Hardfork = Mitosis

[RealBitcoin]

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

We shall see what will happen, i am just wondering how is it possible for ETH and ETC to both rise in value when they should shrink to reach the a mean reversion sorta thing.

I think ETH and ETC investors don't understand basic algebra.

[DooMAD]

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

We shall see what will happen, i am just wondering how is it possible for ETH and ETC to both rise in value when they should shrink to reach the a mean reversion sorta thing.

If the markets were that easy to predict, we'd all be millionaires by now, heh.  ETC volume is still reasonably strong compared to other alts, but ETH is back to being the main attraction and ETC is merely a sideshow now.  Still not holding much of either, though, as other alts can deliver all the same features (which they had before ETH went live) and are still much cheaper to invest in.  ETH is way overpriced for what it is and relies mostly on hype for its network effect.

[Harlot]

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

We shall see what will happen, i am just wondering how is it possible for ETH and ETC to both rise in value when they should shrink to reach the a mean reversion sorta thing.

If the markets were that easy to predict, we'd all be millionaires by now, heh.  ETC volume is still reasonably strong compared to other alts, but ETH is back to being the main attraction and ETC is merely a sideshow now.  Still not holding much of either, though, as other alts can deliver all the same features (which they had before ETH went live) and are still much cheaper to invest in.  ETH is way overpriced for what it is and relies mostly on hype for its network effect.

If price as of today double will you think that Hard Fork is a bad thing? How about they just doubled the quantity of Bitcoin that can be mined and go to 50 BTC per block reward atter that? The result will be is that we will have the same price and will have more BTC in curculation in the future. I hope its not a bad thing.

[RealBitcoin]

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

We shall see what will happen, i am just wondering how is it possible for ETH and ETC to both rise in value when they should shrink to reach the a mean reversion sorta thing.

If the markets were that easy to predict, we'd all be millionaires by now, heh.  ETC volume is still reasonably strong compared to other alts, but ETH is back to being the main attraction and ETC is merely a sideshow now.  Still not holding much of either, though, as other alts can deliver all the same features (which they had before ETH went live) and are still much cheaper to invest in.  ETH is way overpriced for what it is and relies mostly on hype for its network effect.

Well that is what happens when investors are dumb.

You know people who invest in Greek bonds or negative yield bonds , that kind of people, they never know what is coming to them.

It's not like ETH investors are superintelligent, heck most sscam investment site investors are dumb as hell too, how many people have been scammed so far in the crypto world?

"The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent!" - Keynes


I would not bet on ETH, nor against it, I am just simply not interested in garbage flawed coins.

[Vistman]

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

We shall see what will happen, i am just wondering how is it possible for ETH and ETC to both rise in value when they should shrink to reach the a mean reversion sorta thing.

If the markets were that easy to predict, we'd all be millionaires by now, heh.  ETC volume is still reasonably strong compared to other alts, but ETH is back to being the main attraction and ETC is merely a sideshow now.  Still not holding much of either, though, as other alts can deliver all the same features (which they had before ETH went live) and are still much cheaper to invest in.  ETH is way overpriced for what it is and relies mostly on hype for its network effect.

Well that is what happens when investors are dumb.

You know people who invest in Greek bonds or negative yield bonds , that kind of people, they never know what is coming to them.

It's not like ETH investors are superintelligent, heck most sscam investment site investors are dumb as hell too, how many people have been scammed so far in the crypto world?

"The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent!" - Keynes


I would not bet on ETH, nor against it, I am just simply not interested in garbage flawed coins.

Which of the coins are not garbage flawed?

[RealBitcoin]

Which of the coins are not garbage flawed?

All coins are flawed some way, but the question is, what kind of flaw it has?

For bitcoin, the worst case scenario is this scaling problem. For ethereum is that any malware can run on the network. Which one is worse?

[franky1]

hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

gene therapy:
if the majority of cells(nodes) accept the new gene(rule), then all cells change to fix a issue to allow the body(network) to healthily grow, without the previous unhealthy limitation.

if the majority of cells(nodes) reject the new gene(rule), then all cells dont change and the body(network) remains having the unhealthy limitation.

[Lauda]

All coins are flawed some way, but the question is, what kind of flaw it has?

Well, technically all coins aren't 'garbage' (seems the user used two adjectives). I'd say that most of them are garbage, and that a fair number runs on outdated/insecure codebase.

For bitcoin, the worst case scenario is this scaling problem.

It's really just a matter of time before these boundaries get pushed.

hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

-snip-

What's up with so many analogies recently regarding hard forks?

[franky1]

hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

-snip-

What's up with so many analogies recently regarding hard forks?

because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.

people need to know the difference so they can see passed your doomsdays of trying to treat an umbrella term as total disaster, by highlighting that people like you are picking the worse case scenario within that term, and avoiding discussing the more logical and safe scenarios which is what the community want.

also unlike yourself who avoid learning, some people want to learn. they just sometimes dont understand some analogies. thus using different analogies appeal to different people in different ways to get more people to understand.

