Can't we all just get along?

[DGulari]

You guys are missing the most important aspect of Bitcoin.  The scaling debate is being done by people who don't understand Satoshi or Bitcoin. 

We don't have to settle which is the best path to take - either large blocks or small blocks.  In fact, deciding on either and leaving the other is FREAKING DANGEROUS!!!!

The way Bitcoin is supposed to work is we test both possibilities at the same time.  We run an BU experiment at the same time we run a SegWit experiment.  One will kick-ass, the other will fail.  We don't need to sit around for 18 months arguing about why one is bad and the other is good. Instead, we just run both systems and examine the result.

It's called a 'fork'.  A fork is not bad.  Forks are good, necessary and important.  Preventing a fork also prevents us from discovering what would happen on the other chain.  We need this valuable information. 

Not forking is stupid and dangerous.  Please fork now.  BitcoinA and BitcoinB.  Next year, we will have certainty as to which system is better.  We've been guessing why the 'other' chain is going to fail for years now.  We need to stop arguing about it and do the experiment.  Fork the chain now.  No more stupid control by GMaxwell/Blockstream.  This is precisely what Bitcoin was supposed to prevent. 

Not forking is bad.

[rapazev]

yep, fork it!
ETH already showed us how good a fork is! let's do the same with bitcoin!

ps: bitcoin already have forks.. most of the altcoins are.

[DGulari]

yep, fork it!
ETH already showed us how good a fork is! let's do the same with bitcoin!

ps: bitcoin already have forks.. most of the altcoins are.

Yes.
SegWit is just another altcoin.  Only difference is the Blockstream parades around as 'Core' holding themselves to be something sacred. 

[unamis76]

OP, are you suggesting we have two clients, two networks, two chains live, at the same time? Are you aware that what you're suggesting is the chaos you've set out to prevent in the beginning of your post? That's not getting along.

[DGulari]

OP, are you suggesting we have two clients, two networks, two chains live, at the same time? Are you aware that what you're suggesting is the chaos you've set out to prevent in the beginning of your post? That's not getting along.

By 'get along', I mean both exist at the same time together.  A fork is good.  Those who seek to prevent a fork are removing the most important tool of bitcoin - the ability to arrive at a concensus regarding a better system. 

two networks, two chains is precisely what I propose.  Let's do BU and SegWit at the same time.  Get 50% of mining working on each.  Then, let free markets pull miners to the 'other' chain in time as they make their bets on which will be most successful in the future.  All we really need is about 25% or more of mining power to go to the minority fork prong - and then BAM! the experiment is on.  May the best man win.  This is good for bitcoin - bad for BlockStream.

[AvY Enterprises]

If we run two concurrent forks then anyone on the failing fork will be left holding a wallet full of worthless coins and any transactions that occurred on that chain may as well have never taken place.

Investors hate uncertainty and just the proposition that the chains may be split could destroy the value of either.

Better to use testnets or another shitcoin or something and leave the main network alone until we know what's best.

[unamis76]

By 'get along', I mean both exist at the same time together.  A fork is good.  Those who seek to prevent a fork are removing the most important tool of bitcoin - the ability to arrive at a concensus regarding a better system. 

two networks, two chains is precisely what I propose.  Let's do BU and SegWit at the same time.  Get 50% of mining working on each.  Then, let free markets pull miners to the 'other' chain in time as they make their bets on which will be most successful in the future.  All we really need is about 25% or more of mining power to go to the minority fork prong - and then BAM! the experiment is on.  May the best man win.  This is good for bitcoin - bad for BlockStream.

Yes, a fork is good, depending on what kind of fork it is.

So let's do this two forks/chains/coins thing. How will services decide on what to use? If they use both, will you pay for the extra infrastructure needed to operate servers with both blockchains and integrate the new one on these services? I'm talking about exchanges, online wallets, online stores, gambling websites, etc.

How are you going to convince miners spliting hashrates evenly? That's probably even harder than getting some services to use both chains, as there's no guarantee of breaking even if miners change chains (and there you have an example of a fork that can be perceived as bad).

This is bad for Bitcoin. This will create chaos. We cannot at any given point say "let's start both these systems with even force and see who wins". It's impossible to reach an equilibrium that allows us to do that. We have to build upon what we have and see if whatever is introduced is strong enough to win and become Bitcoin.

[Cereberus]

Why people want to scale ? Can't we have the perfect working environment like Bitcoin is actually now ? I vote NO against the scaling as that will bring us a few problems for sure. Personally I don't like problems, I like things that are working and don't like to change working things.

[franky1]

only reason this topic is proposing to avoid consensus and instead split is simple. those that want a split dont care about bitcoin they just want to double their money by having coins on 2 networks.

simply a boring greedy reason with no thought about "bitcoin". just quick method to double money and then to run to fiat.

guys if you actually care about bitcoin. learn consensus/orphans which allow the strongest desires to continue on a single chain and the minority left not able to sync (hence requiring a very high desire to even upgrade the single network without risk/headache)

and stop thinking forks are only about intentional splits.

funny though.. the title of this topic..

Can't we all just get along?

and the OP's solution is not to find a middleground where everyone is happy
EG
2mb base 4mbweight  so scaling can occur and segwit still functions..

but instead OP proposes splitting away from each other and going in separate directions.
that is not "getting along" but avoidance, ignorance, separation and other terms that are the opposite of getting along

[shield132]

Well, you see something good about forks here but think about what it will cause in future. People choosed bitcoon because it was first and it's number 21 million was limited. Situation is stable from it's begining and imagine how many people is using regular wallets, how many website has integrated it as a payment system, how many people is mining and etc. Fork in bitcoin will cause chaos in people.
P.S stuff isn't going to make what you wrote.

