Why not treat Core/Blockstream Lightning/Segwit like an Alt?

[franky1]

a fork is a different path.
it does not mean it has to survive more than on block. it does not mean it has to live on forever. it just means a different path has opened up

orphans are where forks are killed

[AgentofCoin]

a fork is a different path.
it does not mean it has to survive more than on block. it does not mean it has to live on forever. it just means a different path has opened up

orphans are where forks are killed

Yes. I assumed that a softfork was named as such not because of a literal chain split,
but because its effect was likened to a chain split in that it allowed protocol changes.

For example, if you could make certain aspects more "strict" within the preexisting
protocol, in my mind, you wouldn't need to create a new chain to enforce this, but a
"layer" within the chain.


So back to the OP, I should have stated this:

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains.
Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins two surviving chains.
If SegWit survives and the minority chain dies off, SegWit transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
If BU survives and the minority chain dies off, BU transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
The only time a "protocol change" skips altcoins status entirely, is with very high consensus.
Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

[franky1]

So back to the OP, I should have stated this:

Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins two surviving chains.

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains. and segwit was minority
whereby BU and a flock of other implementations of consensus (classic, xt, and other adjustable blocksize PEER imps) become bitcoin
due to having majority of hash, nodes and merchant acceptance

core could kill off its minority chain and then just add a few lines to be dynamic and join the PEER network of many implementation


BU would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains. and BU was minority
whereby segwit and a flock of other implementations of consensus (classic, xt, and other imps running as downstream second TIER) become bitcoin
due to having majority of hash, nodes and merchant acceptance

BU could kill off its minority chain without any code changes can just join segwit as a downstream second tier of many implementations
BU could kill off its minority chain and can with segwit code additions join segwit as a upstream first tier with core

i removed this line:
If BU survives and the minority chain dies off, BU transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
because if BU had majority. its already bitcoin along with the other implementations (where segwit is the altcoin or just dead)

theres still some irregularities even with the FTFY summary. due to when/if core triggers their bip9/UASF/PoW change, and which markets treat it as such. and as highlighted if there remained 2 chains or not. or the opposing implementations give in to join the peer or tier network
but its close enough

[AgentofCoin]

So back to the OP, I should have stated this:

Altcoins, in the OPs intention, are only created by hardforks. Softforks can't make altcoins two surviving chains.

SegWit would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains. and segwit was minority
whereby BU and a flock of other implementations of consensus (classic, xt, and other adjustable blocksize PEER imps) become bitcoin
due to having majority of hash, nodes and merchant acceptance

core could kill off its minority chain and then just add a few lines to be dynamic and join the PEER network of many implementation


BU would only be an "altcoin" if there was a hardfork with two surviving chains. and BU was minority
whereby segwit and a flock of other implementations of consensus (classic, xt, and other imps running as downstream second TIER) become bitcoin
due to having majority of hash, nodes and merchant acceptance

BU could kill off its minority chain without any code changes can just join segwit as a downstream second tier of many implementations

i removed this line:
If BU survives and the minority chain dies off, BU transforms from altcoin into "Bitcoin".
because if BU had majority. its already bitcoin along with the other implementations (where segwit is the altcoin or just dead)

theres still some irregularities even with the FTFY summary. due to when/if core triggers their bip9/UASF/PoW change, and which markets treat it as such.
but its close enough

I just revised as you commented, see my revision.

I do not agree. I think an altcoin is always an altcoin until there is one chain.
If there is a bilateral split, the spiting chain will always be an altcoin since that
breaks the Consensus Mechanisms.

So, if both chains survive in a non-bilateral situation, the determination of altcoin
status can not be determined. I think one must die to truly determine who is
the "Bitcoin". If an implementation wishes to be the "new protocol" the old must
die, it can not be "the most hash currently". It must be finalized in general and
for the economies.

[franky1]

in the post from like an hour ago which u revised

Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

actually it can.

an altcoin can be made by just 1 node deciding it wll do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by majority banning and splitting that last 5% minority will do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by the last 5% minority banning and splitting themselves do its own thing if it wanted to.

but then that minority have to ask themselves is there a good enough reason to try keeping it going.

(so many scenarios running through my mind.. kinda hard to summarise it all)

a few things we are sure of
1. BU and other lik minded peers wont trigger unless safe majority of node and pool (no threats, no time bombs, no blackmails. just plod along and let nature handle it)
2, core will have the triggers, time bombs and threats and could trigger while things are contentious, forcing the issue or at consensus. but its core rocking the boat more than anything else

still too early to tell

I do not agree. I think an altcoin is always an altcoin until there is one chain.
If there is a bilateral split, the spiting chain will always be an altcoin since that
breaks the Consensus Mechanisms.

