lower profile exchanges, then by greed, the big ones add it too, it can become standalone pretty fast,and then we are fucked.

So for the next 20 weeks there have to be brave 10% of miners spending electricity to mine probably worthless coin - please try it yourselves spending electricity for 10% of Bitcoin hashrate (how many MWh ?) and getting basicaly coins worth nothing.

And for the next 20 weeks users going to wait in average almost two hours for each confirmation, sometimes half a day, and if lucky under one hour! There would be no congestion with 10mb blocks, but very long confirmation times for about third of a year.

Its hard to imagine for the first 20 weeks the price of these newly mined coins going to be the same as today Bitcoin price so 10% of miners can continue mining it without burning a lot of their money for the electricity.

[franky1]

im not even sure where "realbitcoin" is even getting such random numbers like 10mb from..
if he wants to talk about ethereum or his other altcoin fascinations.. he can stick to the altcoin section

[RealBitcoin]

what a silly fool. having a different implementation EG bitcoin ruby, bitcoinj, bitcoinxt bitcoinBU bitcoincore.. are not "altcoins".

Ok so then you have your diversity.

Why are you blaming Core when you already have the diversity and the possibility of having different implementations.

Just go a head fork bitcoin and see how much support it gets...

Oh but you wont because now you blame Core again for monopoly and not having enough consensus to hardfork...

It's just circular logic you are using...

So for the next 20 weeks there have to be brave 10% of miners spending electricity

Moderate Probability = Inevitability.

So the probability must be very low, otherwise it will eventually happen (in the near future). It's not easy but it's possible, and that makes me uncomfortable

The probability of bitcoin hardfork should be the same as breaking ECDSA. That would make me sleep well at night.

[Cuidler]

The probability of bitcoin hardfork should be the same as breaking ECDSA. That would make me sleep well at night.

Dont confuse hardfork with splitting and both chains surviving. Hardfork is very necessay tool to fix issues with the coin, and hardly anyone expects 1 MB Bitcoin forewer - and you need hardfork for the change to fix this arbitrary choosen size in the past (without any research what size (and why) should be used back then and in the future). So the only issue is when to do the hardfork, and this is where the opinions (and most importantly interests) differs. But talking about hardfork should never happen is wrong, Bitcoin already had a hardfork so Im surprised your still using this coin.

Splitting chains in ethereum happened because it is easier (difficulty readjust much quicker), and a bailout is a big no for many in the crypto world. Would it be ethereum developers and 80% hashrate refused the bailout instead, it is big question if the forked bailout would survive so long with 20% miners and no developer support instead (I guess no because I hate bailouts, thats why my prefference to ETC if ethereum smart contracts even become usefull in future, as they are not safe now).

[hv_]

The probability of bitcoin hardfork should be the same as breaking ECDSA. That would make me sleep well at night.

Dont confuse hardfork with splitting and both chains surviving. Hardfork is very necessay tool to fix issues with the coin, and hardly anyone expects 1 MB Bitcoin forewer - and you need hardfork for the change to fix this arbitrary choosen size in the past (without any research what size (and why) should be used back then and in the future). So the only issue is when to do the hardfork, and this is where the opinions (and most importantly interests) differs. But talking about hardfork should never happen is wrong, Bitcoin already had a hardfork so Im surprised your still using this coin.

Splitting chains in ethereum happened because it is easier (difficulty readjust much quicker), and a bailout is a big no for many in the crypto world. Would it be ethereum developers and 80% hashrate refused the bailout instead, it is big question if the forked bailout would survive so long with 20% miners and no developer support instead (I guess no because I hate bailouts, thats why my prefference to ETC if ethereum smart contracts even become usefull in future, as they are not safe now).

As I already said above. Comparing gold with fisher price....

[rizzlarolla]

The probability of bitcoin hardfork should be the same as breaking ECDSA. That would make me sleep well at night.

Not trying to keep you up at night but,
Core seem to be promising a hard fork at some point within 18 months, AA says a hard fork will happen. The miners are ready to hard fork.

The probability of a Bitcoin hard fork is about 1. Breaking ECDSA is quite a lot harder than that.
Mathematically, in a different universe.

Anyway, keep making this stuff up "RealBitcoin". Your in for a few sleepless nights.

[hv_]

Before this Bitfinex issue I d said: 18 month, what crappy late!

Now, I estimate a sharp draw back in adoption and not that big pressure on trx volume.

So thanx Bitifinex twice: nice cheap prices and give us time for scaling !!!

 

[RealBitcoin]

Not trying to keep you up at night but,
Core seem to be promising a hard fork at some point within 18 months, AA says a hard fork will happen. The miners are ready to hard fork.

How come Core is promising a hardfork?

I thought the users are in charge of deciding it? You all blame that core is responsible for all problems, but then you say that the users are in charge ,and now you say again that it's core. So please clarify who you are not satisfied with? Because therare 5500 nodes and many miners besides core devs out there.

[xJuturna]

Sure it would divide your money in half.. but your money is just halved in two different places? So wouldn't it make more sense it splits your money down the middle rather than making it seem like such a bad thing

[RealBitcoin]

Sure it would divide your money in half.. but your money is just halved in two different places? So wouldn't it make more sense it splits your money down the middle rather than making it seem like such a bad thing

What happens to lenders and investment services that have now 50% of your coins.

You lent 100 BTC away, but you only get back 100 BTC with halved value + interest, you lose 50% of your money.

[UngratefulTony]

There's gon' be a fork RealBitcoin, best prepare yourself. Your prime usefulness will be in calling it an altcoin. Encourage pre-fork holders to dump it. Keep this up as long as you can stand it.

[rizzlarolla]

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/

Link to roadmap,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

"The segwit design calls for a future bitcoinj compatible hardfork to further increase its efficiency--"

"Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners to produce larger blocks... we don't immediately need these proposals, but they will be critically important long term."

"at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough... moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them... In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."