Forks are highly important

[RawDog]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  

Fork.

Everyone says the world is over.  Chaos everywhere.  

Time passes.  

More time passes.  

One side wins and the chain is fine and perfect and strong again.  The other side proved it was the side destine to die.  That idea is gone forever.  Everyone wins.  The network is improved and the impasse is settled.  

Forks are the way to settle a difference of opinion.  Avoiding forks guarantees infinite and endless fighting.

In Bitcoin where everyone is crying about a hard fork - they question never gets settled.  More than two years now, no settlement.  
It is just like the Shia and Sunni.  Fighting forever, no settlement.  One side needs to die.  

It is like the Jews and Palestinians.  Fighting forever.  day, after day, after day.  killing with no solution.  The impasse assures more killing in the future.  

Ethereum settled the fight with a fork where one side dies off.  This is the way to make the network strong.

We need a bitcoin hard fork.  Bitcoin BU and Bitcoin SegWit.  after some time, one side will be better than the other.  The network will be stronger and the impasse and killing will be gone.  

[1714732829]

1714732829

[1714732829]

1714732829

[Pursuer]

I wonder how much more does it take before you are banned because of constant trolling and continuous creation of bullshit topics in this forum!
so far forum admins/mods have been so generous to you!!!

[NorrisK]

Ethereum didn't settle with a fork in this way. They decided to fork and leave the old chain behind, instead, the other fork was used to make a lot of profits by having exchanges credit the coins to the users and creating a market place for them.

If the exchanges weren't so greedy at that point, ETC would've never lived. Nobody cared about it, just the profits.

The same will happen with bitcoin. Nobody will care which fork wins, they only care that the total of the two coins is worth more than the originial bitcoin.

[RawDog]

I wonder how much more does it take before you are banned because of constant trolling and continuous creation of bullshit topics in this forum!
so far forum admins/mods have been so generous to you!!!

All you SegWit guys think the impending fork is a bullshit topic.  You guys understand you are going to lose this fight.  Censorship hasn't really worked so well in this forum.  It actually pisses people off when you try to stuff rags down their throat.

[NeuroticFish]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  
We need a bitcoin hard fork.  Bitcoin BU and Bitcoin SegWit.  after some time, one side will be better than the other.  The network will be stronger and the impasse and killing will be gone.  

Hard fork is like a revolution. It's good if it's the bringer of a new (and better?) world.
If it does a significant improvement it's good. There are 2 keyword here: significant and improvement.
Hard forks should be however rare, because if they are too many they become a sign that the coin is not mature yet.

Hard fork can make the price drop. Some are scared of that.
Hard for can split communities and both may lose of it.
Somehow the politics around Bitcoin always made us believe that hard fork is bad for Bitcoin, they will hurt at least the public image of Bitcoin. I am not sure of the actual reasons behind the scenes.
Imho Bitcoin could use hard forks now and then. Major change, new major version, name it: hard fork. One this year, ope in 2 years from now, then 4 years, 8, 16, .. you know the opposite of halving

Now BU and SegWit. This is not only a significant improvement, it's an ideological split. I don't like it. I didn't like it with ETH either, and I never had ETH, so I am not involved.
The biggest power of Bitcoin is the impressive hash rate behind it. You want that diminished. Why?

From my understanding BU can split away at any time. Not even 51% needed. Just mine > 1MB block, accept it, and bang! The block is accepted by one chain and not by the other. There's the risk that a few times the BU network could resync with main chain (and miners will lose the fee), but at some point the split will happen. You want that, mine on BU pools, support it and increase its hash rate, giving it more chance to happen.

SegWit 95% approach is... too soft.

Maybe somebody will end this war. Somebody proposed 2MB + SegWit, to somehow make everybody happier. I still believe that such smart people can do it good.

TL;DR: Hard fork = good. Community split = bad. My 2 satoshi.

[samuraijin]

I think it looks good at least kill one of them may also be a way fork loud but if this does not work maybe we can find other ways nothing better than this hard fork

[dinofelis]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  

Fork.

Everyone says the world is over.  Chaos everywhere.  

Time passes.  

More time passes.  

