Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[RawDog]

Hard forks are good.  Stop crying.  They allow two discrete paths to flourish and see which works best.  Too freaking bad if some of your juice gets stuck on the 'bad' chain.  On fork day, you've got equal action on both chains.  Make good decisions thereafter.  No harm, no foul.  

Let's do it NOW!!!!

Fork it already.

[1714813757]

1714813757

[1714813757]

1714813757

[Dahhi]

Rawdog, you are soo raw!

I see your point though. Explore all the options and pick the best... you're right.

[RawDog]

Rawdog... you're right.

I am always right.  I thought I made a mistake once, but it turned out to be correct.  

[electronicash]

it would be unfair for those devs actually, imagine the very thing you worked all your life and all of a sudden being copied by someone just because we have the rights and we all call it opensource. like they said there's always a fine line to distinguish them whatever we call it these days whether hackers and idiots.

[franky1]

the reason people say no to a hard fork is because of the requirement of a high amount of people running the hard fork to ensure miners block solutions dont orphan..

guess what.. cores softfork wants a high acceptance rate too before they activate.. soo.. logically..
pt the hardfork code in with the softfork stuff and then when the magical acceptance level is reached we can have actual real capacity (not the smidgen of core softfork) along with the other features the softfork meant to offer too..

inshort: 2 birds-one stone

here.. ill do it using numbers
HF=2mb for 2x capacity
SF=4mb for 1.8x capacity

HF+SF= 4mb for (4x but probably end up) ~3x capacity

it just makes logical sense.

oh and dont forget to keep the activation mechanism to allow the amounts to increase simple by users independently desiring it in their settings(flag), as oppose to waiting and praying to devs to lead and control decisions

[thejaytiesto]

Core's conservative view on hard forks is what has made Bitcoin survive for 7+ years. Look at the ETH/ETC disaster. We must not hard fork unless we have like 99% of support.

[RawDog]

Remember ETH hard fork? The community and it's price after hard fork?
Maybe better learn from past experience and wait a bit longer.

Who cares about the price?  Why is it an objective to 'get the price up'?  Very stupid.  Let's get the functionality up.  

Let's fork it two times - or three times.  Everyone will have the same tokens on each chain to start with.  Then, one chain will prove to be more reliable and higher performing that the others.  Then Greg Maxwell can go take his Blockstream shitchain with Lightning Liquid side crap to hell where it belongs.  Blockstream wants to own Bitcoin.  I say fork it and let them have their silly side chain project.  The 'other' chain with 8MB will take off and on chain scaling will live forever after.

Only Blockstream gets hurt by a fork.  Fork it!

[awesome31312]

If I were to make a crap post like this, it would be moved to the Bitcointalk graveyard (The off-topic section) no doubt. Rank privilege is a real thing here unfortunately.

[CraigWrightBTC]

Hard forks are good.  Stop crying.  They allow two discrete paths to flourish and see which works best.  Too freaking bad if some of your juice gets stuck on the 'bad' chain.  On fork day, you've got equal action on both chains.  Make good decisions thereafter.  No harm, no foul.  

Let's do it NOW!!!!

Fork it already.

What is kinds of coins who will be hard fork? Do you mean will be hard fork for bitcoin? Should you write the coin, it will make nice understanding for every users who has read your statement.

[damnMscollec]

i think there will some scammers make a new coin called bitcoin classic like etc to eth, unhealthy to the community.

[calkob]

Yeah great idea, lets take Bitcoin which has billions of $ investment and split it in two and see what works.  like seriously did you go to school?   

[Kprawn]

When you have fuckall coins, it is easy to make reckless statements like this. The Core developers have ALL the risk on them, if this fails.

They have to consider every little thing, to make sure a hard fork will not cause some vulnerability. We have seen what happened to other

Alt coins, when Air heads decide to hard fork for stupid reasons. We {holders of coins} are happy with slow progress, if it secure our coins.

[franky1]

i think there will some scammers make a new coin called bitcoin classic like etc to eth, unhealthy to the community.

already happened
NXT was bitcoin 2.0
Monero wants to be BitcoinB(sidechain)
Liquid wants to be Bitcoin X (central exchange reserve coin)

[franky1]

Yeah great idea, lets take Bitcoin which has billions of $ investment and split it in two and see what works.  like seriously did you go to school?   

seems people are still smoking the contention pipe.

in a consensual fork. there is no second chain.. it dies in the land of orphans.. and only one chain remains which the majority have agreed to before the rules even updated so no one suffers as the decision was made before activation..

once you wake up that no one has proposed a contentious hard fork and that core is trying to cause contention by refusing to add consensual hard fork code.. then you will see passed the haze and the clarity of day

[Lauda]

As we've observed with ETH, hard forks can go terribly wrong when rushed. A minority is enough to keep another chain alive. This sets a very bad precedent, both by forking without consensus/reverting events and by rushing a HF. In addition to that, a rushed HF would render a LOT of custom implementations invalid pretty quickly. Do you even realize how 'long' it takes for companies to both update, test and deploy new software to their whole infrastructure.
I'm not saying I'm anti-HF in general, however I'm against irrational decision making with a very limited view point. I think that a HF, with a grace period of 6 months may be plausible and would likely not be against it (dependent on the change-set of course).

