Fork off

[Melbustus]

You should listen in to the chatter that happens on IRC during a fork. It's pretty funny and panic filled.

The forks I remember were urgent, deployed in a hurry. I would assume a well planned and announced months in advance fork would be somewhat calmer.... unless the "change is bad" crowd holds out and it's only finally applied in an emergency when the network is already practically DDoSing itself to death.

Here's how Satoshi intended to do it:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Note that Gavin's plan with miner's signaling willingness via a new version number in the block header is even better (he mentions this in the comments: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html scroll down)


Edit: Here's Gavin's signaling suggestion from the comments on his post:

I'll be proposing what we did for the block.version=1 to block.version=2 soft fork: miners signal that they approve of the new rules by producing less-than-1-MB-blocks with version=3 (the version number is part of the block header of every block).

When 50% of blocks are version=3, old version of the reference implementation start complaining: "Warning: This version is obsolete, upgrade required!"

Whenever... uhh... 80% of blocks produced are version=3, the fork happens: version=2 blocks are rejected, and miners are free to build bigger-than-1-MB version=3 blocks.

The hard fork would happen sometime after that, when a miner actually DOES produce a bigger-than-1-MB block (that is assuming that we don't decide to make some other incompatible hard-forking change that is also tied to block.version=3 blocks becoming a supermajority).

[colinistheman]

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

And I agree, Mircea's attitude and comments about his budget are a big turnoff.

That's like saying "I've lost the fight, so I'm going to go in with my wallet and buy my victory since my logic and arguments didn't prevail."

That's also how the Federal Reserve runs things. They use their control of money as their only power.

Big turn-off. And tyrannical.

Lost the fight? It's more like one guy said, "I'm gonna start validating invalid blocks for some derpy reason," and another (much more important) guy said, "alright, well I'm not gonna do that; have fun!" The fight hasn't begun yet; upvoting regurgitations from the latest gospel of derpopolous (or whoever replaced him after his death) does not constitute a fight.

Here's a glimpse of the war:

If the hard fork happens, it should be possible to cycle funds in and out of exchanges that are dumb enough to switch, splitting away real-bitcoin whenever the withdraw gives you an output that hasn't been doublespent yet. Withdraw, split, send fake-coins back into exchange, repeat. When "dust settles," exchange is now fractional reserve (if it wasn't already).

So you are an MP shill? Yes, there's a handful of you devoted followers in his IRC room.

MP def lost the intellectual battle by the brag of wealth as his last effort to win.

He invited me to his channel once and I spoke with him. I like the guy and he seemed nice. I had respect for him, but my viewpoint has changed after reading that post and his little snide jabs at various figures and boast of wealth to try to control things. That's no better than a US politician a.k.a. thug with a suit on.

[solex]

From the Gold Collapsing thread...

who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half.  forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize.  now is the time to do this.

A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience.  

I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased

People who argue that the block size limit should never be increased are arguing from a position of ideology, not practicality. They want as many nodes as possible, helped by low volume overhead, thinking that limiting transaction throughput can maintain Bitcoin as a guerrilla enterprise outside mainstream finance. They want it to be the financial system for the "Unsystem".

Anyone who has read my posts for the last 2 years will know that I rail against the global corruption of central banks, their fiat FRB system, inflation targeting, interest rate manipulation, crony capitalism, asset bubbles, and stealth wealth transfers from the majority to the 0.1%. I see Bitcoin is a reset button for this 100-year mess, a river to flush out the Augean Stables of central banking. However, that river can never be diverted when it is a trickle, dammed upstream.

Answer the question "Is blockchain PoW (or its variants, perhaps even PoS) a better basis for a monetary system than the existing debt-money of CB fiat?"
If "yes", then the inexorable nature of science and technology will ensure that blockchain money prevails in the long run, 10, 20, 30 years from now. So the second question is "Will the future globally successful blockchain money be Bitcoin or some other alt coin?"