So, if both chains survive in a non-bilateral situation, the determination of altcoin
status can not be determined. I think one must die to truly determine who is
the "Bitcoin". If an implementation wishes to be the "new protocol" the old must
die, it can not be "the most hash currently". It must be finalized in general and
for the economies.

its not a simpl "hash wins"

it is about nodes, network confidence of majority nodes and also which merchants allow deposits of it.

funny part is..
by the exchanges saying they will accept bu (and if controversially call it BTU/BCU or consensus call it bitcoin and segwit BCC/SWcoin)
they are actually helping BU and other dynamics to be accepted as "the bitcoin" in a majority event
remember BU wont trigger itself unless it it has the 3.. hash, nodes and merchants.

other matter is.
BU is just one implementation. if a base blocksize limit movement trigger does occur. many implementations(classlic xt) would work with it.
core is just one implementation. if a segwit block trigger does occur. many implementations(btcc, knots) would work with it.

so its not strictly a BU event or a BU chain.. its more of a

dynamic peer vs segwit tier
rather than
bu vs core

but thats just confusing the matters more.

[AgentofCoin]

in the post from like an hour ago which u revised

I posted and ran to the store, returned, and revised.
When it posted, I noticed you answered even though before I started
your comment was not there.

Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

actually it can.
an altcoin can be made by just 1 node deciding it wll do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by majority banning and splitting that last 5% minority.

but then that minority have to ask themselves is there a good enough reason to try keeping it going.
(so many scenarios running through my mind.. kinda hard to summarise it all)

a few things we are sure of
1. BU wont trigger unless safe majority of node and pool (no threats, no time bombs, no blackmails. just plod along and let nature handle it)
2, core will have the triggers, time bombs and threats and could trigger while things are contentious, forcing the issue
still too early to tell

If a handful of non-mining nodes are still active, that does not count toward chain status.

In the event we are talking about, there must be some miners. If there is 1 miner/pool with
a "reasonable" amount of hash power, where that single miner has the ability to mine till a
difficultly adjustment within the next year or so, then it is still alive. The question then comes
down to whether they can afford to do so. The answer is very likely that they can not and as
such, the minority chain will die. If it takes that single miner 500 years to get to the difficultly
adjustment, even though the whole community likely left them behind, that chain survives and
will work its way out of the "difficulty snare".

Bitcoin versus Altcoin status can not be determined on "longest chain/most work" because one
day that could be used against the community in an obviously malicious way, IMO.

[franky1]

in the post from like an hour ago which u revised

I posted and ran to the store, returned, and revised.
When it posted, I noticed you answered even though before I started
your comment was not there.

Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

actually it can.
an altcoin can be made by just 1 node deciding it wll do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by majority banning and splitting that last 5% minority.

but then that minority have to ask themselves is there a good enough reason to try keeping it going.
(so many scenarios running through my mind.. kinda hard to summarise it all)

a few things we are sure of
1. BU wont trigger unless safe majority of node and pool (no threats, no time bombs, no blackmails. just plod along and let nature handle it)
2, core will have the triggers, time bombs and threats and could trigger while things are contentious, forcing the issue
still too early to tell

If a handful of non-mining nodes are still active, that does not count toward chain status.

In the event we are talking about, there must be some miners. If there is 1 miner/pool with
a "reasonable" amount of hash power, where that single miner has the ability to mine till a
difficultly adjustment within the next year or so, then it is still alive. The question then comes
down to whether they can afford to do so. The answer is very likely that they can not and as
such, the minority chain will die. If it takes that single miner 500 years to get to the difficultly
adjustment, even though the whole community likely left them behind, that chain survives and
will work its way out of the "difficulty snare".

Bitcoin versus Altcoin status can not be determined on "longest chain/most work" because one
day that could be used against the community in an obviously malicious way, IMO.

i think im going to drive your mind crazy now.. sorry in advance

5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 5% hashpower.
5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 20x longer to make a block once going at it with 95% less competition...

save re-writing it

the maths does not work that linearly.

EG if there are 4 pools of equal hash. it does not mean take one away and the time moves to 20 minutes.
because the competition may have only been only seconds behind getting their own solution.

bitcoins are not mined based on the combined hashpower of the network.
each pool makes their own effort. and the "75%" [others] mentioned [as threshold] is not 1 pools.

here this image will make it a bit clearer

as you can see 75% of blocks is just HALF the network hashrate in this example,(top half of image) but the block
timings still are reasonable whichever way you play it(bottom half when they have split)

ok im gonna take a break.. (brain switched off in 3.2.1)

[AgentofCoin]

...

