How 21mil limit is enforced

[ElectricMucus]

Of course, since it is a software, if everyone decide to change something it is possible. But of course it would be a hard fork  

The limit is enforced by the client, a block wich does not respect the rules would be rejected  

Why it would be hard fork if everybody agreed?

Because the software that I'm running now will never accept a subsidy under the new rules.  If a block comes in that satisfies your rules, but not mine, my software will reject it as invalid.  Since yours will accept it, the chain will split in two at that point, and never ever ever converge.

You aren't paying attention.  The statement (and question) was regarding if EVERYONE agreed and decided to change.  If you refuse to change, then EVERYONE didn't agree.

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

[1713857151]

1713857151

[1713857151]

1713857151

[tysat]

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

[ElectricMucus]

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Right,
Perhaps unrelated but as it seems prices have gone up so much people start making stuff up to keep it going.

[DannyHamilton]

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

No.  You are misrepresenting the facts.  In what way is it 51% to change the number of bitcons minted?  Do you even know what you are talking about?

[DannyHamilton]

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Because you were, as is ElectricMucus.

There is a reason his "Ignore" button is Dark, Dark, Yellow.

[ElectricMucus]

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

That's what I said, but was then told I was wrong.

Because you were, as is ElectricMucus.

There is a reason his "Ignore" button is Dark, Dark, Yellow.

You were a big contender too as I remember it BTCX.  

You misrepresenting the facts, it's 51%, not 100%.

No.  You are misrepresenting the facts.  In what way is it 51% to change the number of bitcons minted?  Do you even know what you are talking about?

This concerns future bitcoins. Nobody is talking about increasing the number previously mined coins. This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
Of course the consensus now is that they shouldn't be called bitcoins then. But what do they, in the future care what our motives were, now?

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
- snip -

You are mistaken.  As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user.  If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%.  If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

[ElectricMucus]

- snip -
This is about, for example skipping the block reward reduction which is entirely doable with a 51% hard fork.
- snip -

You are mistaken.  As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user.  If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%.  If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain.   Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

[DannyHamilton]

- skip -
Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain.   Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

There is no need to "be the longest chain" if the blockchain forks.  Each fork is its own chain.  They co-exist and nothing is shared between them.  There is no merging of the chains or "longest chain wins" between them.  This is why Litecoin doesn't care if its chain is longer than Bitcoin's chain.

I really need to learn not to respond to trolls.  I've made it clear that you are misleading people in this conversation.  I won't correct you in this thread again.  If you want to continue to post false information, I'll assume that the explanations I've given are sufficient to prevent the uneducated from believing the stuff you toss in here.

[Gabi]

This 100 or 51% thing is wrong in case of a hard fork. Hard fork=bitcoin and litecoin. Do litecoin need 100 or 51% or something to work? Nah

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain

And? The forked chain is no more the original chain, it is something totally different, like the litecoin chain. Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

[ElectricMucus]

- skip -
Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain.   Oh of course there are 2 kinds of 51%: 51% mining power and 51% nodes. If you have both you control the future.
I think you above anybody else should know what 51% is all about. (Or not, apparently. Either way you are playing the true believer bullshitting shill very well to, congrats for that)

There is no need to "be the longest chain" if the blockchain forks.  Each fork is its own chain.  They co-exist and nothing is shared between them.  There is no merging of the chains or "longest chain wins" between them.  This is why Litecoin doesn't care if its chain is longer than Bitcoin's chain.

I really need to learn not to respond to trolls.  I've made it clear that you are misleading people in this conversation.  I won't correct you in this thread again.  If you want to continue to post false information, I'll assume that the explanations I've given are sufficient to prevent the uneducated from believing the stuff you toss in here.

The difference is the ledger, the same as the original BTC. And that the old chain couldn't operate while being hijacked by miners who support ditching the block reward reduction.
It's the same thing as the supposed increase as the block size.

[DannyHamilton]

This 100 or 51% thing is wrong in case of a hard fork. Hard fork=bitcoin and litecoin. Do litecoin need 100 or 51% or something to work? Nah

This is what I've been saying.  It only takes a single user to fork the chain.  You don't need 100%, you don't need 51%.

If you want to use the existing chain history (and therefore existing bitcoins), and you don't want to fork the blockchain, the only way to do it is if 100% of all users (not just miners or hashing power, but all users) all switch to the new software with the new rules.  Anything less than that causes a fork in the blockchain.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
Note that any bitcoins that exist before the split will essentially be duplicated, giving owners of those bitcoins a duplicated amount of bitcoins on each system.

- snip -
if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

There appears to be an echo in here.

[kjj]

You are mistaken.  As has already been stated, if you want a "hard fork", you don't need 51%, you can do that with a single user.  If you don't want to fork the blockchain, then you need 100%.  If even a single user continues to run the old software, then the blockchain forks.

Yes but you wouldn't be able to be the longest chain.

What distinguishes a hard fork is that they never reconverge.  The single user would be on the longest chain, according to his rules of validity.  That there are other chunks of data out there that someone else considers to be blocks, and that there may or may not be more chunks or more people is not important.  That chain will never overwrite his chain.  The two chains will never converge.

And in reality, it won't be one guy.

[Gabi]

Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

I just wanted to clarify for new users that if you fork an already existing chain (as opposed to starting from scratch like litecoin), the history of both chains will be exactly the same, but they will diverge from the point of the fork forward. In other words, if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

Yup. And the new chain will NOT need 100% or 51% to be used. It will become Bitcoin2, unrelated from Bitcoin

[ElectricMucus]

Once a hard fork happen, it is totally unrelated with the old chain

I just wanted to clarify for new users that if you fork an already existing chain (as opposed to starting from scratch like litecoin), the history of both chains will be exactly the same, but they will diverge from the point of the fork forward. In other words, if you have pre-fork coins, your coins will exist on both chains. As Gabi said, those coins will only be useable on their respective chain.

Yup. And the new chain will NOT need 100% or 51% to be used. It will become Bitcoin2, unrelated from Bitcoin

Thats the peaceful way of doing it. The offensive way would be to use the same address space, communication ports and protocol. Making the old network essentially useless in the process.