Franky, you're spreading a lot of misinformation. I won't go so far as to call it
disinformation, but I'm not sure that your intentions here are honorable. I can't keep responding to you because every time I address your points, you repeat the same falsities that I've already shown to be false.
No, I am not. This has nothing to do with controversy. A hard fork, by definition, entails creating a new network that is incompatible with the old one. The intention of a hard fork is for users of the old network to migrate to the forked network. There is no propaganda in that, whatsoever.
Supporting Core's conservative method of rigorous analysis and testing, or their overall roadmap, or simply supporting an implementation that retains Bitcoin's consensus rules, is not anything you can blame Core for.
1. hardfork code has been publicly available since last year, meaning core is not conservative. because they ignore code available for over a year to quickly push something only finalised a few weeks ago..
Segwit has been worked on since late last year. It's been rigorously tested for many months. Simply stating that "hard fork code has been publicly available since last year" is meaningless. That doesn't suggest that the hard fork code is sensible, optimal nor rigorously tested. Rather, peer review and testing has been minimal.
I would argue if peer review and testing has been minimal then it has not been finalised, it has not even been finished.
2. core is not retaining consensus rules.. old nodes cant validate segwit, so old nodes are not part of the consensus. they are just blindly confused into not caring what the data is by using the flag that tells them to ignore it.
Please point to the consensus rules being broken by Segwit. You can't, because there are none. This is why Segwit is backward compatible.
Old nodes certainly can validate Segwit transactions against the consensus rules. And they will. You seem disturbed by the idea of
forward compatibility, but it's really quite elegant and appropriate. See Satoshi's thoughts on forward compatible soft forks:
I think you are playing semantic games here and skirting around the issue, I am not saying that you are not being sincere however. "Consensus" is the term we give to the governance mechanism in the Bitcoin protocol, there is also a technical feature in the Bitcoin protocol that is also called "consensus". To make this even more confusing the term "consensus" can not even be taken literally except for in the technical sense, however the rules of the protocol can still be changed through the governance mechanisms of Bitcoin, therefore even the technical understanding of "consensus" can not be taken completely literally. That is in the literal sense of the word "consensus".
I recently explained my theory on Bitcoin governance and what I think is the present state of affairs here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1612347.0I perceive hard forks to be a critical feature of the Bitcoin governance mechanism. Soft forks in some cases can contribute to circumventing this governance mechanism, since it makes splitting away more difficult, it makes it more difficult to protest in other words, which actually makes it easier to change the protocol through soft forks. Which is not necessarily a good thing from a humanist perspective.
Almost any change can be introduced as a soft fork, we could even increase the blocksize with a soft fork, there are multiple ways in which to do this. Whether something is a hard fork or a soft fork does not actually matter in terms of whether it should be implemented or not, what matters is the content of that change itself.
3. core is not retaining consensus rules.. 4mb blockweight is a total different rule than maxblocksize.. but again by disabling consensus(consent) they are changing rules without needing consent.
Again: Please point to the consensus rules being broken by Segwit. You can't, because there are none. Maxblocksize is a consensus rule. It is not broken by Segwit. Segregating the witness data doesn't affect validity. It's really quite a clever way to optimize transactions size while permitting features which require non-malleability.
I suppose you know my view on soft forks, consensus and segwit by now. Segwit does not fix malleability last I checked, that particular feature has not been introduced, I am not sure whether it will be finished by the time Core wants segwit to go onto the main net.
It also makes Bitcoin less "scalable" that is in the IT/Engineering sense of the word, again a word that carries different meanings within different fields of knowledge. Since segwit transactions are still slightly larger then normal transactions, making them less efficient. Segwit actually also makes Bitcoin less expensive to attack because segwit allows an attacker to fill up the witness data at a rate 1/4 of the normal fee price, which means spam attacks on the network become easier, by flooding the network with these spam transactions an attacker can fill up the blocks preventing other people from being able to transact, actually exploiting the existence of the blocksize limit which was first introduced as a temporary anti spam fix, ironically. This reduced fee is actually for a specific type of transaction that the lighting network relies on. I do not support this type of economic favoritism, it is one of the many reasons why I do not like this version of Segwit that Core is planning to release. I would not be against Segwit if it came out as a hard fork with a few minor changes, it actually would make segwit transactions more efficient then normal transactions, such a hard fork could also fix malleability. Such a hardfork version of segwit would also introduce a lot less technical debt.