Very high consensus can't make two surviving chains.

actually it can.
an altcoin can be made by just 1 node deciding it wll do its own thing if it wanted to.
an altcoin can be made by majority banning and splitting that last 5% minority.

but then that minority have to ask themselves is there a good enough reason to try keeping it going.
(so many scenarios running through my mind.. kinda hard to summarise it all)

a few things we are sure of
1. BU wont trigger unless safe majority of node and pool (no threats, no time bombs, no blackmails. just plod along and let nature handle it)
2, core will have the triggers, time bombs and threats and could trigger while things are contentious, forcing the issue
still too early to tell

If a handful of non-mining nodes are still active, that does not count toward chain status.

In the event we are talking about, there must be some miners. If there is 1 miner/pool with
a "reasonable" amount of hash power, where that single miner has the ability to mine till a
difficultly adjustment within the next year or so, then it is still alive. The question then comes
down to whether they can afford to do so. The answer is very likely that they can not and as
such, the minority chain will die. If it takes that single miner 500 years to get to the difficultly
adjustment, even though the whole community likely left them behind, that chain survives and
will work its way out of the "difficulty snare".

Bitcoin versus Altcoin status can not be determined on "longest chain/most work" because one
day that could be used against the community in an obviously malicious way, IMO.

i think im going to drive your mind crazy now.. sorry in advance

5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 5% hashpower.
5% of pool consensus of blocks does not mean 20x longer to make a block once going at it with 95% less competition...

No, I know that. This is "luck at finding the nonce" versus "raw hash computation".

the maths does not work that linearly.
EG if there are 4 pools of equal hash. it does not mean take one away and the time moves to 20 minutes.

No, I know that. The time would in theory be an average 12.5 minutes per block for the last three.

because the competition may have only been only seconds behind getting their own solution.
bitcoins are not mined based on the combined hashpower of the network.

Now I am losing you. The difficulty that exists is based to an average 10 minutes, from prior 2016
blocks. This can help estimate the networks hash rate. The nonce is based on this "combined
hashpower of the network". This is my understanding. Are you talking about "luck"?

each pool makes their own effort. and the "75%" [others] mentioned [as threshold] is not 1 pools.

No, I know that, but the 75% is still trying to find the nonce with the difficultly that assumes the
missing 25% would filling in the time gaps and balance the blocks back to 10 minutes on average.
In theory, over a 24 hour day with 144 blocks each around 10 minutes, if 25% "dropped off", then
over the same amount of 24 hours, the 75% should only be able to mine about 115 blocks. Until the
difficultly readjustment, that loss in block work will compound, which leads to less supply of new coins,
regular txs, and fees would be slowed and restricted.

here this image will make it a bit clearer

as you can see 75% of blocks is just HALF the network hashrate in this example,(top half of image) but the block
timings still are reasonable whichever way you play it(bottom half when they have split)
...

I'm not following now. are you saying that if 75% of the hash power leaves the competition,
that does not affect the remaining 25% to find blocks within the average 10 minutes over time?

What is the significance of this in relation to my comment that this was a response to?
I'm not following.

[franky1]

im just addressing your comment about you and other peoples bad maths of block times

EG
imagine a room
4 tables and groups of people sat at each table.

they are all given a set of  6dice
they have to roll them until someone gets 1,1,1,1,1,1

the red table could get it in 10 minutes.
it does not mean that because red get it in 10 minutes that the brown table would take 20 minutes or the purple table would take 30 minutes or the blue table would take 40 minutes

they could all be seconds apart but because red won, that round only red counts so no one cares about the other 3 tables times.
next round, starts again, this time the brown and blue table both get it but based on how many shakes to get it was just one extra shake in favour of brown. they are shown as doing the slightly miniscule extra amount of work so they win.. other 3 table are not counted.

now then.. if you evict the red and blue from the room.. this does not suddenly make the groups any slower. infact it helps them as there is less competition to beat them by seconds. so now brown and purple can get more blocks more often because there are less competitors to lose against by seconds

..
also a note
the difficulty is not set by "network hashrate" nor is the speed of say red table or blue tables shakes/dice helping brown or purple.
they all have different dice and doing their own work
infact the faster red and blue shake the less chance brown and purple get because red and blue could beat them by seconds.
its not the faster red and blue shake the more thy help brown and purple. (increase of network does not help the work of a single team)

in short
when antpool wins a block. its because of the work done by antpool and antpool only... the other hashrates of the other pools did not jump into their pool to help antpool. antpool alone made a bloke with thir own 600peta. not the networks many exa..

