Hardfork, the best thing that happened to Bitcoin since scaling debate started

[lurker10]

The Debate Has Mostly Been About Decentralization

There are good people on both sides of the debate, and I think that most of them simply support the plan that they believe will keep Bitcoin “decentralized”.

The small-block camp says that if we make blocks too large, then only huge data centers will be able to run nodes, which are then easily coerced and controlled by governments.

The big-block camp says that if we keep blocks small, Bitcoin will become a settlement layer. Ordinary users will be priced out of making direct blockchain transactions, and will be forced to use corporate banking solutions complete with AML/KYC requirements.

Both of these situations would obviously be bad and should be avoided if possible. So how do we do that? How do find the healthy middle ground and avoid the perils of centralization on both ends?

Read more...

[franky1]

the healthy middle ground is simple

slap anyone with a wet fish who exaggerates 1mb to become 'gigabytes by midnight' (i mean this comically, not literally)
shake hands with anyone that says logical natural and incremental dynamic changes over time.

these incremental changes would occur by nodes showing what they are capable of and only adjusting to consensus of node capability.
in short. it only grows if nodes say yes without devs needing to puppet control the growth/stalling of the blockchain.
thus the "server farm" fud doomsday wont happen

however
doing things like filtering data, pruning data dilutes the capability/function/effectiveness of a nodes. thus not making it a full node, which is far worse than giving nodes power to decide when the blockchain should grow.
take FIBRE. imagine the only full nodes being FIBRE as the top tier of bitcoin network, controlling what direction the network goes. and the only publicly available codebase nodes are second tier cludgy implementations that have all these pruned, filtered options set.

(warning to fanboys. dont reply purely defending the devs(humans) instead think long and hard about the reality of people using the code/features)

remember if its not a full archival and full validation node. its not a full node.
all this filtering, stripping, bridging, pruning and 'treat as valid' checkpointing. is just ripping the main purposes of decentralised security away and just pretending to be decentralised. when infact its just faking the whole validation process. which in reality is the real threat.

but it takes alot of effort to look beyond the short term/temporary drama of dev's and to think about the long term viability of bitcoin to see that its not who is coding bitcoin, because devs can come and go.. but to see what is happening to the code features devs add which can affect things long term.

[lurker10]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

[pinkflower]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

[gentlemand]

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

It's an alt. People want to control Bitcoin.

I don't see what the problem with a 2MB increase is. I do see a problem with the timeline. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to jump blindly into code that doesn't seem to exist yet and I don't think all that many people will do it.

If the timing is reappraised and agreed on then great, but I have my doubts about that. In that scenario things may turn proper sporty. We'll be back to square one again in terms of Bitmain agitation plus they have that coin to pile the pressure on.

[neurotypical]

the healthy middle ground is simple

slap anyone with a wet fish who exaggerates 1mb to become 'gigabytes by midnight' (i mean this comically, not literally)
shake hands with anyone that says logical natural and incremental dynamic changes over time.

these incremental changes would occur by nodes showing what they are capable of and only adjusting to consensus of node capability.
in short. it only grows if nodes say yes without devs needing to puppet control the growth/stalling of the blockchain.
thus the "server farm" fud doomsday wont happen

however
doing things like filtering data, pruning data dilutes the capability/function/effectiveness of a nodes. thus not making it a full node, which is far worse than giving nodes power to decide when the blockchain should grow.
take FIBRE. imagine the only full nodes being FIBRE as the top tier of bitcoin network, controlling what direction the network goes. and the only publicly available codebase nodes are second tier cludgy implementations that have all these pruned, filtered options set.

(warning to fanboys. dont reply purely defending the devs(humans) instead think long and hard about the reality of people using the code/features)

remember if its not a full archival and full validation node. its not a full node.
all this filtering, stripping, bridging, pruning and 'treat as valid' checkpointing. is just ripping the main purposes of decentralised security away and just pretending to be decentralised. when infact its just faking the whole validation process. which in reality is the real threat.

but it takes alot of effort to look beyond the short term/temporary drama of dev's and to think about the long term viability of bitcoin to see that its not who is coding bitcoin, because devs can come and go.. but to see what is happening to the code features devs add which can affect things long term.

There is no good dynamic blocksize technology solutions as to date, if there were we would be using it already, the problem is, it just doesn't work, everything we've seen doesn't cut it, the game theory becomes easily exploited with the dynamic blocksize solutions seen thus far.

Therefore conservative blocksize and fee market remains the only option. Increase of blocksize is possible, but not with NYC agreement type of nonsense. At least 1 year from now, then consider a hardfork, we don't need more drama, we just got out of BCash drama, let's drop the hardforks for a while.