[Lauda]

because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.

So after a redundant analogy, you resort to ad hominem?  People who have kept a close eye on your posts and who are decent with Bitcoin knows that what you're preaching is usually very wrong. The fork debate has been beaten to death, and you've provided no good reasoning for it.

also unlike yourself who avoid learning, some people want to learn.

You've pretty much described yourself. How about you stop attacking other people and start listening for once?

[DooMAD]

because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.

So after a redundant analogy, you resort to ad hominem? 

Oh please, every damn sentence on this forum is an ad hominem to you.  Every time you discuss larger blocksizes, you say 2mb would be a disaster and discard any notions to the contrary.  It's neither an insult nor a personal attack to accurately describe the behaviour you demonstrate on a frequent basis. 

The fork debate has been beaten to death, and you've provided no good reasoning for it.

I've heard more valid points from him than I have from you.

[Lauda]

Oh please, every damn sentence on this forum is an ad hominem to you.  Every time you discuss larger blocksizes, you say 2mb would be a disaster and discard any notions to the contrary.  

It were would not be a fallacy, if the information was rather correct or I was the point of the discussion (which I'm not).

It's neither an insult nor a personal attack to accurately describe the behaviour you demonstrate on a frequent basis.  

This is also incorrect. I don't see any statistical analysis backing up these claims.

I've heard more valid points from him than I have from you.

You're being fed false information then. I'm not sure what kind of threads you've been reading, but a fair amount of people chose to ignore them (most of the time) for a very good reason.
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.

[RealBitcoin]

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.

[RealBitcoin]

hard fork(eth: --oppose-dao-fork) = intentional split = mitosis
consensus change = majority upgrade = gene therapy

gene therapy:
if the majority of cells(nodes) accept the new gene(rule), then all cells change to fix a issue to allow the body(network) to healthily grow, without the previous unhealthy limitation.

if the majority of cells(nodes) reject the new gene(rule), then all cells dont change and the body(network) remains having the unhealthy limitation.

And if they reject the new genes, they will become cancerous cells devouring the entire organism.

ETC has stolen away 100m dollar (+other intangible losses) from ETH, and caused it to plunge in price, ETC will forever remain a cancerous tumour of ETH, and wont go away until ETH itself dies.

They will both destroy eachother.

Now that new hardfork is on it's way, new cancerous cells will appear:

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


ETH is metastasizing very quickly, better bring it to chemotherapy or it will die very fast...

[Lauda]

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

I prefer to avoid the usage of that unless there's appeal to authority or I have to defend myself. This just seems like a slimmer version of r/btc, where they're attacking someone on a daily basis.

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?

Correct. In theory it was thought that the minor chain would quickly die out. Now we know that this doesn't necessarily have to be true (as demonstrated by ETC).

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.

Well, if you're looking at the whole picture then I agree with you.

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

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

ETH seems like a joke when it comes to security nowadays. Seems like there's a lot of trouble waiting in their code.

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.

Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).

[RealBitcoin]

Well, IMO doing a hard fork on Bitcoin just to increase the block size limit to X is horribly inefficient. The HF should be packed with things that are required, but can only be done with a HF (since we know these are not, and will not be a often thing with Bitcoin).

Yes i would only agree to a hardfork if it would be absolute life-death situation and they would give people enough time to prepare, but we know that there is no imminent danger to bitcoin.

So the only hardfork would be improvement/patch type of hardfork, and for that there is plenty of time, like announce it 1 year ahead and let the market and the community adjust.


But there is absolute no need for that currently, just look at the altcoins, all of them think they are superior to bitcoin in some way, but none of them come even close to bitcoin in market cap? How is this possible if they are so great.

So the market is choosing Bitcoin, and it would be foolish to go against the market, if a hardfork were to happen on bitcoin now, it would drop at least 80% in value in my opinion.

So even though all these patches and uppgrades sound attractive, the market doesnt want them, so there is no need for that.



Think of IPV4, nobody wants to change it because it would break the entire internet, instead they just roll in IPV6 which will slowly replace it. The same should apply to Bitcoin as well.

Now that we will have sidechains, and many apps built on it, it would be even harder to hardfork.


So if somebody wants to "hardfork" bitcoin, go copy the code, add your patches, and name it BITCOIN 2.0, and let's see how big a market can can you achieve. Judging by the altcoins today, probably not much.

That should be the only way to hardfork bitcoin, and many people failed by doing that. So the people who want to force nodes to uppgrade, are totalitarians, or just plain stupid people.