when red wins a diceround. its because of the work done by red and red only the other shakes of the other tables did not jump into the red table to help the red table. the red table alone shook the correct dice combination first with their own teams hands not all the hands of the room.

its a competition of different pools/tables doing their OWN work. competing against each other.. not a collusion of a single pool/room all shaking/hashing one thing

[paul gatt]

The way you call bitcoin is a really stupid alt, that's a misconception. It seems like you have not considered Bitcoin, it is the only legitimate and legitimate currency in the world, you are not allowed to smear its reputation, your calling has made it no longer clean. . BTC branching is a bad thing, BTU can be alt coin, because its nature is not limited, it is like other coin, it only shows the greed of the miners, but risk Possible cause, BTU can carry a low value, and they can pay the price. ETH and ETC are one example, while ETH grows and reaches a terrible value (currently 0.04), the ETC is only 0.01.

[RawDog]

We can have both. BU wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

BU is the original Bitcoin without changes.

SegWit has many radical changes.  SegWit is the alt.  BU is Bitcoin.

[hardtime]

Cause in the end they want to end up being Bitcoin as a whole, they don't want ALTernate coin status based on the simple fact that they want to be the premier cryptocurrency which is bitcoin. It doesn't matter on what name the scaling solution has now (Segwit or BTU) they want to end up being Bitcoin in the end and to just stay as Bitcoin.

If they were an alternate currency, they wouldn't be taken as seriously nor would anyone see a real reason to use them unless everyone is going to attempt to move over from one chain to another without any sort of fork.

Alternate coins are always going to take a backseat to bitcoin, so that's just not possible to have a scaling solution be an alternate if they want to improve / save the actual bitcoin we have and use today.

[AgentofCoin]

...
they could all be seconds apart but because red won, that round only red counts so no one cares about the other 3 tables times.
next round, starts again, this time the brown and blue table both get it but based on how many shakes to get it was just one extra shake in favour of brown. they are shown as doing the slightly miniscule extra amount of work so they win.. other 3 table are not counted.

now then.. if you evict the red and blue from the room.. this does not suddenly make the groups any slower. infact it helps them as there is less competition to beat them by seconds. so now brown and purple can get more blocks more often because there are less competitors to lose against by seconds
..
also a note
the difficulty is not set by "network hashrate" nor is the speed of say red table or blue tables shakes/dice helping brown or purple.
they all have different dice and doing their own work
infact the faster red and blue shake the less chance brown and purple get because red and blue could beat them by seconds.
its not the faster red and blue shake the more thy help brown and purple. (increase of network does not help the work of a single team)

in short
when antpool wins a block. its because of the work done by antpool and antpool only... the other hashrates of the other pools did not jump into their pool to help antpool. antpool alone made a bloke with thir own 600peta. not the networks many exa..

when red wins a diceround. its because of the work done by red and red only the other shakes of the other tables did not jump into the red table to help the red table. the red table alone shook the correct dice combination first with their own teams hands not all the hands of the room.

its a competition of different pools/tables doing their OWN work. competing against each other.. not a collusion of a single pool/room all shaking/hashing one thing

I understand this, but did I contradict this in a prior statement?

But, you do agree that there are "different pools doing their OWN work. competing
against each other" but their independent correct answers is based on the prior 2016
block collective, that is used for difficultly to scale back to a 10 minute average, right?

So for example, if a pool 1 has 99% hash and pool 2 has 1% hash of the total network
hash, and Pool 1 (99%) "drops off" the network, Pool 2 (1%) is still trying to find the
10 minute average block based on a nonce/difficultly that accounts for the total
network hash prior to the Pool1 (99%) "drop off". So Pool 2 has no competition
and they will "always find the blocks first now", but it will take them much longer
on average to find the blocks in general.

In the above para, if Pool 1 (99%) dropped off, then it will take Pool 2 (1%) about
144 days in order to make 144 blocks (1 block per 24h). To get to the difficultly
adjustment, it would take at maximum 2016 days, which is 5.5 years.

Are we in agreement, or am I still missing your point?

[LittleBitFunny]

We can have both. core wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

remember core have been REKTing xt, classic, bu and bitcoinj

yet BU want consensus of all diverse nodes working together.
its core with the ban hammer and blackmails (bip9, UASF, PoW algo change) not the other way round

Core doesn't want to branch off into a new currency.  Just because the new BU coin will be given to Bitcoin owners doesn't mean that it's not a new coin.  It is a separate coin which is different to the original Bitcoin and should not be confused with it.  Reasonably, all major exchanges seem to agree with me.

