Could the need of Bitcoin being more divisible lead to a hard fork?

[franky1]

oh doomad yet again.. you are fooling yourself with your attempts to ignore the obvious

you think these flaws "only affect one user" yet you are foolish to ignore that no one makes an app and gets it put on google play/apple store for just one user.

funny part is..
when thor turbo started its(other flaw) fractional reserve game. many downloaded it and were given msats with no funding utxo. and YOU and your chums called that fractional reserve event of inventing new msats out of nothings as "a feature"

when many users are using mobile apps, where they are stuck using a hub allotting them(giving inbound) value they end up having to use the app the services offers them, where whats not seen on the GUI can affect those users end result they think they are promised. but never get delivered

..
your desires to break the rules of a network structure, and then just say "its the users fault" is your lame scapegoat every time
there needs to be network rules(you dont want there to be network rules) that mitigate the damage
you want a certain app to be able to change rules as they please without anyone able to abstain or veto the devs code. and instead users become just a puppet to a devs code where they also change the network rules to not have a method to prevent a malicious act occurring

again you need to really challenge yourself and realise what consent and abstaining means.
what consensus means..
where by performing an act(ivation) on others, should not occur unless clear consent is given.
your lack of wanting a majority vote or pretending there is not one in the first place is a failure on your part.

oh and if you again pretend bitcoin doesnt have a true consensus then you already debunked yourself in the previous post of other topics when you admit to knowing about the previous versions where you clearly stated you hated the idea of a 6% veto or any veto of a minority.. and then went on to say how you adore that devs can slide in changes without any vote at all due to the non-consent abstaining bypasses put inplace

please go learn what abstaining and non-consent is
learn byzantine generals problem and how consensus actually works
then go learn about what the devs came up with and admitting to performing to bypass consent of the masses
consensus: consent by census(survey of the population )

[o_e_l_e_o]

There has never been in the history of bitcoin that a hard fork bitcoin has ever become successful, the ones they did in the early days of bitcoin and the ones they did in the all-time high price of bitcoin to date have not reached the half potential of bitcoin

A hard fork does not necessarily imply creation of a new shitcoin, such as in the BCash fork. It is possible to implement a hard fork which the entire network agrees upon, which results in everyone staying on the main chain and no chain split. A hard fork simply means that the rules are being relaxed, and something which was previously invalid is now considered valid.

[DooMAD]

There has never been in the history of bitcoin that a hard fork bitcoin has ever become successful, the ones they did in the early days of bitcoin and the ones they did in the all-time high price of bitcoin to date have not reached the half potential of bitcoin

A hard fork does not necessarily imply creation of a new shitcoin, such as in the BCash fork. It is possible to implement a hard fork which the entire network agrees upon, which results in everyone staying on the main chain and no chain split. A hard fork simply means that the rules are being relaxed, and something which was previously invalid is now considered valid.

As an example, I believe block 74,638 back in 2010, well before my time, technically resulted in a hardfork.  There was a serious bug which broke the 21 million BTC limit.  The bug was swiftly patched and everyone switched to the new software version.  That fork would clearly be considered "successful" because it fixed the bug.

//EDIT:  Although I could be mistaken.  Various media outlets describe it as a softfork.  Was there no chain split for that one?

[o_e_l_e_o]

As an example, I believe block 74,638 back in 2010, well before my time, technically resulted in a hardfork.

I suppose you could argue that the bug itself was a hard fork, since it allowed the attacker to do something which everyone agreed should be invalid (create 92 billion bitcoin out of thin air). But the successful patch to fix it was a soft fork, as it was simply tightening the rules (by making such overflow incidents invalid). Even BIP50 wasn't really a hard fork, despite often being called such. I don't believe bitcoin has ever had a successful hard fork.

Was there no chain split for that one?

The presence or absence of a chain split does not give an indication as to whether a change was a soft or a hard fork. Although obviously a hard fork could result in a chain split, we could also code a hard fork (such as to fix the 2106 problem) decades in advance which would result in everybody running a compatible client well in advance and there being no chain split.