[Xavofat]

There are ~200 countries on the planet. If each government in each country ran a full node, wouldn't the network would remain decentralized?

No, because then you won't make an ancap dreamland with unicorns where everyone agrees not to be mean to each other with an "NAP"  .

Seriously though, it wouldn't be because governments have common interests.  SPV wallets don't verify that the blocks are following consensus rules - what if a government decided to increase the block reward?

We also know that governments aren't going to collectively run nodes anyway, because they are somewhat opposed to Bitcoin becoming the de facto means of payment.
However, I don't subscribe to the notion that all block size increases are bad or that decentralisation is impossible with larger block sizes.  A larger block size -> more transactions or lower fees -> more users -> more people who might want to run a node.  This does not continue to apply forever, but it applies at least to some extent.  It's also notable that malicious people have to pay for nodes in the same way that ordinary users do.

[Pursuer]

Opposition = Decentralization

opposition if constructive can lead to improvement and possibly even competition.
but opposition if led to split is more destructive than anything else.
and in any case it has nothing to do with decentralization in my opinion.

There are ~200 countries on the planet. If each government in each country ran a full node, wouldn't the network would remain decentralized?

no it will make things horrifying. we need a decentralized network when peers are defined as a user, or an individual person as long as possible. if these individuals stop being able to run a full node then it is the death of decentralization.

Only when all governments begin colluding together will the entire network become centralized. This will never happen as long as Russia and China do not submit to American authorities, and vice versa.

doesn't make any different. you are still describing a heavily centralized system.

Opposition ensures that both sides are held accountable.

same as above about opposition.
and it will only be good and constructive as long as both sides are working on the same thing not on different projects (split/forked off chain)

[neurotypical]

Opposition = Decentralization

opposition if constructive can lead to improvement and possibly even competition.
but opposition if led to split is more destructive than anything else.
and in any case it has nothing to do with decentralization in my opinion.

There are ~200 countries on the planet. If each government in each country ran a full node, wouldn't the network would remain decentralized?

no it will make things horrifying. we need a decentralized network when peers are defined as a user, or an individual person as long as possible. if these individuals stop being able to run a full node then it is the death of decentralization.

Only when all governments begin colluding together will the entire network become centralized. This will never happen as long as Russia and China do not submit to American authorities, and vice versa.

doesn't make any different. you are still describing a heavily centralized system.

Opposition ensures that both sides are held accountable.

same as above about opposition.
and it will only be good and constructive as long as both sides are working on the same thing not on different projects (split/forked off chain)

I find it funny that these that buy into the "opposition is good, let's have 100000000 different bitcoins" don't even entertain the idea that all of these efforts to split bitcoin aren't funded and promoted by enemies of Bitcoin that want to see it fall.

"The Powers That Be" have been using "divide and conquer" successfully for years. Do you really think that they wouldn't do the same with bitcoin? Consider that next time you buy into the next hardfork hype.

[BullCreek]

With the mass adoption of blockchain technologies that is expected in the the next year. Couldnt we speculate that Bitcoin Cash is indeed a solid crypto? It was forked and is maintained by some of the OGest of OGs.

[jekjekman]

Bitcoin is the example of a instant boom altcoin as we can see, it is like an another channel in television with the same broadcast but different viewers(investors)

and for me somebody is supporting it because the price of it bubbles and with that people profited, they are obviously making out of it.

[The One]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

Those who want seggy weggy and 1mb blocksize, can now have it using the alt Bitcoin Core. The compromise of 2mb is pointless.

There are those who don't trust seggy weggy and won't transact using seggy weggy.

Thus, those who want 8mb blocksize with no seggy weggy, can use the alt Bitcoin cash.

An insurance is most pointless and could lead to another hardfork therefore another alt... Bitcoin 2SW (2mb segregated witness) or whatever....

[Qartersa]

Bitcoin is the example of a instant boom altcoin as we can see, it is like an another channel in television with the same broadcast but different viewers(investors)

and for me somebody is supporting it because the price of it bubbles and with that people profited, they are obviously making out of it.

I wouldn't say though that this is bitcoin or will replace bitcoins. Viabtc has their own motivation why they created their own bitcoins. Now it is just going to die, look at the prices, it dropped tremendously in the pass few days. It will be worthless in the next few days. Especially when the exchanges opened their deposits for BCC, everybody just dumped their bcc.