4. the road map belongs to core, the segwit code is a core feature and core are avoiding accepting hard fork code so much they are throwing devs out of the core group
Anyone is free to contribute to Core. Anyone is also free to develop other clients. Being a small, vocal minority should not enable someone to steamroll the rest of the project contributors into merging code they disagree with. You have no authority to say what Core should or should not do. You are free to contribute to other projects. Go ahead.
I actually agree with you on this, except for that anyone is free to contribute to Core, you can not have it both ways, which is why there have to be multiple viable implementations of Bitcoin, otherwise the governance mechanism would just not work since people would not have the freedom of choice between these implementations, since you have already said that Core should not provide that choice within their organization and implementation. This is in part why I consider Core to be the biggest point of centralization within Bitcoin right now, even the name we use "Core" is inappropriate for a decentralized protocol.
You can blame the lack of convincing arguments by fork proponents for the lack of support to fork. You could also probably blame Ethereum, which has likely scared much of the community away from the risks of hard forks.
the REKT and fake doomsdays stories to sway people started way before ethereum
Indeed, anti-fork sentiment existed long before the Ethereum network split. But the failed hard fork scared a lot of people into recognizing that Core's position has been reasonable and thoughtful, while the Ethereum Foundation has clearly been reckless and disdainful towards their userbase and custodians.
That is an opinion, and the facts do not back up this sentiment at all. Ethereum investors have not even lost money especially if you include their holdings in ETC. The two networks are doing just fine, especially ETH. The sky has not fallen after the hard fork, the recent Ethereum split proves that such hard forks are viable and they are not the "disasters" that some people claimed it would be. It is actually a good thing, a graceful solution to an age old problem.
I think the same will happen to Bitcoin within the next six months, whether we like it or not. I am an advocate of this action if that has not been made clear already, unless "consensus" is found within the Bitcoin network, the network will split. Allowing both sides of this debate to have the Bitcoin they want, true freedom of choice.
"Consensual [hard] fork" is a strange term. Consent flows from users opting into a network. Anyone is free to opt out of the Bitcoin network and consent to a new hard fork. But that doesn't imply at all that all users of the Bitcoin network consent to a hard fork. Knowing that every user consents is not possible in any way, shape or form -- and even if it were, we could only know after the fork had occurred, after which users actually migrate and affirmatively consent to the hard fork's new rules.
see there you go again "opt out of bitcoin network".. more subtly propaganda that if its not the core way then its not bitcoin..
yet core are changing the rules without needing users consent for the new direction core want to go.
No, it's not propaganda at all. You either fundamentally misunderstand what a hard fork entails, or you yourself are attempting to spread lies to further your agenda.
Are you suggesting that the Bitcoin network doesn't exist? Because if the Bitcoin network exists, a hard fork of Bitcoin's consensus protocol will create an additional network that is incompatible with Bitcoin. It's curious that you don't deny this, yet you continue to try to deceive people into thinking that a hard fork is merely a software change that is compatible with Bitcoin. It is not. It splits the network into 2 or more incompatible networks.
I think I actually agree with you here exstasie and not franky1. Though I also think that you two are having a misunderstanding, franky1 is very clearly referring to the case where "consensus" is reached and the network does not split, like XT, Classic and maybe Unlimited for example, or even if Core released a hard fork with a simple blocksize limit increase, that might be a better example since there is less chance to this leading to a split.
I do not think this will happen though which is why I think that actually splitting the chain is now a better option for users who are not happy with the direction that Core is taking Bitcoin into.
But you are correct extasie in that you can never be sure whether a split will occur, since it only takes a small minority to decide to stay behind, I consider this to be a good thing however, not something to be feared. This governance structure protects everyone and even protects people against the tyranny of the majority and minority.
Core has no obligation to attempt to break the consensus rules. I don't know where you get the impression that they do. Anyone is free to fork Core's code and try to convince the community to join them. However, I urge everyone to oppose any fork that attempts to leverage miners against users. That raises serious ethical concerns about whether migrating users actually consent, or whether they felt forced by colluding miners (who have an apparent monopoly on hash rate and thus, confirmations for transactions).
"anyone is free to fork cores code"
hmm there you go again. subtle propaganda saying bitcoin is core and core is bitcoin, meaning anything not core, is not bitcoin.. seems you actually want core to be king and own bitcoin and make decisions without users consent, and you want anyone revolting away from your ideology to be classed as a alternative network/coin.
