Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC?

[figmentofmyass]

In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.

LOL.  All hardforks are opt-in.  The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you.  But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with.  But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower.  So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place.  There's still no force or control involved though.  There is only the alignment of incentives.  Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.

The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you.  You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything.  They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.

there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.

in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).

[DooMAD]

Credibility points deducted.  Core do not control Bitcoin...

No one is in control.  

Credibility points deducted.  

This is pure BS!!  Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently).  They decide what code gets included.  

Just ask Marc Andresen about how much control they have.  

Core have control over their own repository.  Different developers have control over different repositories.  The important distinction to make is that the code in those different repositories is not Bitcoin until a supermajority of those securing the chain, a combination of both mining and non-mining nodes, enforce the rules in that code to make it Bitcoin.  

The issue seems to be that we've spent so long with centralised development, some people have deluded themselves into thinking that's the only way it can work.  Evidently that isn't true.  Despite the different codebases competing for market share, we're still able to transact.  That's all it is.  A free and open market.

Again, no one single developer, or group of developers has control.  No one can force anyone to run any code they don't want to run.  Everything is opt-in.  Please refer to my previous post in full.

In the scheme of things, I don't think Bitcoin Cash was coercive. It was an opt-in hard fork intended to split off from the network. That's the ideal way to hard fork.

LOL.  All hardforks are opt-in.  The argument you appear to be trying to make is that hardforks are okay as long as there aren't too many people that disagree with you.  But if a majority disagree with you, then it's bad because you don't want to play with the people you disagree with.  But at the same time, you're less incentivised to play with those who do agree with you if it meant issues transacting due to minority chain issues like lack of hashpower.  So either way, you're between a rock and a hard place.  There's still no force or control involved though.  There is only the alignment of incentives.  Everyone does what's best for themselves, even if the choice isn't always easy.

The simple fact is, you don't get to decide how many people disagree with you.  You can label it coercive if there happen to be a lot of them, but it doesn't change anything.  They still disagree with you and you still can't tell them what to do.

there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.

in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).

If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support.  You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to.  That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources.  Use your own if you can't agree.  

I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with.  I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all.  Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with.  Just a thought...


//EDIT:  And to the owners of this forum and bitcoin.org, you must have a crapton of wealth being involved since the early days.  Where is your hashpower?  Why are you part of this ever-expanding, something-for-nothing, self-entitled bullshit culture that seems to permeate the community?  If you started mining, maybe you wouldn't feel quite as much pressure to tell everyone else what Bitcoin "should" be, because you could influence that directly for yourselves.

[manchester93]

If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support.  You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to.  That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources.  Use your own if you can't agree. 

That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies.

I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with.  I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all.  Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with.  Just a thought...

Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests.

[WhiteBeard]

Credibility points deducted.  Core do not control Bitcoin...

No one is in control.  

Credibility points deducted.  

This is pure BS!!  Bitcoin Core is a small group of devs who control access to the Bitcoin Core repository (the only bitcoin repository until recently).  They decide what code gets included.  

Just ask Gavin Andresen about how much control they have.  

Core have control over their own repository.  Different developers have control over different repositories.  The important distinction to make is that the code in those different repositories is not Bitcoin until a supermajority of those securing the chain, a combination of both mining and non-mining nodes, enforce the rules in that code to make it Bitcoin.  

The issue seems to be that we've spent so long with centralised development, some people have deluded themselves into thinking that's the only way it can work.  Evidently that isn't true.  Despite the different codebases competing for market share, we're still able to transact.  That's all it is.  A free and open market.

Again, no one single developer, or group of developers has control.  No one can force anyone to run any code they don't want to run.  Everything is opt-in.  Please refer to my previous post in full.

Actually, I agree with your larger point, that anyone may choose to use whichever code-set they choose, and you are absolutely right with your statement regarding centralized development, which is why I applaud the guys who had the fortitude to stand up and present an alternative, knowing they would be accused of all sorts of things along the way.