[Lauda]

Yes i would only agree to a hardfork if it would be absolute life-death situation and they would give people enough time to prepare, but we know that there is no imminent danger to bitcoin. So the only hardfork would be improvement/patch type of hardfork, and for that there is plenty of time, like announce it 1 year ahead and let the market and the community adjust.

Exactly. The grace period should be 6 to 12 months IMO. What Gavin suggested with Classic is a joke (28 days). Businesses can't successfully develop, test and deploy in that time-frame. Even if they could, it would likely end up problematic due to it being rushed. The only way that it *may* work for e.g. <6 months if everyone was running non-custom versions of the software, which we know is not the case.
You know, what I find very unfortunate and saddening is the toxicity towards Segwit. I mean, it's a *wonderful* development that will enable Bitcoin to scale further and better. The usual fork supporters are very negative towards it, while they should be appreciative in the lines of (random generic statement) "Great development! Now we can and should plan a hard fork.". I don't participate in those subreddits, but I do read them for behavioral analysis.

But there is absolute no need for that currently, just look at the altcoins, all of them think they are superior to bitcoin in some way, but none of them come even close to bitcoin in market cap? How is this possible if they are so great.

I've seen argumentation using the fact that the Bitcoin 'dominance' percentage is at ~80%.

[franky1]

because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.

So after a redundant analogy, you resort to ad hominem?   People who have kept a close eye on your posts and who are decent with Bitcoin knows that what you're preaching is usually very wrong. The fork debate has been beaten to death, and you've provided no good reasoning for it.

also unlike yourself who avoid learning, some people want to learn.

You've pretty much described yourself. How about you stop attacking other people and start listening for once?

your whole message and majority of most posts in this debate(on multiple topics) do not give any:
analogies of the how code works
realistic and real knowledge of code
understanding of code

i however do give examples, stats, details,etc.. i only reply offtopic AFTER you 'poke the bear'
but it is funny that you poke the bear and then cry when the bear bites back.

as for the "People who have kept a close eye on your posts" i dont care about your small little flock of gmaxwell religious friends are talking about, yo can all circle each other pretending gmaxwell/adam back are your kings and saviours.. that has nothing to do with bitcoin code. but more so some off topic religious/political view of wanting to ruin bitcoins decentralization, within your little minds..

and i hope after 6 months of asking you, you are finally underway of learning some C++ to read a few lines of code.

EG
to understand the benefits of '2mb base 4mb weight' using the real 'consensus mechanism' without any '-oppose-fork' flags to ensure the upgrade happens within the consensus to avoid your fake doomsday cries. then everyone gets what they want.

have a nice day,

[franky1]

Exactly. The grace period should be 6 to 12 months IMO. What Gavin suggested with Classic is a joke (28 days). Businesses can't successfully develop, test and deploy in that time-frame. Even if they could, it would likely end up problematic due to it being rushed. The only way that it *may* work for e.g. <6 months if everyone was running non-custom versions of the software, which we know is not the case.

you do realise. that to achieve high majority.. (to even trigger the grace) is not going to happen in 2 days or a week. it can take months and months for "Businesses to successfully develop, test and deploy". (before a majority is achieved.

once high majority have "successfully developed, tested and deployed" then there is still some extra time added after that point for the 'lazy/laggers' to have some time.
this EXTRA time is called the grace period.

EG 5200 nodes... taking XXmonths to get 95% majority after they developed tested and deployed to then show their desire.
leaving 260 nodes not yet ready.
the grace period is then for those 260 to finish off their tests or just download the already coded releases others have already deployed.

here is the kicker.. them 260 nodes.. did you cry doomsday when node count went from ~6000->~5740 couple years ago. did you even care to ask why those 260 were no longer running. what about when it went from 5500 to the current ~5200 are you crying blue murder right now that businesses are failing and cant use bitcoin..

my point being
if you think that businesses are going to just sit on their hands for months and months and only start programming after the grace starts. then you have not understood why people want to be full validating node in the first place. (im laughing at your "behavioral analysis." claims)

those "businesses" will be the first to get a release running BEFORE the grace. infact they already are and have..
because it actually means something critical to them. the last 5% are usually people that dont critically need or care to be a full node, or are intentionally not doing anything as some form of protest

[Lauda]

Here you have it, a perfect example of what I was talking about:

as for the "People who have kept a close eye on your posts" i dont care about your small little flock of gmaxwell religious friends are talking about, yo can all circle each other pretending gmaxwell/adam back are your kings and saviours.. that has nothing to do with bitcoin code. but more so some off topic religious/political view of wanting to ruin bitcoins decentralization, within your little minds..

EG 5200 nodes... taking XXmonths to get 95% majority after they developed tested and deployed to then show their desire.
leaving 260 nodes not yet ready.

You still think that the activation mechanisms are based on the percentage of nodes running the new version? So much about the demonstration of knowledge.