[franky1]

I understand this, but did I contradict this in a prior statement?

But, you do agree that there are "different pools doing their OWN work. competing
against each other" but their independent correct answers is based on the prior 2016
block collective, that is used for difficultly to scale back to a 10 minute average, right?

So for example, if a pool 1 has 99% hash and pool 2 has 1% hash of the total network
hash, and Pool 1 (99%) "drops off" the network, Pool 2 (1%) is still trying to find the
10 minute average block based on a nonce/difficultly that accounts for the total
network hash prior to the Pool1 (99%) "drop off". So Pool 2 has no competition
and they will "always find the blocks first now", but it will take them much longer
on average to find the blocks in general.

In the above para, if Pool 1 (99%) dropped off, then it will take Pool 2 (1%) about
144 days in order to make 144 blocks (1 block per 24h). To get to the difficultly
adjustment, it would take at maximum 2016 days, which is 5.5 years.

Are we in agreement, or am I still missing your point?

the 2016 blocks has nothing much to do with hashrate.

for instance.
pool A could have 500petahash and pool B has 480peta - not that important to state this and you will see why

this would give A a few second advantage..
however. this does NOT mean expect 1109 blocks for A...... 907 for pool B
infact
pool A could be lucky enough that EVERY block which A makes is just 2 seconds faster than pool B
meaning

A gets ALL 2016 blocks.

then if there was a split.
they are both making blocks at nearly the same times on 2 chains. yet the activation 2016 blockcount says that A has 100% power..

it does not mean that because A has 100% block winning that B will take hours to make blocks.

as for the network hash rate

now imagine there was pool C with 480peta
and imagine there was pool D with 480peta

this changes nothing for pool A. pool A still does the same work at the same time with the same 500peta.

but B,C,D are all just unlucky.

the network hashrate going from 980peta to 1,940peta again does not affect pool A's work in the slightest.

all it means is now there are 3 competitors agains A so A may not always get so lucky.
but again this does not mean suddenly A is only making ~500 blocks.. A could still get all 2016.

this is what has been known since 2012 as the risks of a 51% attack. where one pool just has the little edge against the rest to be able to potentially control all the blocks produced.

[danherbias07]

Dang! This is RawDog's thread and yet franky and Agent are going deep. I got worked up reading all those comments and yet I didn't understand a thing. I just kept on reading.  

So if BU wins, will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

[jonald_fyookball]

Dang! This is RawDog's thread and yet franky and Agent are going deep. I got worked up reading all those comments and yet I didn't understand a thing. I just kept on reading.  

So if BU wins will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

nothing to worry about.

It's likely there will be no network split at all.

if there is, simply hang onto your coins and the market will quickly sort it out -- your coins will be valid on both chains.

[danherbias07]

Dang! This is RawDog's thread and yet franky and Agent are going deep. I got worked up reading all those comments and yet I didn't understand a thing. I just kept on reading.  

So if BU wins will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

nothing to worry about.

It's likely there will be no network split at all.

if there is, simply hang onto your coins and the market will quickly sort it out -- your coins will be valid on both chains.

Oh!. Thank you Mr. Jonald for clearing that out. My friends are also getting worried when we are talking about this.
 I think there will be a big dump if this questions like this will not be answered correctly or simply to where some investors could understand it. Even small holders should know this.

[franky1]

So if BU wins will our bitcoin now will have no value anymore? So should we sell to buy BU?
Trying to understand from an average person's point of view and a level of mind. Please understand I am not into mining.

infact the exchange announcement of naming BU an alt if core pull a contentious trigger. is meaningless in regards to the naming...
by admitting they will accept the coin (no matter what exchanges name it) means the coins have utility.(they are spendable)

what would have been different is if the announcement would of said.. no matter what they would only accept core. then the dynamic implementations wont have much utility.


i know your looking for a economics answer of BUY X sell Y.. but no one can predict future speculation without a time machine

[franky1]

Oh!. Thank you Mr. Jonald for clearing that out. My friends are also getting worried when we are talking about this.
 I think there will be a big dump if this questions like this will not be answered correctly or simply to where some investors could understand it. Even small holders should know this.

just to add.
dont hold your coins in an exchange/third party service.

use a wallet where you own the private key.
coins are in laymans terms attached to the private key soif you import that key into whatever client there is. you have the coins.

if you just have them on an exchange. that exchange may decide not to give you the other split side because you only deposited on one side.(even before an activation)

so keep them off an exchange and you can then have freedom of choice no matter what happens