Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[spooderman]

oooo....

[adamstgBit]

sounds reasonable,
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.


i think at that point core would have to come to the realization that the development of bitcoin is becoming decentralized and so they can no longer call all the shots.

Clarifications...

1) Bitcoin classic is not simply changing maxBlockSize, doing so , even to 2MB would introduce dangerous attack vectors -CVE-2013-2292  The Classic devs are aware of this and thankfully making many more changes for sigop protections.

2) Development has already been decentralized with multiple implementations. We do need to support other implemenentations like libbitcoin and bitcore. There is a distinction to be made between having multiple implemenatations that break consensus rules and ones that do not . There can be multiple implementations that have different developers, written in different code/languages, and with different unique features all working cooperatively (This is recommended), but some would argue that always having implementations that are attempting to usurp consensus rules decreases user and investor confidence as ultimately there can only be one set of consensus rules that is considered bitcoin.

3) Segwit provides an effective 2MB increase in capacity , is already in testnet, has wide support - https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ and will go live in april, IMHO before Classic can get deployed

4) In other news a planned hard fork increasing to an effective 4MB capacity is already being organized-

https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-core-dev/

wangchun from F2Pool is planning with some core devs yesterday for a planned 2MB hard fork and adding extra nonce space in feb/march 2017 to increase effective capacity up to ~4MB.

thanks for this.

answers a lot of the questions i posted 1 hour ago.

[adamstgBit]

buy or die.

[CuntChocula]

buy or die.

So hard to chose...

[adamstgBit]

...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.

Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[rebuilder]

This doesn't merit a thread of its own, so here in the "lounge" it goes:

Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.

[Richy_T]

probably why hearn is out.. oh well.. he was the one pushing for 'blockchain blacklists' .

Unlike Luke-jr who just went ahead and implemented them.

[adamstgBit]

Segregated Witness

[CuntChocula]

...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.

Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

You never know. Smallblockers are unpredictable, about the only thing safe to assume is they won't pursue rational self-interest because too wild & irrational.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

buy or die.

One day ^^

Maybe......

[adamstgBit]

...
I like that they are doing a simple 1 line change to 2MB.
this has a shot at forking bitcoin i guess.
but i would expect core to fallow the 2MB rule once its set in place... why wouldn't they? if they don't they technically mining an alt coin.
"bitcoin" necessarily is what the majority want it to be.

Technically, the core is just a bunch of devs. They don't mine.
They could copy Core's code & call it Core 0.12, but only if they got no shame.

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

You never know. Smallblockers are unpredictable, about the only thing safe to assume is they won't pursue rational self-interest because too wild & irrational.

this is all a moo-point, core has a Segregated Witness.  

[Richy_T]

[adamstgBit]

buy or die.

One day ^^

Maybe......

LOL!

for sure buddy. for sure.

[Richy_T]

this is all a moo-point, core has a Segregated Witness.  

[Richy_T]

This doesn't merit a thread of its own, so here in the "lounge" it goes:

Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.

I think you'd have to work hard to do it. Though I think the party line from Core is to push Segwit as if it is an actual block size increase so that might count.

[BitUsher]

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

Technically all that is needed for a hard fork is 51% of sustained hashing power, any number above that is completely arbitrary, but does change the social contract a bit IMHO... when devs choose 75% of the last 1k blocks to execute a countdown for deployment it is more democratic in nature where a majority can coerce or ostracize a minority. Selecting a higher threshold of 95% is much more anarchistic in nature where one needs near complete consensus before the consensus rules are changed in a hardfork.

What I find troubling is I keep hearing many misinformed users who are under the impression that the miners decide on consensus rules when in fact it is the nodes that vote on consensus rules.

The Vote is = The longest valid PoW chain, with an emphasis on valid and only nodes deciding what is and isn't valid. The miners can hash all they want on an invalid chain , but they won't be necessarily following the nodes or economic majority.

This matters because when you look at how the hardforks are rolled out they are not polling the nodes but miners for an rough and indirect means of determining node support. There very well could be a dangerous situation where 75% of miners decide to fork , but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous.  This is why I recommend that all hardforks have at least 95% consensus of blocks within the last 1k to activate a countdown. Luckily Bitcoin classic still has time to change their minds from 75% to 95% as they have yet to release code.

[adamstgBit]

[CuntChocula]

right and if 75% of miners went to some fork probably 99.9% would come join them shortly after and then who cares about anything else?

Technically all that is needed for a hard fork is 51% of sustained hashing power, any number above that is completely arbitrary, but does change the social contract a bit IMHO... when devs choose 75% of the last 1k blocks to execute a countdown for deployment it is more democratic in nature where a majority can coerce or ostracize a minority. Selecting a higher threshold of 95% is much more anarchistic in nature where one needs near complete consensus before the consensus rules are changed in a hardfork.

What I find troubling is I keep hearing many misinformed users who are under the impression that the miners decide on consensus rules when in fact it is the nodes that vote on consensus rules.

The Vote is = The longest valid PoW chain, with an emphasis on valid and only nodes deciding what is and isn't valid. The miners can hash all they want on an invalid chain , but they won't be necessarily following the nodes or economic majority.

This matters because when you look at how the hardforks are rolled out they are not polling the nodes but miners for an rough and indirect means of determining node support. There very well could be a dangerous situation where 75% of miners decide to fork , but over 75% of nodes and the economic consensus decides not to which would be very dangerous.  This is why I recommend that all hardforks have at least 95% consensus of blocks within the last 1k to activate a countdown. Luckily Bitcoin classic still has time to change their minds from 75% to 95% as they have yet to release code.

So it should be possible to break Bitcoin's consensus mechanism via node creation? Aren't nodes ridiculously cheap to set up?
Walk me through what you mean by boldface above, what are the potential outcomes?

[BitUsher]

This doesn't merit a thread of its own, so here in the "lounge" it goes:

Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.

It all depends on if the 2 implementations follow the same consensus rules. There can only be one set of consensus rules per chain and as soon as an implementation has active code that is following different consensus rules a fork occurs and alt created because all nodes no longer consider those tx's as valid.

The miners are ultimately at the mercy of the nodes and economic majority.