One side wins and the chain is fine and perfect and strong again.  The other side proved it was the side destine to die.  That idea is gone forever.  Everyone wins.  The network is improved and the impasse is settled.  

I agree with you, but bitcoin has a problem to fork: there can only be one "first mover".  Bitcoin is afraid to be an alt coin like the rest of crypto, because technologically, bitcoin is the oldest and the most primitive crypto currency.  Most alt coins are technologically much better developed.  So, what bitcoin has going for it, is its first mover status, its "innocence from the start" status, and hence, the biggest network, the most secured chain and other "branding" aspects, which don't really matter in the *use* of the coin, but are hugely important in the *image* of the coin.

With a fork with two prongs, that is over.  The only fork that could honestly claim to be "the real bitcoin", would be the coin that is NOT modifying the protocol.  But this means that those, most keen on forking, will have to settle losing the "first mover" brand name, which will send a shiver along their spines: no advantage, brought by a fork, is so important, that losing the brand name can be compensated, as long as this brand name is important.

Which is why I think that bitcoin really forking is not going to happen as long as bitcoins brand name isn't eroded away.

[European Central Bank]

BU has gone about in an incredibly stupid way that shows how goddamn brainless they are.

all they had to do was take the core code, tweak one line of block limit and run with that.

they would prove that larger blocks weren't the end of the world. maybe everyone would agree and then we'd finally progress.

instead they've introduced a bunch of untested messy shit that most people hate. people who previously might have approved of a clean increase won't get behind this.

they're throwing away an opportunity that might have drained this swamp once and for all. instead they're gonna make it all way worse.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

BU has gone about in an incredibly stupid way that shows how goddamn brainless they are.

all they had to do was take the core code, tweak one line of block limit and run with that.

they would prove that larger blocks weren't the end of the world. maybe everyone would agree and then we'd finally progress.

instead they've introduced a bunch of untested messy shit that most people hate. people who previously might have approved of a clean increase won't get behind this.

they're throwing away an opportunity that might have drained this swamp once and for all. instead they're gonna make it all way worse.

What messy sh*t did they introduce that people hate?

[RawDog]

BU has gone about in an incredibly stupid way that shows how goddamn brainless they are.

all they had to do was take the core code, tweak one line of block limit and run with that.

they would prove that larger blocks weren't the end of the world. maybe everyone would agree and then we'd finally progress.

instead they've introduced a bunch of untested messy shit that most people hate. people who previously might have approved of a clean increase won't get behind this.

they're throwing away an opportunity that might have drained this swamp once and for all. instead they're gonna make it all way worse.

What messy sh*t did they introduce that people hate?

He is confused.  He is talking about SegWit. 

[AngryDwarf]

It looks like we have consensus created during the phoney/cold war:

Segwit supporters think BU supporters are DimBUts.
BU supporters thing segwit supporters are Dimwits.

The consensus being we are all dim.

[David Rabahy]

I recommend compromise.  Second best would be to just walk away from each other.

Is the ETH run up over or is there more to come?  I may pull out of Bitcoin altogether.

[mining1]

Well, metropolis is a major eth update / hardfork and will come in june, that alone will spike the price 20-30% more. And for now Enterprise eth alliance is what's pushing the price up. On bitcoin side there's a risk of civil war that may push some investors on the sidelines or in other projects with strong fundamentals and potential.

[Holliday]

All you SegWit guys think the impending fork is a bullshit topic.

I don't know that I'm a "SegWit guy", but I prefer that over BU any day.

I've been waiting for a fork since at least May 31, 2015. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1076412.0

[virasog]

All you SegWit guys think the impending fork is a bullshit topic.

I don't know that I'm a "SegWit guy", but I prefer that over BU any day.

I've been waiting for a fork since at least May 31, 2015. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1076412.0

Last month, Bitcoin Unlimited briefly passed 25 percent of total blocks mined, indicating that a hard fork to increase the block size might be on the horizon.
So maybe one day SegWit prediction of Hardfork for bitcoin may become true. You never know.

[Vaccinus]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  

Fork.

Everyone says the world is over.  Chaos everywhere.  

Time passes.  

More time passes.  

One side wins and the chain is fine and perfect and strong again.  The other side proved it was the side destine to die.  That idea is gone forever.  Everyone wins.  The network is improved and the impasse is settled.  