[severaldetails]

A fork would drive 95% of the people away because thy don't know how to handle that situation.
After the way the ether fork turnd out, even a lot of the smaller traders would resign from the cryptomarket.
You would create a few whales with lots of coins that nobody wants anymore.
I think if sombody wants to seriously harm bitcoin, a hard fork is most likely the best way to achieve that.

[franky1]

As we've observed with ETH, hard forks can go terribly wrong when rushed. A minority is enough to keep another chain alive. This sets a very bad precedent, both by forking without consensus/reverting events and by rushing a HF. In addition to that, a rushed HF would render a LOT of custom implementations invalid pretty quickly. Do you even realize how 'long' it takes for companies to both update, test and deploy new software to their whole infrastructure.
I'm not saying I'm anti-HF in general, however I'm against irrational decision making with a very limited view point. I think that a HF, with a grace period of 6 months may be plausible and would likely not be against it (dependent on the change-set of course).

though it seems lauda is waking up.. things need to be pointed out

a consensual hardfork (95%) is where 95% have already said yes, already reviewed the code.. meaning there is no shock, no surprise, meaning the movement across after activation is simple

i like how he tries to push that hard forks are bad.. but he slips in the little things subtly, although they are important..
eg "without consensus/reverting events"

this is because even in a surprising controversial fork. orphans will make the weaker minority die off. bitcoin is a big industry and any delays to block solving due to lack of hashpower, which leads to a fee war to get first place in next block, make it unaffordable to use aswell as slow, which renders businesses inefficient if they continue to use the weak chain.. will make decisions to move to the stronger chain real simple and fast.
alot faster than ethereum

again reviewing the code can be done pre-fork. many implementations have had hard fork code released for the last year... and a fork hasn't even happened yet. so in a concensual hard fork. the code is pre-reviewed and 95% are ready and waiting for the move.

but if the controversial fork added code to block the orphan events, and was an entirely new rule no one reviewed, and had things that ensured the weaker fork survived by auto blocking stronger fork nodes by default and tweaking difficulty (as lauda hinted removing the reverting events by forcing them not to talk to each other to not revert to a single chain). then even now bitcoiners would still make an easy decision to go with one direction. simply because bitcoin is actually useful

if merchants dont accept it, it theres a fee war and if the difficulty is tweaked to be at risk of 51% attack.. people wont use it. the minority would move quickly..

ethereum is not a good comparison because ethereum is useless in the real world.
so there is no clear choice which is better because both Ether's are useless.

[HabBear]

WOW, you just called Satoshi a bitch...that's blasphemous!

A fork would drive 95% of the people away because thy don't know how to handle that situation.

Not true, most people using bitcoin use a service like Coinbase so the transition would be seamless. So much negativity!

"We'll do it live!!!"

[marky89]

Core's conservative view on hard forks is what has made Bitcoin survive for 7+ years. Look at the ETH/ETC disaster. We must not hard fork unless we have like 99% of support.

How could we ever know that we have 99% support behind a fork? There's no way to measure it. No amount of node voting, coin voting or miner voting can establish that. More to the point, if we are talking about processing power, hash rate of ETH:ETC was 99:1 at one point. Still, the network split. People really underestimate the risks. There is literally no way to ever know how a hard fork will resolve. It's impossible to know.

[Yakamoto]

Hard forks are good.  Stop crying.  They allow two discrete paths to flourish and see which works best.  Too freaking bad if some of your juice gets stuck on the 'bad' chain.  On fork day, you've got equal action on both chains.  Make good decisions thereafter.  No harm, no foul.  

Let's do it NOW!!!!

Fork it already.

Hard forks only work when a majority of the community is willing to change over to whichever chain they agree to use; if they don't agree on using the same one then everyone just gets confused and it is more detrimental than beneficial if everyone is splintered across multiple chains.

If the miners and devs can reach a consensus then we can switch, but until then there isn't much that can be done.