[Kprawn]

I doubt if decentralization will ever be compromised fully with this fork. Yes, you might have less full nodes, but Bitcoin will still be

decentralized. In my opinion if we have 1000 full nodes instead of 5000 full nodes, we are still having decentralized. We need all

5000 full nodes, but it is not the end of the network, if we only have 1000. It will still be decentralized.  

[neurotypical]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

Those who want seggy weggy and 1mb blocksize, can now have it using the alt Bitcoin Core. The compromise of 2mb is pointless.

There are those who don't trust seggy weggy and won't transact using seggy weggy.

Thus, those who want 8mb blocksize with no seggy weggy, can use the alt Bitcoin cash.

An insurance is most pointless and could lead to another hardfork therefore another alt... Bitcoin 2SW (2mb segregated witness) or whatever....

So have you sold your BTC seggy weggy enabled for Bitcoin Crash or what have you planned?

The NYC agreement, in principle.. has 80% hashrate. This will be a problem, at least to use as an argument to put a lot of FUD in the market. I hope these idiots don't dare to crash the price again, now that we are going to shoot up to $4000 in the next months.

What software are you using to transact if you think segwit is not safe?

[Ucy]

There are ~200 countries on the planet. If each government in each country ran a full node, wouldn't the network would remain decentralized?

No, because then you won't make an ancap dreamland with unicorns where everyone agrees not to be mean to each other with an "NAP"  .

Seriously though, it wouldn't be because governments have common interests.  SPV wallets don't verify that the blocks are following consensus rules - what if a government decided to increase the block reward?

We also know that governments aren't going to collectively run nodes anyway, because they are somewhat opposed to Bitcoin becoming the de facto means of payment.

However, I don't subscribe to the notion that all block size increases are bad or that decentralisation is impossible with larger block sizes.  A larger block size -> more transactions or lower fees -> more users -> more people who might want to run a node.  This does not continue to apply forever, but it applies at least to some extent.  It's also notable that malicious people have to pay for nodes in the same way that ordinary users do.

       


I bet governments have some underground agencies into Cryptocurrency.

                       

[audaciousbeing]

And the argument goes on and on again. I think the point of argument is over and people will still not aligned with each other because they have decided to stick to their individual guns but what I know that is common to both group is the goodness of bitcoin but the approach is where the disagreements comes in. Either way, we are one step ahead from where we were last month and the future and posterity will be the judge of which faction has the right way to go about things.

[The One]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

Those who want seggy weggy and 1mb blocksize, can now have it using the alt Bitcoin Core. The compromise of 2mb is pointless.

There are those who don't trust seggy weggy and won't transact using seggy weggy.

Thus, those who want 8mb blocksize with no seggy weggy, can use the alt Bitcoin cash.

An insurance is most pointless and could lead to another hardfork therefore another alt... Bitcoin 2SW (2mb segregated witness) or whatever....

So have you sold your BTC seggy weggy enabled for Bitcoin Crash or what have you planned?

The NYC agreement, in principle.. has 80% hashrate. This will be a problem, at least to use as an argument to put a lot of FUD in the market. I hope these idiots don't dare to crash the price again, now that we are going to shoot up to $4000 in the next months.

What software are you using to transact if you think segwit is not safe?

I ain't selling anything. I'm keeping hold of both. The value of both is higher than ever... it would be madness to sell. (unless for short-term trading opportunities)

None seggy software.

[25hashcoin]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

2mb still isn't nearly enough and segwit adds way too many new uncertainties. Bitcoin Cash still to me looks like the winner over the other 2-3 chains we will have by November. It could become more profitable to mine already any day and with the ability to rapidly scale it is dangerous to not be hedged with Bitcoin Cash as a holder.

[hv_]

I bet governments have some underground agencies into Cryptocurrency.

Did anyone actually expect the U.S. government to just sit in the bleachers and watch as the world embraced Bitcoin?

Big blocks = digital gold
Segwit = off-chain fiat

Blockstream is working for the US gov. They have to choke the blocksize in order to force users off-chain. That's the only way for western banks to remain in power.

Lukejr is a proud American. He wants a 1kb blocksize.

Shit happens when techies gets to much power and consensus is the victim.

[Red-Apple]

Blockstream is working for the US gov. They have to choke the blocksize in order to force users off-chain. That's the only way for western banks to remain in power.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard!
i am against off-chain probably more than anyone, and i'd rather use an altcoin instead but i fail to see how people using off chain transactions would benefit US gov and their evil plans.

and at the same time, what makes sense is the US gov wanting to increase  the block size to an absurd amount (8MB for example) to centralize the nodes and can easily monitor things. and by taking over the development even inject backdoors in the nodes and wallets people use.

