Fork off

[balu2]

sidechains are the next stupid megalomaniac idea which endanger its useability for its main purpose by introducing more complexity. Has it even been tested in the wild on an altcoin?
This is such a megalomaniac fail-parade, unbelievable.
Bitcoiners are some serious nutcases.

You're aiming too high all the time. Bitcoin as the only coin and alts as scam-only to support bitcoins #1 position is going to backfire royally.

Bitcoin with its idea to be unaccompanied world #1 coin forever is nothing that's possible. The idea alone warrants to see a doctor for mental examination.

Right now bitcoin stifles innovation and endangers all of crypto to fail with the way it behaves. You got some serious homework on diversity and innovation outside of the btc blockchain to do.

#justsayin'

It's pretty much screwed from the beginning with this longterm high inflation. Bitcoin meets the same fate as most shitcoins: looses 99% of value - but not because it  wouldn't be possible to have a coin that can maintain value but because satoshi designed it inflationary and inflation never was a good thing. It's just a destuctive force on the market, nothing else. Observe the scarce coins. They found their bottom after the bubble mid last year while bitcoin has no bottom apparently.

I think i'm not the only one exteremely unhappy and annoyed with this arrogant bitcoin-folks, the know-it-alls on the quest for worlddomination on first try while it's actually falling like a rock right in front of you. There's some serious imbalance between peoples perception, wishes, dreams and reality. This whole fork and sidechains-discussion just shows how detached everyone is from reality.

[neurotypical]

Bitcoin can be hi-jacked by a simple majority?  

The ALT coins can fork.  

But once a crypto is past the age of 4.  Or $10m in marketcap.
No you do not fork.

Bitcoin the only value it has against the ALTs is that it will not fork, because it is impossible to establish a 99% consensus.  

Want a better 'bitcoin' make one
Launch it on the market.  

Hell give a snap shot distribution to the bitcoin holders.

Let the market, not a group of devs decide.

In case you didn't know, bitcoin is still in beta and a work in progress that needs to scale. It doesn't matter if bitcoin is more than 4 years old or more than $10M in maketcap. If a fork is required then be it.

I agree with BitcoinNational. Forking now would not be beneficial imo... it would show BTC is not as solid as it should be. But on the same time, you are right that if it makes sense to fork then why not. It's a true dilemma.

[cr1776]

A 'sidechains' scenario with Bitcoin freezing in it's current tight and defensible form offers me the best of all worlds.  I can use spy-chains when I don't care, spy-less chains when I do, micro-payment chains when I want to tip someone, and current defensible Bitcoin as a trusted deep-storage solution.

When will sidechains be ready for use?  

at least 1-3 years.

I guess we have to define "ready for use". E.g. federated peg, spv peg, or snark peg?  Or something else later.

Otherwise the answers will vary as above. :-)

Edit:
See eg. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=905243.0

[tvbcof]

Not against changing increasing the max block size. But sidechains, wtf do we need them for?

To do any number of mutually exclusive tasks that Bitcoin cannot do natively.  Examples: increase block frequency, allow effectively unlimited transaction volumes for micro-transactions, be legally compliant with regulators, NOT be legally compliant with regulators, be transparent, be opaque, be lossy, be loss-less, etc, etc.

With a two-way peg (which works as advertised) it is economically valid to consider a sidechain currency to BE Bitcoin.

Yet another win is that it would allow Bitcoin to freeze (or 'slush' as we call it) in a state that is still largely free of corruption and not yet centralized beyond salvation.

Yet another win is that as I've shown on other threads, POW mining in Bitcoin-land is guaranteed to be an eventual money loser for all but the biggest players who can tap other revenue streams most of which are to the detriment of the user (and to the advantage of Big Bro.)  This due to unlimited supply of mining gear and where the integration ends up.  We've already seen in several times IIRC, and there is zero reason to suspect that we won't see it again.  Sidechains themselves MUST support Bitcoin since they are backed by it no matter what the economics.

To my way of thinking sidechains are the biggest win/win 'in the history of mankind' (to use an absurd quote from the re-finance commercial.)

 edit: typo: Bit Bro  -->  Big Bro

[Flashman]

sidechains are the next stupid megalomaniac idea which endanger its useability for its main purpose by introducing more complexity. Has it even been tested in the wild on an altcoin?
This is such a megalomaniac fail-parade, unbelievable.
Bitcoiners are some serious nutcases.

You're aiming too high all the time. Bitcoin as the only coin and alts as scam-only to support bitcoins #1 position is going to backfire royally.

Bitcoin with its idea to be unaccompanied world #1 coin forever is nothing that's possible. The idea alone warrants to see a doctor for mental examination.