I didn't say "Bitcoin is Core and Core is Bitcoin." But it's the reference implementation. Why do you think XT, Classic and Unlimited are all forks of Core? What else would you expect people to fork, if not Core's repository? Feel free to code a new implementation from scratch, if you'd prefer.
You are again jumbling the meaning of words, since they mean different things within different fields. Technically XT, Classic and Unlimited are forks of Core, since they have taken Core code and have made slight changes. However when I run a Bitcoin Unlimited node for example I am running it on the Bitcoin protocol and I am compatible with the Bitcoin protocol and I am not forking the network at all, the same is true for XT or Classic. Do you see the subtle difference in meanings that exist in these words, by using this type of language you are drumming up fear, one of the very defining features of propaganda as is commonly understood.
It is strange for you to say that any fork attempts to leverage miners is against users. That is not in theory how this is supposed to work, the miners are supposed to follow what they think the users want, however by promoting such an ideology we are making the miners more conservative against any change, especially if a considerable amount of the user base have such beliefs, this is in part why I think that Bitcoin is becoming stagnant and losing its competitive edge, much of that energy is now spilling over into the alternatives.
but here is the thing that will trip you up..
orphans are the mechanism.. and orphans happen daily. meaning bitcoin is suppose to change but only in a direction the majority agree on.
so a true consensual fork is the same as the daily orphans.. the chain CONTINUES in the direction of the majority..
"Orphans" refer to valid blocks that don't have a known parent in the longest block chain. They don't refer to invalid blocks that aren't part of the Bitcoin network.
Also, you're only addressing processing power (miners). You're not addressing users at all. What gives miners power over the software that users decide to run? Nothing.
You are indeed tripping up here exstasie, not all orphans are in fact invalid blocks, most orphans are actually valid blocks that where found at a similar time by different pools, they are only considered invalid after they are rejected only because the same block already exists and just got propagated faster. It is one of the fundamental aspects of how Bitcoin works, franky1 one is correct in pointing out the importance of this feature since it also allows for there to be no blocksize limit at all since the pools themselves can best determine their own technological limits, instead of this arbitrary limit being centrally controlled by the "reference implementation".
Miners do indeed have power over the "consensus" of the Bitcoin network, however because they have so much at stake they have a strong game theory incentives to do what is best for the network, this is how Bitcoin works, I realize that some people are not comfortable with this, but it is how Bitcoin actually functions. I even think some of the Core developers are skeptics of this idea, as technologists it might be hard for them to see the virtue in a system that relies on the economic self interest of the masses to govern the network. Ideas of immutability and an unchanging network where we are governed by machines taking human beings out of the picture completely ending politics might seem like a romantic idea but it is just not the reality of how these cryptocurrencies actually function.
Bitcoin is more like a cyborg, human beings are part of the machine and are actually one of the key components that allow it to function successfully in our world. Which means that politics are part of the equation here and the mechanism is that miners do have the vote, because their incentives are best aligned, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It can almost be seen as a form or representative democracy, however where the incentives of the representatives are not perverted unlike what we often see in state democracies. In this case the users have all the power, since that is where the value comes from, splitting Bitcoin will allow users to better express this choice when there are strong diverting ideologies within a single protocol, like what we are seeing today within Bitcoin. Which is why a split could also be such a positive thing, both sides would be more likely to be able to innovate much faster when there is a greater general agreement on what Bitcoin is and where it should go. Splitting the network would allow for a more cohesive and less toxic community, while also allowing for greater freedom of choice for Bitcoin users.
if someone makes a rule change by submitting a block with odd data using the real consensual mechanism, but doesnt have majority, it gets orphaned
every day there are decisions being made for which direction the majority should move.
so by your failed definition of the consensus mechanism.. the majority of users are moving to a different network every time there is a fork(orphan)..
No, an orphan doesn't imply a new network at all. Orphans are valid blocks, so they are compatible with the original network. Miners are simply agreeing on which
valid chain has the most cumulative work.
a controversial fork still gets orphaned off..
but.. only when intentionally blacklisting certain nodes to prevent the orphaning mechanism from taking care of the situation is where a realistic and continual split occur.
A fork that breaks the consensus rules doesn't get orphaned. It gets ignored. Saying that it is "orphaned" suggests it is valid according to the network. It isn't.