Your discussion on centralized development is the point I was trying to make, until recently Bitcoin Core had the 'bully pulpit' of the bitcoin world by means of what figmentofmyass was saying.

there is a difference between literal threats and force (coercion) and the idea of economic coercion. economic coercion is when the controllers of a vital resource (say, 99% of miners in the ETH/ETC split) uses their advantage to compel people to do something they wouldn't do if this resource were not monopolized.

in other words, if users and services believe that in order to have reliable transaction confirmations they need to switch to the miner's hard fork, this is coercive. they wouldn't necessarily have followed the hard fork if not for the supermajority of miners exercising control over a vital resource (hash power).

 

[DooMAD]

If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support.  You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to.  That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources.  Use your own if you can't agree. 

That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies.

I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with.  I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all.  Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with.  Just a thought...

Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests.

If you're operating on a completely separate chain, remember that you wouldn't have to equal the hashrate of the miners on the chain you disagree with.  You could get by with lots of smaller mining operations working in unison towards your desired goal.  The world is only as you want to build it.  Contribute what you want, where you want, when you want.  Just don't tell others what/where/when they can or can't contribute.  If they don't share your interests, just leave them be and do your own thing.  Such is the beauty of open-source crypto.  

As a reminder, the alternative to this is closed-source crypto.  This requires you placing total 100% trust in a group of developers to make every single last decision.  If you don't agree with those decisions, you can't take part anymore and you can't fork the code either.  That's what I'd call control, force and coercion.  Luckily that isn't Bitcoin, so I suggest everyone stops trying to turn it into that horrid scenario and just learn to appreciate it for what it is:

Freedom.

(Not control)

[dreamer81]

I think there are two groups of forkers:
Those who actually want to improve things, and those who see the fork as an option to make money.
For the second group, they do not care what the consequences for the whole cryptocurrency sector are.
Even if that would be the end of all crypto.

What you say here is exactly the problem. There are so many greedy people in crypto, and because it's unregulated by governments, they can do whatever they want within the current laws.

Look at all the scammy ICO's. People are loosing tons of money on shitcoins, and promises of greater things, and in the end there is only one winner. The team behind who is milking all the ICO money into their pockets!

As for bitcoin cash! they should have made a new altcoin with a new blockchain instead of trying to call themself bitcoin cash. They will never be bitcoin, they will always be "something"cash.

[DoublerHunter]

It really depends on the fork, i can say that the soft fork is much safer than hard fork because in soft fork there is no split and only the block size is being change and just some modifications like the segwit which is a kind of soft fork and that is safe because it will just add more size into the block size and modify the current system and implement lightning network unlike hardfork that there is a proposal of having 2 chains which is very risky for the original coin because the users might migrate to the clone coin.

[marky89]

It really depends on the fork, i can say that the soft fork is much safer than hard fork because in soft fork there is no split and only the block size is being change and just some modifications like the segwit which is a kind of soft fork and that is safe

This is where it gets a bit murky. Soft forks can absolutely result in network splits. I actually thought that BIP148 was incredibly reckless. There is a big difference between a miner-activated soft fork (which results in no split) and a user-activated "soft fork" which can cause an incompatible chain split that is basically indistinguishable from a hard fork.

I'm torn between being thankful to the BIP148 crowd for getting Segwit activated, and feeling embittered that they operated on so much deception about how UASFs work. e.g. Luke with the "if miners don't follow the UASF, they are 51% attacking the network" and "Twitter polls are good enough to suggest consensus for BIP148".....

[hatshepsut93]

The goal is not to destroy Bitcoin, but to get control of it's development, either by convincing community that some new team is better than Core, or by pressuring Core into accepting decisions of forkers, under threat of network splits. SegWit2x is basically about miners threatening to stop mining Bitcoin, so the network will get disrupted and unsecured, their ultimate goal is to force Core accept 2x fork. Forkers realize that they need Core to keep developing Bitcoin, because it's the best group of developers right now.