Right now bitcoin stifles innovation and endangers all of crypto to fail with the way it behaves. You got some serious homework on diversity and innovation outside of the btc blockchain to do.

#justsayin'

It's pretty much screwed from the beginning with this longterm high inflation. Bitcoin meets the same fate as most shitcoins: looses 99% of value - but not because it  wouldn't be possible to have a coin that can maintain value but because satoshi designed it inflationary and inflation never was a good thing. It's just a destuctive force on the market, nothing else. Observe the scarce coins. They found their bottom after the bubble mid last year while bitcoin has no bottom apparently.

I think i'm not the only one exteremely unhappy and annoyed with this arrogant bitcoin-folks, the know-it-alls on the quest for worlddomination on first try while it's actually falling like a rock right in front of you. There's some serious imbalance between peoples perception, wishes, dreams and reality. This whole fork and sidechains-discussion just shows how detached everyone is from reality.

I'm not managing to filter a coherent "position" out of your posts.... "It's all broken anyway, it's failing, please don't fix it, I hate it, but I don't want it to change, I want money that's useful everywhere but I don't want universal money..."

[balu2]

sidechains are the next stupid megalomaniac idea which endanger its useability for its main purpose by introducing more complexity. Has it even been tested in the wild on an altcoin?
This is such a megalomaniac fail-parade, unbelievable.
Bitcoiners are some serious nutcases.

You're aiming too high all the time. Bitcoin as the only coin and alts as scam-only to support bitcoins #1 position is going to backfire royally.

Bitcoin with its idea to be unaccompanied world #1 coin forever is nothing that's possible. The idea alone warrants to see a doctor for mental examination.

Right now bitcoin stifles innovation and endangers all of crypto to fail with the way it behaves. You got some serious homework on diversity and innovation outside of the btc blockchain to do.

#justsayin'

It's pretty much screwed from the beginning with this longterm high inflation. Bitcoin meets the same fate as most shitcoins: looses 99% of value - but not because it  wouldn't be possible to have a coin that can maintain value but because satoshi designed it inflationary and inflation never was a good thing. It's just a destuctive force on the market, nothing else. Observe the scarce coins. They found their bottom after the bubble mid last year while bitcoin has no bottom apparently.

I think i'm not the only one exteremely unhappy and annoyed with this arrogant bitcoin-folks, the know-it-alls on the quest for worlddomination on first try while it's actually falling like a rock right in front of you. There's some serious imbalance between peoples perception, wishes, dreams and reality. This whole fork and sidechains-discussion just shows how detached everyone is from reality.

I'm not managing to filter a coherent "position" out of your posts.... "It's all broken anyway, it's failing, please don't fix it, I hate it, but I don't want it to change, I want money that's useful everywhere but I don't want universal money..."

Fix your inflation problem first is my point. And stop acting as if bitcoin would be a sure thing to take over the world. And then there's enough real value alts can provide which is denied too.

So that's the point. Bitcoin stifles innovation and diversity while being unable to even survive itself.
All your problems start with your high inflation and long halvings. The problems continue to pile up with your idea of bitcoin being the only true coin. You get caught in a lot of problems with this philosophy.

So #1 problem: inflation
#2 problem: philosophy of the whole thing

you're discussing forks to bloat the chain to avoid a problem that did not even occure and likely never will. You lost touch with reality.
Selloff after selloff after one year bearmarket. It collapses right in front of you but you idiots discuss a fork to bloat the chain because of a pseudo-problem which doesn't occure for many reasons - of which the main one is: it's collapsing


edit: ... wait a second ... i  totally forgot everyone is corrupt by the bags they hold and lost ability to think clear because of that. lmao. A circus of greed. Epic failtrain.

(i'll shut up now and leave the discussion and watch you know-it-alls from a distance)

[jonald_fyookball]

@tvbcof 2 way peg requires hard fork too, no?  would appreciate response to my prior question about how sidechains address storage.

[QuestionAuthority]

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?

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

[tvbcof]

@tvbcof 2 way peg requires hard fork too, no?  would appreciate response to my prior question about how sidechains address storage.

No.  At best a soft fork to implement the spv_verify opcode.  It would not be necessary, strictly speaking, and the opcode is just a generally useful thing that many disparate efforts could possibly use to invent or optimize whatever interests them.

As for storage, some chains would certainly bloat.  I don't care about them.  If I happen to be using one which does so in a way that I consider problematic in the role I'm using it for, I'll simply deprecate my use of it and move on to something else.

The only thing I care deeply about is the actual Bitcoin core.  If it bloats to the point where it is not likely that it could be supported in a manner which is suitable in worst-case scenarios, then Bitcoin is a vastly less interesting thing to me.