[neurotypical]

Blockstream is working for the US gov. They have to choke the blocksize in order to force users off-chain. That's the only way for western banks to remain in power.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard!
i am against off-chain probably more than anyone, and i'd rather use an altcoin instead but i fail to see how people using off chain transactions would benefit US gov and their evil plans.

and at the same time, what makes sense is the US gov wanting to increase  the block size to an absurd amount (8MB for example) to centralize the nodes and can easily monitor things. and by taking over the development even inject backdoors in the nodes and wallets people use.

You can't try to argue logic with big blockers. They always bring how AXA funds this or that in blockstream, but they don't see how 8MB blocks is a death sentence for the decentralization of the network, but they will come up with excuses about it not being a big deal. They have really lost their mind or they are getting paid to spread that bullshit.

[25hashcoin]

Blockstream is working for the US gov. They have to choke the blocksize in order to force users off-chain. That's the only way for western banks to remain in power.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard!
i am against off-chain probably more than anyone, and i'd rather use an altcoin instead but i fail to see how people using off chain transactions would benefit US gov and their evil plans.

and at the same time, what makes sense is the US gov wanting to increase  the block size to an absurd amount (8MB for example) to centralize the nodes and can easily monitor things. and by taking over the development even inject backdoors in the nodes and wallets people use.

You just accused him of FUD and then countered with at least twice the FUD? Lol k.

[Xavofat]

Blockstream is working for the US gov. They have to choke the blocksize in order to force users off-chain. That's the only way for western banks to remain in power.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard!
i am against off-chain probably more than anyone, and i'd rather use an altcoin instead but i fail to see how people using off chain transactions would benefit US gov and their evil plans.

and at the same time, what makes sense is the US gov wanting to increase  the block size to an absurd amount (8MB for example) to centralize the nodes and can easily monitor things. and by taking over the development even inject backdoors in the nodes and wallets people use.

You just accused him of FUD and then countered with at least twice the FUD? Lol k.

Well either scenario is perfectly possible.  To me the difference is that in the case of offchain transactions people can still decide to use an onchain transaction when necessary.  In the case of nodes, you're just fucked.

That said, I don't think that the "nodes taking up datacenters" scenario is at all likely.

decentralized. In my opinion if we have 1000 full nodes instead of 5000 full nodes

There are far more than 5,000 full nodes.  There are 8,751 listening nodes, of which 5,570 are Core nodes, but the total node count including non-listening nodes is well into the tens of thousands (we can't know an exact number).

What people don't understand about larger block sizes is that right now, a rich person could set up 50,000 nodes and own the majority of them.  Of course they could.  When there is a larger block size and nodes take up more space and bandwidth, a rich person could own the majority of nodes for a similar cost - people would run less nodes, and each node would cost more to run.  So if there's a malicious person, they could just go ahead and do it regardless of the block size.

The government regulation problem only comes into play when it's literally impossible for people to run nodes from their homes and almost no one does.

[randzzz]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

Because those with substantial hodlings in BTC don't want to risk a sudden transfer to a relatively new asset class.

[DwarfLord]

I think it is very good as well . but the best thing is that people finally realized that they feared that for no reason and now they are coming back big time ..

One day people will wake up about the new economy and crypto will rize !! !




I think it will be before 10years from now

[pinkflower]

Forking to raise the block size to 2MB doesnt make sense now. Why do we have to go through all that risk for a 2MB block size? Theres an 8MB block size available in Bitcoin Cash, why dont the groups who want bigger blocks like Bitmain support that?

It's an alt. People want to control Bitcoin.

I don't see what the problem with a 2MB increase is. I do see a problem with the timeline. It's unrealistic to expect everyone to jump blindly into code that doesn't seem to exist yet and I don't think all that many people will do it.

If the timing is reappraised and agreed on then great, but I have my doubts about that. In that scenario things may turn proper sporty. We'll be back to square one again in terms of Bitmain agitation plus they have that coin to pile the pressure on.

Doing another hard fork again will be very risky because it might bring us another split in the blockchain. What does give us now? Another coin claiming that it is the real BTC? We do not need that. If there are interest groups that want bigger blocks then go to Bitcoin Cash.

[DoublerHunter]

The only thing that i like for the fork for bitcoin is the increase on the block size and i don't care for the new bitcoin because i always believe in the original bitcoin that it will continue to prosper even there will be a lot of problems that we will face in the future. The increase on block size is the best as of now because it will make more room for transaction and it means a faster network for bitcoin.