[spadormie]

Well that is their main agenda. Because they want to start a business from a successful thing. It is like getting the best employees out of a great and successful company. Well I think that morality does not exists in forking. In forking they are trying to kill the company by getting their best employees. And using the minds of the newly collected personality they can continue the progress and create new ideas.

[Vishnu.Reang]

Well that is their main agenda. Because they want to start a business from a successful thing. It is like getting the best employees out of a great and successful company. Well I think that morality does not exists in forking. In forking they are trying to kill the company by getting their best employees. And using the minds of the newly collected personality they can continue the progress and create new ideas.

You can't claim the moral high ground here. The developers behind the fork are by no means unethical or immoral. Yes.. I agree with the fact that they are starting from an already successful venture. But these people also played their part in making Bitcoins successful. You can't ignore the contribution made by them, and you can't overlook the way the Core developers treated them.

[Carlton Banks]

The goal is not to destroy Bitcoin, but to get control of it's development

Oh christ, don't say that without wearing a crash helmet, lol


The "control" of the source code is only temporary, but it is control nonetheless. Only one group can control, but the users can change who that one group is. [/controlarguments]



Ultimate credibility points, for explaining it simply, IMHO

[Carlton Banks]

The thing is people might let a bad group stay in control even though it isn't the best due to fear of losing their investment value. I really hope Jihan never gets control of the main chain.

Yeah, the non-agreed hard forking control battles are a valid feature of Bitcoin, even Core could start making questionable decisions (although this actually depends on which trolls you ask )

Really, it's a good thing overall. It forces Bitcoin investors to either understand their investment (and hence the computer science behind it), or sell up and let those that believe they understand it make the investment decisions. Which doesn't stop people believing something that doesn't work out, but hey, nobody's perfect

[arseaboy]

Well that is their main agenda. Because they want to start a business from a successful thing. It is like getting the best employees out of a great and successful company. Well I think that morality does not exists in forking. In forking they are trying to kill the company by getting their best employees. And using the minds of the newly collected personality they can continue the progress and create new ideas.

they really taking advantage since they knew that they can accumulate more success after doing some change and with how people support cryptos most
of the holders and believers will also invest with new ideas and instead of making great development they will generate new project instead.

[Hydrogen]

The code devs have so far failed in their attempt to resolve the scaling issues. Please check the number of unconfirmed transactions. The number has swung between 50,000 and 100,000 for any time during the last 2 weeks. This can't go ahead in the long term, especially as the number of users are rising. There needs to be a permanent solution, and the core devs don't have any.

Another poster made & posted this graphic awhile ago. It highlights how unconfirmed transactions peak when block size pro fork agenda is being pushed.



One issue with larger blocks is, it assumes a significant increase in transaction per second performance can be gained by increasing block size despite these claims being untested and unvetted.

Larger block supporters also assume these positives will outweigh any negatives associated with nodes becoming more centralized due to higher hardware requirements & possibly better attack vectors with larger blocks.

[marky89]

The goal is not to destroy Bitcoin, but to get control of it's development, either by convincing community that some new team is better than Core, or by pressuring Core into accepting decisions of forkers, under threat of network splits. SegWit2x is basically about miners threatening to stop mining Bitcoin, so the network will get disrupted and unsecured, their ultimate goal is to force Core accept 2x fork. Forkers realize that they need Core to keep developing Bitcoin, because it's the best group of developers right now.

And it seems like there are being some concessions suggested by the Core/small blocker/Blockstream contingent. For example, Samson Mow recently said, "No one ever said '1mb4eva,' just plan a hard-fork safely with rationale, engineering, & most importantly: Consensus." That sounds like backtracking to me. Blockstream engineer Rusty Russell, who works on a Lightning Network implementation just posted an article about how to hard fork Bitcoin, called "The Consensus Path To A Bitcoin Hard Fork." https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/900220500017905664

I'm not sure how to feel. Long ago, I took the position that hard forks (at least ones where a supermajority of miners coerce users into switching networks) were unacceptable save for some existential protocol flaw (whereby every user is necessarily incentivized to fix it). I still feel that way today. But it seems even Blockstream folks are starting to suggest that a hard fork is acceptable under certain circumstances.