We really only need one solid defensible core.  I hope this ends up being Bitcoin, and feel that it is not yet to late.  Individual sidechains are dispensable.  I only need one carefully protected basket because the eggs I have in other baskets can be low in count.  And most properly implemented sidechains would not result in the few eggs breaking anyway...just jumping back into my Bitcoin basket before impact.

[newIndia]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

[QuestionAuthority]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

That's my point. Before you kick a sleeping tiger that has no teeth make sure you can see his gums.

[newIndia]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

That's my point. Before you kick a sleeping tiger that has no teeth make sure you can see his gums.

We have previously seen that this guy, Mircea Popescu, do have some deep pocket...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/20/openbsd_bailed_out/

But I doubt, whether he'll be able to fight against the venture capitalists those have walked into the bitcoin game in 2014, e.g. Tim Draper. To these people Gavin's word is most probably more valuable and I guess, the future of Bitcoin core is ultimately in the hand of The Bitcoin Foundation. So, if Gavin can convince them, it is very difficult to resist it from outside.

At the end of the day, we need to see, who is speaking logical.

[QuestionAuthority]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

That's my point. Before you kick a sleeping tiger that has no teeth make sure you can see his gums.

We have previously seen that this guy, Mircea Popescu, do have some deep pocket...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/20/openbsd_bailed_out/

But I doubt, whether he'll be able to fight against the venture capitalists those have walked into the bitcoin game in 2014, e.g. Tim Draper. To these people Gavin's word is most probably more valuable and I guess, the future of Bitcoin core is ultimately in the hand of The Bitcoin Foundation. So, if Gavin can convince them, it is very difficult to resist it from outside.

At the end of the day, we need to see, who is speaking logical.

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork. Clout doesn't matter as much as mining power does. Who will follow the new chain?

[newIndia]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

That's my point. Before you kick a sleeping tiger that has no teeth make sure you can see his gums.

We have previously seen that this guy, Mircea Popescu, do have some deep pocket...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/20/openbsd_bailed_out/

But I doubt, whether he'll be able to fight against the venture capitalists those have walked into the bitcoin game in 2014, e.g. Tim Draper. To these people Gavin's word is most probably more valuable and I guess, the future of Bitcoin core is ultimately in the hand of The Bitcoin Foundation. So, if Gavin can convince them, it is very difficult to resist it from outside.

At the end of the day, we need to see, who is speaking logical.

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork. Clout doesn't matter as much as mining power does. Who will follow the new chain?

Oops... am I having a conceptual problem here ? As I understand, hard fork is more about nodes than it is about the miners. Unless, there are some new mining rules coming in, miners do not probably have much to say. It will depend on the mempool of the nodes, which will decide which tx will be accepted and which not + which block found by the miners to be relayed and which not.... again I am confused. Am I wrong ?

[QuestionAuthority]

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?

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

Few months ago CEX.io CIO Jeffrey Smith expressed concern about the origin of this unknown hash rate. The interview below...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvMQeCl9K-U

That's my point. Before you kick a sleeping tiger that has no teeth make sure you can see his gums.

We have previously seen that this guy, Mircea Popescu, do have some deep pocket...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/20/openbsd_bailed_out/

But I doubt, whether he'll be able to fight against the venture capitalists those have walked into the bitcoin game in 2014, e.g. Tim Draper. To these people Gavin's word is most probably more valuable and I guess, the future of Bitcoin core is ultimately in the hand of The Bitcoin Foundation. So, if Gavin can convince them, it is very difficult to resist it from outside.

At the end of the day, we need to see, who is speaking logical.

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork. Clout doesn't matter as much as mining power does. Who will follow the new chain?

Oops... am I having a conceptual problem here ? As I understand, hard fork is more about nodes than it is about the miners. Unless, there are some new mining rules coming in, miners do not probably have much to say. It will depend on the mempool of the nodes, which will decide which tx will be accepted and which not + which block found by the miners to be relayed and which not.... again I am confused. Am I wrong ?

You're right nodes matter. But the miners will need to accept the new fork and work off of it. There can't be two databases to work from. You should listen in to the chatter that happens on IRC during a fork. It's pretty funny and panic filled.

[Flashman]

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.

[QuestionAuthority]

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.

lol Yeah, the urgent ones are the best entertainment value.

[danielpbarron]

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).

[bitcreditscc]

Whichever way it goes, it's gonna be hilarious.

[tvbcof]

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).

Oh Ya.  I always build from source and can patch and deploy in a matter of seconds.  If we kill it trying to save it, oh well...I took my fair share at 100x a long time ago.  Much more than my fair share actually.  Hard fork?  Bring it, bitch.