The answer to the second question is "Bitcoin, unless its first mover advantage is thrown away by an unresolved fundamental failing." Failure to scale is a fundamental failing which can consign Bitcoin forever to the margins of world finance. But, why would a marginalized Bitcoin be used even by its unsystem adherents when Darkcoin or Monero offer better anonymity?

Constraining the block size, therefore transaction volumes, ignores several important aspects of the situation:

1. The quality of nodes is much better than 5 years ago. There might have been 20,000 PCs and notebooks as nodes in 2010, cpu mining and supporting the network, but was that network better than the 6500 (known) nodes of today? Many of which are owned by companies now earning a living in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Corporate nodes are much more tolerant of volumes than hobbyist nodes.

2. Bandwidth is improving in many countries at up to 40% per year, so volume increases should be acceptable up to that level, or until another constraint is seen such as cpu signature verification. Limiting it at a 2010 baseline means it is being unnecessarily constrained as computing technology is still improving.

3. Block compression techniques exist to reduce propagation overhead. IBLT was only described in 2011, a year after Satoshi put the 1MB limit in place.

4. If Bitcoin fails to scale then I-Can-Scale-Coin will incorporate the necessary changes and the ecosystem will move across to that alt instead. Sidechains do not help with scaling because SC volume still needs to be handled somewhere.

5. Despite the long bearmarket of 2014, and price down at $290 right now, a large percentage of the price assumes that Bitcoin has future scalability. That it can grow to handle a reasonable percentage of world commerce. Its SoV is predicated upon being able to scale.

Accepting the block size limit as it stands is to do the central banks a massive favor by crippling this new emerging monetary system, giving them more years to screw up the world economy, before a new alt coin can eventually prevail.

[bleeding2323]

I honestly think that Bitcoindark had a good idea, going dark and making it hard to find out who sent it, and who received it, this would make a good idea and also help the bitcoin chain in respect to the coin economy.
just my 2 cents worth.

Dogecoin has a serious coin chasing it called Dogecoindark, and it show promise, and is growing every day.  check it out I'm sure you would agree.  Dogecoindark all the way 

[matt4054]

We know roughly 20% of the hash rate is of unknown origin. Does anyone else know if MP controls or has controlling interest any known pools?

He never made such a claim AFAIK, and even if he had 20% of the hashrate, that still wouldn't be quite enough to cause serious trouble, would it?

This thread would be so much more fun if MPOE-PR was still around.

Why, are you missing the big boobs?

Seriously, I don't get the point of his reluctance, i.e. why he makes such a big deal about it. Not that I care a lot, to be perfectly honest. Back in the days, Luke-jr also had some reluctance regarding newer versions of bitcoind, but IIRC they were a little more / better substantiated... and *he* was running a pool, unlike MP.

[Realpra]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

[colinistheman]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

[bleeding2323]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply?  

Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole.

Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity.

[solex]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply?  

Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole.

Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity.

Realpra is right. Once the software is written for larger block sizes then any of the 1000 alts out there can incorporate it. Many will. Supply and demand then works against Bitcoin as demand will steadily weaken for a coin that cannot scale.
Dogecoin has a large community backing it, but that is not saving it from relentless decline.

[VectorChief]

Very good points in favor of the fork!

I would only say that maybe Bitcoin is here not to fight governments, but rather open them up and pull them away from the debt-based fiat capture. In this regard, increasing the block size limit seems like a natural evolution towards that goal. And we still have plenty of alt-coins to fill other niches.

[Flashman]

IMO when the bitcoin bull market returns in strength, practically every alt will get a coupon "good for one more pump and dump" along with it. If the bull market translates to the mass adoption tipping point this go around, I think there will be a definite gap open up between the top ~10 coins and "all the rest"as focus narrows. Then anything left behind will be looking increasingly like a "toy" coin, and I doubt will live more than a year or so after that. There maybe some persisting microeconomy of new pump and dump alts, for people who still want to play at the cryptocurrency game, but the world is getting more serious. By the end of 2015 you might have to wear a shirt and tie to post here  

[danielpbarron]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply?  

Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole.

Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity.

Realpra is 100% right. Once the software is written for larger block sizes then any of the 1000 alts out there can incorporate it. Many will. Supply and demand then works against Bitcoin as demand will steadily weaken for a coin that cannot scale.
Dogecoin has a large community backing it, but that is not saving it from relentless decline.

If any of these retarded claims were true, there would already exist an altcoin with a greater market share than bitcoin. Since there is not, it is safe to conclude that the block size is not a problem. In fact, none of the "improvements" proposed by the various altcoins amount to anything valuable. You'd all like to think that ideas and opinions are worth something, as if it doesn't ultimately take a person with money to make it work. For example, look at this specimen of tardtalk redditardus:

What does Mircea Popescu have to lose by this proposed fork? It's obvious by his reaction that he feels this would be very negative for him, but why?

And I agree, Mircea's attitude and comments about his budget are a big turnoff.

That's like saying "I've lost the fight, so I'm going to go in with my wallet and buy my victory since my logic and arguments didn't prevail."

That's also how the Federal Reserve runs things. They use their control of money as their only power.

Big turn-off. And tyrannical.

Lost the fight? It's more like one guy said, "I'm gonna start validating invalid blocks for some derpy reason," and another (much more important) guy said, "alright, well I'm not gonna do that; have fun!" The fight hasn't begun yet; upvoting regurgitations from the latest gospel of derpopolous (or whoever replaced him after his death) does not constitute a fight.

Here's a glimpse of the war:

If the hard fork happens, it should be possible to cycle funds in and out of exchanges that are dumb enough to switch, splitting away real-bitcoin whenever the withdraw gives you an output that hasn't been doublespent yet. Withdraw, split, send fake-coins back into exchange, repeat. When "dust settles," exchange is now fractional reserve (if it wasn't already).

So you are an MP shill? Yes, there's a handful of you devoted followers in his IRC room.

MP def lost the intellectual battle by the brag of wealth as his last effort to win.

He invited me to his channel once and I spoke with him. I like the guy and he seemed nice. I had respect for him, but my viewpoint has changed after reading that post and his little snide jabs at various figures and boast of wealth to try to control things. That's no better than a US politician a.k.a. thug with a suit on.

While you kids were having your "intellectual battle," the professionals discussed the issue and came to their own conclusion. You may not like it, but money matters; that is, people with more of it have more of a say than those who have less. It doesn't really matter how many of the stupid-poor you can wrangle together; you can't wish your way to prosperity. And that's the whole point of bitcoin! Unlike FIAT, which can make unsustainable dreams temporarily come true, bitcoin forces the cold hard reality of savage capitalism.

Very good points in favor of the fork!

I would only say that maybe Bitcoin is here not to fight governments, but rather open them up and pull them away from the debt-based fiat capture. In this regard, increasing the block size limit seems like a natural evolution towards that goal. And we still have plenty of alt-coins to fill other niches.

Exactly this! If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

[VectorChief]

Very good points in favor of the fork!

I would only say that maybe Bitcoin is here not to fight governments, but rather open them up and pull them away from the debt-based fiat capture. In this regard, increasing the block size limit seems like a natural evolution towards that goal. And we still have plenty of alt-coins to fill other niches.

Exactly this! If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

Governments today (USG included) represent banks they owe money to. I suggest we take them back by moving taxes and spending onto blockchain for everyone to see.

Whenever there is a competition, power players will emerge and the only way to keep them in check is to make them transparent.

[Flashman]

If any of these retarded claims were true, there would already exist an altcoin with a greater market share than bitcoin. Since there is not, it is safe to conclude that the block size is not a problem. In fact, none of the "improvements" proposed by the various altcoins amount to anything valuable.