[panganib999]

The forks are shaking the very foundation of BTC's attraction ... that is away from the whims and motive of a controlling cabal. One could have been dismissed, but now a 2nd one starts establishing a pattern.

we cant just say that they are trying to kill the bitcoin but i guess there are no reason why they are going to do that in my opinion i guess they wanted to make the bitcoin market value to increase in the market thats why they are doing split or forks and they are being successful in this situation.

[manchester93]

If you feel strongly enough about it, there is literally nothing stopping you (aside from possibly the confines of your own wealth) from buying some hardware and pointing it at the chain you want to support.  You don't have to rely on their resources, you merely choose to.  That doesn't mean you get to decide how they use their resources.  Use your own if you can't agree. 

That was true when home mining was viable. Engaging in a viable mining operation nowadays runs at least six figures USD to cover overheads and long term contingencies.

I keep hearing this argument that "everyone" agrees with this one single development group and that "everyone" thinks the miners are wrong, yet no one seems to want to put their money where their mouth is and point some hashpower at the ruleset "everyone" supposedly agrees with.  I mean, there's a whole forum full of you all.  Surely if you all chipped in, because you believe in this, you could muster adequate hashpower of your own to do what you want with.  Just a thought...

Maybe there is something to that. It wasn't clearly a problem a year or two ago. I think a lot of us have been blindsided by the fact that miners with entrenched interests and average BTC users may have conflicting interests.

If you're operating on a completely separate chain, remember that you wouldn't have to equal the hashrate of the miners on the chain you disagree with.  You could get by with lots of smaller mining operations working in unison towards your desired goal.  The world is only as you want to build it.  Contribute what you want, where you want, when you want.  Just don't tell others what/where/when they can or can't contribute.  If they don't share your interests, just leave them be and do your own thing.  Such is the beauty of open-source crypto.  

That sounds great and all, but it takes time, effort and lots of money to organize such an effort. Powerful, entrenched miners know this and can leverage it against users. The unfortunate reality is that most users don't want to bother with mining; they just want to invest. Maybe this will change with time, if miners try to flex their muscles too much.

At this point, though, a small fry like me has very little to contribute and no technical know-how to even get the process started. Again, miners know this. Like everything else in capitalism, those with large amounts of capital can easily outcompete the small fries, who have no idea where to begin organizing the required capital.

[squatter]

This is the kind of thing that happens when people wake up and realize they have been letting a central authority tell them what to do and how to manage their assets.  It's called 'rebellion.' 

As the supposed shepherds of bitcoin (because they control access to the primary bitcoin repository and get to decide which changes to allow), Bitcoin Core overstepped the bounds of authority for a decentralized system by kicking out one of the primary core developers (who tried to fix a problem) and then sitting on their hands and refusing to fix the scale-ability issue for which the masses were pleading.  (I suspect that someone with deep pockets and a strong interest in maintaining the status quo was influencing them.)

I think that's a misrepresentation of what happened. If you kept up with the mailing lists and discussion on Github, the vast majority of developers were opposed to Gavin's scaling recommendations. Yes, there was a lot of debating for years, but it was nearly two years ago that Core (a collection of many dozen or even hundreds of developers) agreed on Segwit -- particularly because they wanted to address scalability (including fixing transaction malleability for the Lightning Network) without the messy consensus issues associated with a hard fork.

The obstacle was the miners, who refused to activate Segwit for the better part of a year, until BIP148 forced the issue.

[jbreher]

One issue with larger blocks is, it assumes a significant increase in transaction per second performance can be gained by increasing block size despite these claims being untested and unvetted.

Nonsense. It is pre tested and pre vetted a priori. Because, first grade arithmetic.

Larger block supporters also assume these positives will outweigh any negatives associated with nodes becoming more centralized due to higher hardware requirements & possibly better attack vectors with larger blocks.

Ok, here you have a valid point.