Forks are the way to settle a difference of opinion.  Avoiding forks guarantees infinite and endless fighting.

In Bitcoin where everyone is crying about a hard fork - they question never gets settled.  More than two years now, no settlement.  
It is just like the Shia and Sunni.  Fighting forever, no settlement.  One side needs to die.  

It is like the Jews and Palestinians.  Fighting forever.  day, after day, after day.  killing with no solution.  The impasse assures more killing in the future.  

Ethereum settled the fight with a fork where one side dies off.  This is the way to make the network strong.

We need a bitcoin hard fork.  Bitcoin BU and Bitcoin SegWit.  after some time, one side will be better than the other.  The network will be stronger and the impasse and killing will be gone.  

what you said would be true if etheruem classic is dead, but this isn't true, ethereum classic is there running, they effectively created two coins now each one with its marketcap, and ETC is stealing an amount of money from the marketcap of eth, this might happen to bitcoin, although it would be more devastating, i don't like it

[watashi-kokoto]

This thread needs more information with respect to the topic. I suggest we may consider to dedicate some time to studying the topic of hard fork, but to understand what a hard fork is, we may need some theory. To quote Satoshi:

HashTube One-Time Signature Scheme
Hash tube is used to sign a single k-bit long message digest. The security of the HTOTS depends on the used cryptographic hash function H producing s-bits of output. Any secure hash function can be used.
Key generation.
Let H : {0,1}* -> H:{0,1}^s be a cryptographic hash function. Private key is defined as a triplet (A₀, B₀, C₀) where A₀, B₀, C₀ are different random s-bit numbers. Public key is defined as K, a s-bit number. Next level of tube consisting of a three values (A₁, B₁, C₁)   is computed from (A₀, B₀, C₀) as follows:
A₁ = H( A₀ || B₀ )                           B₁ = H( B₀ || C₀ )                                    C₁ = H( C₀ || A₀)  
Here || denotes the concatenation of two values. This is repeated k-times, because in order to sign a value having k bits, the hash tube must have k levels:
A_i+1 = H( A_i || B_i  )                      B_i+1 = H( B_i || C_i )                                 C_i+1 = H( C_i || A_i )  
At the top level A_k = K (The public key) corresponding to the private triplet (A₀, B₀, C₀), is given to the recipient. Last-level B_k and C_k values shall be discarded and never used as public keys.  Interestingly B_k is corresponding to the triplet (B₀, C₀, A₀), and indeed C_k is corresponding to the triplet (C₀, A₀, B₀). This is because the tube is symmetric and it is possible to rotate the tube around the axis. But only one top level value shall be used as the public key, to avoid signing multiple messages using this one time signature scheme by accident.
Signing a message.
Given is a message digest M = m₁, m₂, ..., m_k with m_i ∈ {0, 1} . In order the algorithm for every message M to converge to the A_k public key (and not to B_k or C_k), the bits of message digest M are summed and divided modulo 3 and a private key rotation is performed.
Private key rotation: If the sum modulo 3 is  0; then D₀=A₀   ;  E₀=B₀  ; F₀=C₀; if sum is 1 ; then D₀=B₀   ;  E₀=C₀  ; F₀=A₀ ; if the sum is 2 ; then D₀=C₀ ; E₀ = A₀ ; F₀ = B₀
The signature is a sequence of k+1 s-bit numbers. D₀ is the first number pushed to the signature. Depending on the first bit m₁, either E₀ or F₀ is pushed as the second number of the signature. The next (level one) value D₁ is equal to H(D₀||E₀)  or H(F₀||D₀) , depending on bit m₁. At level i, the bit m_i decides what value (E_i or F_i) gets pushed. D_i is always revealed by the two values known from the previous level. In the end the signature contains two values from the private key (level 0) and one value from each next level, until the A_k public key is computed.
Verifying a signature.
Let M:{0,1}^k of m₁,m₂, ..., m_k where m_i ∈ {0, 1}  is the signed message digest. Let D0 = signature[0] ; now D1 = H(D0|| signature[1])  or H(signature[1]||D0) , depending on bit m1. In pseudocode:
Di = mi ? H( signature_i || D_i-1)  : H( D_i-1 || signature_i)   // this is repeated k=256 times
If and only if at the top level of the tube (the D_k) is equal to public key K, the verification has passed.