Technically you are correct here exstasie, strictly speaking that is. But the idea that Bitcoin actually splits every day, in some cases even for several blocks is at least poetically interesting, since when Bitcoin splits it would not be that different to an orphan initially, it is just that we will give the orphan life and extend that chain where otherwise it would have just died. You have to admit that poetically it is at least a good analogy.
I think that the term valid here is completely subjective, valid is dependent on the client you run, I think that Bitcoin ideally should be defined as being the longest chain, not the longest valid chain, since otherwise it would become a completely subjective position to take.
the community on the whole dont want a intentional split by adding in code to bypass the natural orphaning mechanism, all that is being said is a consensual fork for true capacity growth
which wont happen if core prevent a healthy majority by doing all this propaganda crap to keep their sheep inline to veto a change. and blindly allow another change by not telling their sheep its not requiring their consent for that route either
think long and hard about what i have just said.. and dont reply just with waffle to defend cores control
Core doesn't have any control. Please come to terms with the fact that most of the community supports Core's maintenance of the Bitcoin code. You may disagree with their views -- it's only natural in such a diverse ecosystem that not every participant sees eye to eye. But I'm becoming more and more confused as to what you are even arguing for.
I do not think that most of the community supports Core, I think it is actually very difficult to measure such a thing especially when there are people on both sides of the debate who can be very loud. It creates a situation where the "consensus" is not clear which is maybe why many miners are presently still siding with caution and sticking with the incumbents. This is also why splitting the network has become a better option for users to express their opinion, miners will simply just follow the value after all.
Anyone is free to opt out of the network and run an incompatible node. Anyone is free to contribute to projects other than Bitcoin Core. Please feel free to support such efforts.
I only ask that people try to understand that leveraging miners against users to try to force a network migration (as XT and Classic attempted to do) is unethical, and I ask that people reflect on whether it is right for miners to provoke users into removing consensus rules. Hard forks are a matter of user consent, not miner consent. Miner consent only establishes the longest valid chain (so, it enables soft forks). It has nothing to do with the consensus rules that every node on the network enforces.
Hard forking is how most important changes should be made, before Ethereum split there were multiple hard forks where the network did not split. This is an example of how this mechanism works, if enough people are unhappy with the change they can simply choose to stay behind, the sooner we embrace this mechanism the sooner Bitcoin will be able to continue to evolve.
Many of us view the block size limit as a moral issue -- key to allowing Bitcoin to remain peer-to-peer and sufficiently decentralized to prevent attacks -- and further, that consensus rules must be safe from tyranny of the majority. For miners to leverage "fear of being on the weaker chain" against users to remove the block size limit, for me, is not very different from miners doing so to remove the 21M supply limit. This idea that consensus rules are subject to democratic vote is extremely dangerous, and I oppose it unequivocally.
The consensus rules are subject to democratic vote, that is exactly what Bitcoin is, I understand that you are part of a group of people that rejects this and have therefore constructed a flawed understanding of how Bitcoin works. I do not think there even is a cryptocurrency out there that works that way at all, it might presently even be a technological impossibility also for practical reasons. I am not a technologist myself, I have a background in humanism, maybe a fellow technologist/technocrat will be able to explain this to you better:
In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.
In a few words this is how I would describe my theory on Bitcoin governance:
Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.
In the words of Satoshi Nakamoto himself, from the Bitcoin whitepaper:
They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.
I also explained my theory on Bitcoin governance in more depth in the thread I also linked earlier in this post.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1612347.0And frankly, I don't think that you are convincing anyone here of anything -- your understanding of the protocol is clearly lacking and you are clearly very angry, which obviously gets in the way of your message.
I agree with you franky1, but I do agree with exstasie that you do come across a bit angry and it does get in the way of the message I support as well. I am a bit angry myself at the injustice that is occurring, Bitcoin being changed in such a radical way, is something I never signed up for and it is a shame to see that this issue might even delay mass adoption of this technology at such a critical time. Understand that not changing the blocksize limit fundamentally changes the economics of Bitcoin. I also think that the alternative economic model developed by Core is fundamentally flawed.
It is better to keep a cool head franky1, that way we can argue more rationally, I can argue rationally for this different perspective, and I have a solid understand of the theory. Based on experience I know I will not be censored here, unlike r/bitcoin.
I know it has become a very long post, I was simply replying to your singular message, I suppose the ideological split has become so wide, that we have started to see most things very differently.