This would be last on the list of a parameters to alter in a run of the mill copy and paste coin. For a start it needs to get over the hump of even needing a few 10s of kilobytes of block size, and it won't do that for a year most likely. It's such an invisible feature at a coins launch that it will not make a fig of difference in the early make or break years. This would be why Satoshi left it for later. Since they are all a few years behind the curve in general, they can afford to wait for bitcoin to need it first.

[VectorChief]

If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

This is one reasonable claim I can agree with against a fork. The principle of not changing fundamentals. Because changing them once means you can change them again. And that opens the door to corruption. Is this your main argument against the fork?

I think Satoshi didn't consider the block size to be among fundamentals, but rather a temporary precaution against DDOS attacks. PoW's nature is such that it is hard to hide because of the physical presence, thus pretending that power players of today don't exist is meaningless. We need to make them accept the new rules and for that the volume cap needs to increase. We still have Litecoin if that route fails.

[fat buddah]

IMO when the bitcoin bull market returns in strength, practically every alt will get a coupon "good for one more pump and dump" along with it. If the bull market translates to the mass adoption tipping point this go around, I think there will be a definite gap open up between the top ~10 coins and "all the rest"as focus narrows. Then anything left behind will be looking increasingly like a "toy" coin, and I doubt will live more than a year or so after that. There maybe some persisting microeconomy of new pump and dump alts, for people who still want to play at the cryptocurrency game, but the world is getting more serious. By the end of 2015 you might have to wear a shirt and tie to post here  

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins. Particularly with that many problems btc has. Looks increasingly like a shitcoin with a community with just slighlty higher IQ and rethorical skills.

Bitcoin lost its untouchable status as you went off your holy exponential curve and you know it well.

[VectorChief]

IMO when the bitcoin bull market returns in strength, practically every alt will get a coupon "good for one more pump and dump" along with it. If the bull market translates to the mass adoption tipping point this go around, I think there will be a definite gap open up between the top ~10 coins and "all the rest"as focus narrows. Then anything left behind will be looking increasingly like a "toy" coin, and I doubt will live more than a year or so after that. There maybe some persisting microeconomy of new pump and dump alts, for people who still want to play at the cryptocurrency game, but the world is getting more serious. By the end of 2015 you might have to wear a shirt and tie to post here  

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins.

Yeah, mushrooming! More food for Honey BTCadger, he is a hungry little bastard

[matt4054]

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins. Particularly with that many problems btc has. Looks increasingly like a shitcoin with a community with just slighlty higher IQ and rethorical skills.

Bitcoin lost its untouchable status as you went off your holy exponential curve and you know it well.

Off topic... go back to the trollbox on BTC-e already. As far as I'm concerned couldn't care less about the price at this stage.

[cbeast]

IMO when the bitcoin bull market returns in strength, practically every alt will get a coupon "good for one more pump and dump" along with it. If the bull market translates to the mass adoption tipping point this go around, I think there will be a definite gap open up between the top ~10 coins and "all the rest"as focus narrows. Then anything left behind will be looking increasingly like a "toy" coin, and I doubt will live more than a year or so after that. There maybe some persisting microeconomy of new pump and dump alts, for people who still want to play at the cryptocurrency game, but the world is getting more serious. By the end of 2015 you might have to wear a shirt and tie to post here  

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins.

Yeah, mushrooming! More food for Honey BTCadger, he is a hungry little bastard

Nothing can stop the honeybadger when it’s hungry. Oh, what a crazy fuck.

[fat buddah]

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins. Particularly with that many problems btc has. Looks increasingly like a shitcoin with a community with just slighlty higher IQ and rethorical skills.

Bitcoin lost its untouchable status as you went off your holy exponential curve and you know it well.

Off topic... go back to the trollbox on BTC-e already. As far as I'm concerned couldn't care less about the price at this stage.

yes, "price is irrelevant" now