[Milkduds]

The grass is not always greener and you risk potential rift that would shatter a established crypto,its not a as easy as you may think to just apply this solution.
With every move we make with bitcoin we risk isolating more people that do not follow for a multitude of reasons and a fork it a really major alteration to the path we are on.

Its important when discussing we stay clear of black and white thinking,as it shows the biases that block a honest discussion. With any bitcoin discussion so far it seems like this is not something we can achieve without moderation that both sides could agree to. Even then there would be discord with who was chosen!

The unknown for me is to big a problem to just say everything is going to be better,we just do not know that to be fact.

[DGulari]

If we run two concurrent forks then anyone on the failing fork will be left holding a wallet full of worthless coins and any transactions that occurred on that chain may as well have never taken place.

So what, you also hold the identical coins on the valuable chain.  Awesome!!!

Investors hate uncertainty and just the proposition that the chains may be split could destroy the value of either.

Who fucking cares about 'investors'.  We are trying to build something awesome here.  We are not trying to please speculators from China.  Fuck them.  Let get to work and build great things with no regard for stupid fucking speculation.

Better to use testnets or another shitcoin or something and leave the main network alone until we know what's best.

LOL - 'testnets'  The whole fucking thing is a test net.  Bitcoin is a test.  Let's do this for real.  On the 'real' net.

[cjmoles]

If we run two concurrent forks then anyone on the failing fork will be left holding a wallet full of worthless coins and any transactions that occurred on that chain may as well have never taken place.

So what, you also hold the identical coins on the valuable chain.  Awesome!!!

Investors hate uncertainty and just the proposition that the chains may be split could destroy the value of either.

Who fucking cares about 'investors'.  We are trying to build something awesome here.  We are not trying to please speculators from China.  Fuck them.  Let get to work and build great things with no regard for stupid fucking speculation.

Better to use testnets or another shitcoin or something and leave the main network alone until we know what's best.

LOL - 'testnets'  The whole fucking thing is a test net.  Bitcoin is a test.  Let's do this for real.  On the 'real' net.

I don't know if intentionally allowing the chain to fork is a good idea considering the amount of capital that's been confidently invested into the platform....if we can avoid causing a situation that may result in a loss of confidence, then that's what we should do.  There have been "evolutionary" studies that one can analyze among the alternative chains....However, I agree that the debate shouldn't be so centralized; there should be a more readily available, decentralized, method of attaining consensus then what we have now....It seems that individual nodes in the network have been disenfranchised during bitcoin's evolution toward the larger mining farms and network pools....

[amacar2]

Forking = ETH/ETC like situation, we don't need another bitcoin.

You are suggesting two seperate chains of bitcoin and wait for which one will win? Take a closer look at what ETH and ETC battle have done to both. ETH still trying to get some movementum rather than usual swings while as ETC still holding some marketcap of ETH.

Split of network  = split of marketcap = split of support = disaster for any coin including bitcoin.

[Jet Cash]

It's not just block size that's significant, there is block generation intervals as well. So lets have four forks, Oh wait there is the problem of miner localisation, so lets have some forks for geo-located miners. Then we need some knives to cut out the failing ones.

I know, lets have a whole canteen of Bitcoin blockchains with side servers as well.

[Kprawn]

You guys are missing the most important aspect of Bitcoin.  The scaling debate is being done by people who don't understand Satoshi or Bitcoin. 

We don't have to settle which is the best path to take - either large blocks or small blocks.  In fact, deciding on either and leaving the other is FREAKING DANGEROUS!!!!

The way Bitcoin is supposed to work is we test both possibilities at the same time.  We run an BU experiment at the same time we run a SegWit experiment.  One will kick-ass, the other will fail.  We don't need to sit around for 18 months arguing about why one is bad and the other is good. Instead, we just run both systems and examine the result.

It's called a 'fork'.  A fork is not bad.  Forks are good, necessary and important.  Preventing a fork also prevents us from discovering what would happen on the other chain.  We need this valuable information. 

Not forking is stupid and dangerous.  Please fork now.  BitcoinA and BitcoinB.  Next year, we will have certainty as to which system is better.  We've been guessing why the 'other' chain is going to fail for years now.  We need to stop arguing about it and do the experiment.  Fork the chain now.  No more stupid control by GMaxwell/Blockstream.  This is precisely what Bitcoin was supposed to prevent. 

Not forking is bad.

You say everyone must get along, but you taking sides by bad mouthing the GMaxwell/Blockstream side? You either have very little invested

in this technology or you just do not get the risk. If a fork happens... then it would be a decision made by the people. Would you tolerate

it if banks gambled with other people's money.... Uhm, on second thought ... they are doing it... So we should attempt to be better than

them... right. 

[LFC_Bitcoin]

There will always be a solution found in the end. I mean we all want to make money here don't we?
Eventually we (well, the people that matter) all have to agree to pull in the sake direction.

[Anno MMXVI]

Fork is not necessarily a good idea I think, but testnet could be used for that purpose. Is it still running or has it been left to death ?

[kiklo]

Re: Can't we all just get along?

Nope ,

BTC Devs need to fork to fix BTC transactions problems.

Chinese Mining Pools don't want those forks , because it would threaten their over 51% control of BTC.

Chinese are winning due to their over 51% control, don't really see them letting things change.


 

[BuySomeBitcoins]

we can't, we wont.

we are humans, we are smart and stupid at the same time.