[marky89]

Bitcoin Cash is now insurance against not raising block size to 2MB in November as Segwit2x prescribes to do.

2mb still isn't nearly enough and segwit adds way too many new uncertainties. Bitcoin Cash still to me looks like the winner over the other 2-3 chains we will have by November. It could become more profitable to mine already any day and with the ability to rapidly scale it is dangerous to not be hedged with Bitcoin Cash as a holder.

Is it profitable yet to mine? I thought the emergency difficulty readjustment code would have encouraged mining profitability from Day 1. I'm not sure where else to gauge hash rate except ViaBTC, and the Bcash hash rate has been falling for days there. It's sitting at 17P now. Network difficulty has definitely dropped considerably, but I can't figure the math right now.

The Bitcoin Cash saga adds a new twist to the narrative as we head towards the November hard fork. The fact that it wasn't a significant split off the back makes me wonder whether we will have a real split in November either. Maybe the ecosystem will turn its back on Segwit2x...

[DooMAD]

At the end of the day, all the arguing we can ever do has been done to death.  This seems to be yet another thread where we all post about what we think should happen, as if it were down to any single one of us to decide.  Anyone who has been around for longer than a year has probably made up their minds already.  Now it all boils down to what full node software you freely choose to run.  

If your chosen software is an SPV or lightweight client, you're effectively allowing others to decide for you, leaving the decision primarily to the miners, but note that other peoples' choice of full node will also have a bearing.  Full nodes relay transactions and allow the chain to propagate, so miners can't make the decision alone.  There have to be sufficient full nodes for the chain to survive.  It isn't all bad, though, since running an SPV client means you don't have to worry about finding yourself on the wrong side of the argument that way.  Plus, you still have the option of changing your mind later if you don't like the chain you're following.  

• If you feel strongly about a 1MB base and 3MB witness space and primarily using off-chain scaling, run a client enforcing that code.
• If you feel strongly about a 2MB base and 6MB witness space and primarily using on-chain scaling, run a client enforcing that code once it becomes available.
• If you're unsure, if you don't know what either of those two mean, or if you don't care either way, use an SPV client and know that you'll be following the longest chain whatever happens.

While it might be tempting during a fork if they offer coins on both chains, be exceedingly cautious about using webwallets or exchanges to store large sums.  You are not in control of your funds that way.  Leaving your coins in the control of someone else is not how Bitcoin is designed to work and you could potentially lose your bitcoins as a result.
  

[Coffee135]

The only thing that i like for the fork for bitcoin is the increase on the block size and i don't care for the new bitcoin because i always believe in the original bitcoin that it will continue to prosper even there will be a lot of problems that we will face in the future. The increase on block size is the best as of now because it will make more room for transaction and it means a faster network for bitcoin.

I also think that without the constant upgrading of bitcoin will be difficult to maintain its competitiveness in the market. The increase in unit this is a good solution. I believe in bitcoin, and all of the theory of catastrophes is designed only to create panic and cheaper to buy coins.

[Bestwishes745]

The only thing that i like for the fork for bitcoin is the increase on the block size and i don't care for the new bitcoin because i always believe in the original bitcoin that it will continue to prosper even there will be a lot of problems that we will face in the future. The increase on block size is the best as of now because it will make more room for transaction and it means a faster network for bitcoin.

I also think that without the constant upgrading of bitcoin will be difficult to maintain its competitiveness in the market. The increase in unit this is a good solution. I believe in bitcoin, and all of the theory of catastrophes is designed only to create panic and cheaper to buy coins.

Absolutely! In order to rule crypto market continuously, bitcoins do need changes and improvements with time. The increase in block size is definitely going to make the survival of Bitcoins easier. There are already so many competitors who are burning midnight oil just to bring down Bitcoins. I hope we will keep experiencing such updates in Bitcoins.

[marky89]

While it might be tempting during a fork if they offer coins on both chains, be exceedingly cautious about using webwallets or exchanges to store large sums.  You are not in control of your funds that way.  Leaving your coins in the control of someone else is not how Bitcoin is designed to work and you could potentially lose your bitcoins as a result.

In the context of a fork, there are additional dangers. You always have to be careful of 3rd party risk, but the rush to extract BCC from bitcoin private keys also led to people rushing to download questionable desktop wallets like Electron Cash, Bitcoin ABC and others. Even if the top BCC wallets are technically safe, others may be fake wallets that extract your keys.

Naturally, the vast majority of people do not inspect the code, and the binaries are signed by unknown developers. I'm sure some people got their bitcoins stolen over this.