I've come to believe that hard forks are highly improbable.

[RawDog]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  

Fork.

Everyone says the world is over.  Chaos everywhere.  

Time passes.  

More time passes.  

One side wins and the chain is fine and perfect and strong again.  The other side proved it was the side destine to die.  That idea is gone forever.  Everyone wins.  The network is improved and the impasse is settled.  

Forks are the way to settle a difference of opinion.  Avoiding forks guarantees infinite and endless fighting.

In Bitcoin where everyone is crying about a hard fork - they question never gets settled.  More than two years now, no settlement.  
It is just like the Shia and Sunni.  Fighting forever, no settlement.  One side needs to die.  

It is like the Jews and Palestinians.  Fighting forever.  day, after day, after day.  killing with no solution.  The impasse assures more killing in the future.  

Ethereum settled the fight with a fork where one side dies off.  This is the way to make the network strong.

We need a bitcoin hard fork.  Bitcoin BU and Bitcoin SegWit.  after some time, one side will be better than the other.  The network will be stronger and the impasse and killing will be gone.  

what you said would be true if etheruem classic is dead, but this isn't true, ethereum classic is there running, they effectively created two coins now each one with its marketcap, and ETC is stealing an amount of money from the marketcap of eth, this might happen to bitcoin, although it would be more devastating, i don't like it

Yeah, but the real Ethereum is over $2.5 Billion.  Before the fork - it was only $1 Billion.  So, a very short time after a contentious fork - BIG VALUE!!!

[thejaytiesto]

Look at the Ethereum fork.  Perfect.  Two sides have a difference of opinion.  Neither will budge.  It is a full impasse.  

Fork.

Everyone says the world is over.  Chaos everywhere.  

Time passes.  

More time passes.  

One side wins and the chain is fine and perfect and strong again.  The other side proved it was the side destine to die.  That idea is gone forever.  Everyone wins.  The network is improved and the impasse is settled.  

Forks are the way to settle a difference of opinion.  Avoiding forks guarantees infinite and endless fighting.

In Bitcoin where everyone is crying about a hard fork - they question never gets settled.  More than two years now, no settlement.  
It is just like the Shia and Sunni.  Fighting forever, no settlement.  One side needs to die.  

It is like the Jews and Palestinians.  Fighting forever.  day, after day, after day.  killing with no solution.  The impasse assures more killing in the future.  

Ethereum settled the fight with a fork where one side dies off.  This is the way to make the network strong.

We need a bitcoin hard fork.  Bitcoin BU and Bitcoin SegWit.  after some time, one side will be better than the other.  The network will be stronger and the impasse and killing will be gone.  

The difference is, ETC didn't die, it is still a top coin in poloniex. The result was split wealth. Imagine where ETH would be if ETC event didn't happen.

I guess sometimes hard forks are inevitable tho, we will see what happens. But over a long enough timeline, infinite forks can potentially happen, perpetually making the value lower.

BU has gone about in an incredibly stupid way that shows how goddamn brainless they are.

all they had to do was take the core code, tweak one line of block limit and run with that.

they would prove that larger blocks weren't the end of the world. maybe everyone would agree and then we'd finally progress.

instead they've introduced a bunch of untested messy shit that most people hate. people who previously might have approved of a clean increase won't get behind this.

they're throwing away an opportunity that might have drained this swamp once and for all. instead they're gonna make it all way worse.

Im pretty sure Jihan Wu is state sponsored to cause this shitstorm. Otherwise how can someone with so much vested in bitcoin be this stupid? Roger Ver? no doubt he is an idiot, but Jihan Wu as well? Maybe that is the case, who knows. What is clear is, Jihan Wu benefits from BU since it would make him even stronger under the BU model which is insane.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Im pretty sure Jihan Wu is state sponsored to cause this shitstorm.

He might be, I don't think so but I have no evidence either way. Claiming that he is or isn't doesn't bear any fruit without actual evidence.

However it doesn't really matter, bigger blocks are something we knew we needed a long time ago. BU isn't when this debate started.