[franky1]

soft or hard is not how OELEO/doomad pretends its terminology is (he thinks its a Tightening" vs "relaxing" rules thing) (facepalm)

both soft or hard can result in an altcoin creation. it all depends if users want to retain the reject/orphan blocks of a rule change.
both soft or hard can avoid an altcoin creation. it all depends if users want to retain the reject/orphan blocks of a rule change.

soft or hard both can create rejects/orphaned blocks.

both soft and hard are FORKS.. hint is in the name 'soft fork' 'hard fork'

the terminology from 2009-2016 was
a hard fork is a controversial change requiring majority users to upgrade to then support a change/reject out a change thats not wanted
where by a proposed change would need upgrading first to then activate a change when an activation can occur when deemed safe and supported
a soft fork is a change not requiring majority users to upgrade to support.
a hard fork can also present as someone forcing a different block of data that breaks a rule due to a bug in the rules. again requiring a upgrade to make said bug invalid if majority upgrade to invalidate the bugged blocks

in 2017 using (an admitted by core devs) bypass. by rejection before activation. changed the terminology where now certain people think everything is soft and no hards have or will or need to occur

should oeleo/doomad ever dare themselves to do the research on the past they would learn what occurs and know if one happened or not. but it seems by lack of knowledge of past they can only "think" "believe" things happened or not, the way they dream.. because the only insight they have is their dreams

[BlackHatCoiner]

you think these flaws "only affect one user" yet you are foolish to ignore that no one makes an app and gets it put on google play/apple store for just one user.

These flaws affect only the user. Just as any malware (on-chain and off-chain) affects only the user that installs it.

when many users are using mobile apps, where they are stuck using a hub allotting them(giving inbound) value they end up having to use the app the services offers them, where whats not seen on the GUI can affect those users end result they think they are promised. but never get delivered

Sure, but this is like saying Bitcoin is a scam, because some people forfeit their ownership to centralized exchanges. People have the freedom to do whatever they want with their money. Some might choose to forfeit their custody to a lightning hub. Some others might just run their own node, and lose no custody.

your desires to break the rules of a network structure, and then just say "its the users fault" is your lame scapegoat every time

You went off the deep end this time. You seriously propose we shouldn't have lightning network-- a protocol that is also decentralized, peer-to-peer and self-custody insuring-- just because some people might not use it correctly, contradicting completely the fact that this is already happening in bitcoin, and that it's natural for every protocol.

[franky1]

you are aimlessly pretending its a "users fault" if the network changed its unit measure..(THIS TOPIC)
the analogy i made was.. (if you were not ignorant you would understand)
if there was a more then one users using a software because a subnetwork or group demanded a certain software to be used. those rules of that software becomes the rules of that network/community.. which affect more then one users. where you are ignorantly pretending its ok to have malicious code because you pretend only one user would be affected

the point was if BITCOIN changed its units of conversion (the peg) from 100,000,000 to 100,000,000,000 it changes the rules for everyone!!

your silly inept thoughts that the LN analogy of its peg would only affect 1 users. is flawed again because it can and does affect many users and LN has no network security facility(it could but doesnt bother) to prevent such things. . as has the thor turbo flaw(you lot called "feature") affected many users.

you are really trying too hard to break bitcoin(this topic of changing bitcoins unit of measure) and then pretend its no harm that it breaks and then pretend only 1 user would be affected.. you are seriously misleading and very malicious when you try to undermine the security of bitcoin by pretending its of no harm by changing/breaking it

seriously you are ignoring the whole unit measure just to talk about a GUI thing(facepalm)

sorry but actually look at the units of measure at the data level of a raw tx/blockchain utxo value/block coinbase reward and how things would change

EG paying someone in bitcoin of 11 decimals. requires changing the transaction and blockchain rules to allow such unit accounting

now go and do some research and math on it.

and dont respond unless you can understand things like

GUI: 3.12500000
bin:10010101000000101111100100000
hex:12A05F20
dec:312500000

change to:

GUI: 3.12500000000
bin: 100100011000010011100111001010100000000
hex: 48C2739500
dec: 312500000000

where you can try to articulate the many things that break and change due to that change

[tyook]

thanks for all the answers!

it really shed light into some deeper issues I hand't think about

Thinking more carefully, $1 for satoshi is a very high price even in the long term.
As a bullish bitcoiner, I guess we may reach $0.1 for satoshi considering the purchashing power of the dollar today. I say "considering the purchasing power of the dollar today" because all fiat currencies tend to severe devaluation in the long run, which means that $100 in 100 years could be worth less than $5 today.

Anyway, I don't think there would be a need for bitcoin to be more divisible in the next decades.
Moreover, it would be a complete mess to try to make bitcoin more divisible because the software would have to handle past transactions and future transactions differently, introducing a lot of complexity.

Thank you all for the answers. It clarified my doubes