Bitcoin Forum
July 18, 2018, 11:36:48 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Fork off  (Read 37110 times)
colinistheman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 11, 2015, 08:41:36 PM
 #141

And there is most certainly an affected market when you manipulate block sizes! You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.
Block size =/= block size limit.
Okay you obviously are smarter than Gavin.  Roll Eyes

I think the thing to do is to click "ignore danielpbarron."

And that's just what I have done.
Ahh, problem solved.
I seriously encourage all who disagree with him to follow suit.

If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

Smart move.

No, dumb move.

If there is internecine warfare associated with a fork there will likely be a transfer of wealth (and most likely significant and with potential fatal losses on both sides.)  If you close off your view to one side of the war and only listen to your leaders, you are a but a foot soldier and pawn and have a much greater chance of ending up a casualty.  But censorship seems to be your thing and something you argue for daily, and it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks...even if one cares to try.  Only those more stupid than yourself will take your advice and suffer your same fate.

I think it's a smart move to block him. I disagree with what he's saying. I decided on my opinion for myself after hearing the arguments from both sides. His was insanity (in my opinion). So I'm on the side opposing him (and you too apparently), that's all.

If a lunatic is shouting things at me in the street I don't necessarily listen to him either. That's a bit more of an extreme example than in this case, but serves to illustrate my point.

Look how sensitive you are to the simple blocking of him. That alone goes to show the power of this point: If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening.

The whelping has begun already.
1531913808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531913808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531913808
Reply with quote  #2

1531913808
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531913808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531913808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531913808
Reply with quote  #2

1531913808
Report to moderator
1531913808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531913808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531913808
Reply with quote  #2

1531913808
Report to moderator
1531913808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531913808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531913808
Reply with quote  #2

1531913808
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1004


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 09:07:47 PM
 #142


I think it's a smart move to block him. I disagree with what he's saying. I decided on my opinion for myself after hearing the arguments from both sides. His was insanity (in my opinion). So I'm on the side opposing him (and you too apparently), that's all.

If a raving lunatic is shouting things at me in the street I don't necessarily listen to him either. That's a bit more of an extreme example than in this case, but serves to illustrate my point.

Look how sensitive you are to my simple blocking of him. It just goes to prove my point: If no one is listening to him then that cuts his "power" to argue insanities, as no one will be listening. The whelping has begun already.

You cannot read what someone writes without necessarily adopting their position?

I dis-agree with almost everything some people here write but I read their work intently.  This is the case for some people who have some chance of being influential at least.  Most participants here are pretty safe and easy to simply ignore, but I've never been tempted to leverage ignore function in order to achieve this.  If it helps a guy, god bless.

Anyway, the chances of effective censorship here are next to nill.  It is entirely unlikely that no one will be listening to the opinions of certain people, and MP is one of these.  Even if he is all hat and no cattle, he is colorful enough to where most people will be reading his (or his sock puppet's) stuff whether you and a handful of others are not.


Anduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1171
Merit: 1003


quack


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 09:59:54 PM
 #143

This text, as I see it, has a lot errors. Poor.

Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 10:37:09 PM
 #144

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork.

And miners are essentially paid employees/contractors.

The Economic Majority is who the miners work for: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Now what isn't being appreciated is exactly how risky it is to miners to adopt changes that have the potential to put them mining on the wrong side of a fork.

Let's say you run an exchange (e.g., BitStamp), hosted (shared) E-Wallet (e.g., Coinapult), or merchant processor (e.g., BitPay).    If you start accepting bitcoins from miners (which become spendable after 100 confirmations) then you are taking on the entire risk of loss if the proposed fork fails to maintain the lead.   So maybe to protect against that risk you reject any deposits or purchases that include coins that are tainted from post-fork coinbases.  That immediately kills fungibility.  The miners won't want to take on the full risk themselves and begin to dump their newly mined post-fork coins at a discount.  Pretty soon the unchanged side of the blockchain fork gains hashing power and begins to snowball.  The writing is then on the wall.  Maybe 24 or 48 hours later, the proposed fork that initially had "wide support" is no longer the longest chain.

Now when that happens you have havoc wreaked because certainly this was an outcome that some fraudsters were hoping for and the two sides look nothing alike -- with many, many coins spent differently between the two sides of the fork.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bigger blocksize.  I'm just pointing out that a hard fork will require a huge collective leap of faith -- and even this sole promise of dissent might be sufficient to torpedo that forking effort.
newIndia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442
Merit: 1003


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 10:47:11 PM
 #145

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork.

And miners are essentially paid employees/contractors.

The Economic Majority is who the miners work for: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Now what isn't being appreciated is exactly how risky it is to miners to adopt changes that have the potential to put them mining on the wrong side of a fork.

Let's say you run an exchange (e.g., BitStamp), hosted (shared) E-Wallet (e.g., Coinapult), or merchant processor (e.g., BitPay).    If you start accepting bitcoins from miners (which become spendable after 100 confirmations) then you are taking on the entire risk of loss if the proposed fork fails to maintain the lead.   So maybe to protect against that risk you reject any deposits or purchases that include coins that are tainted from post-fork coinbases.  That immediately kills fungibility.  The miners won't want to take on the risk themselves and begin to dump them at a discount.  Pretty soon the unchanged blockchain gains hashing power and begins to snowball.  The writing is then on the wall.  Maybe 24 or 48 hours later, the proposed fork which had "wide support" is no longer the longest chain.

Now when that happens you have havoc wreaked because certainly this was an outcome that some fraudsters were hoping for and the two chains look nothing alike -- with many, many coins spent differently between the two sides of the fork.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bigger blocksize.  I'm just pointing out that a hard fork will require a huge collective leap of faith -- and even this sole promise of dissent might be sufficient to torpedo that forking effort.

I have a few Qs...

1. Even If all miners accept the fork, can it sustain unless majority of nodes do not update themselves ?

2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1315


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 10:56:43 PM
 #146

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork.

And miners are essentially paid employees/contractors.

The Economic Majority is who the miners work for: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Now what isn't being appreciated is exactly how risky it is to miners to adopt changes that have the potential to put them mining on the wrong side of a fork.

Let's say you run an exchange (e.g., BitStamp), hosted (shared) E-Wallet (e.g., Coinapult), or merchant processor (e.g., BitPay).    If you start accepting bitcoins from miners (which become spendable after 100 confirmations) then you are taking on the entire risk of loss if the proposed fork fails to maintain the lead.   So maybe to protect against that risk you reject any deposits or purchases that include coins that are tainted from post-fork coinbases.  That immediately kills fungibility.  The miners won't want to take on the full risk themselves and begin to dump their newly mined post-fork coins at a discount.  Pretty soon the unchanged side of the blockchain fork gains hashing power and begins to snowball.  The writing is then on the wall.  Maybe 24 or 48 hours later, the proposed fork that initially had "wide support" is no longer the longest chain.

Now when that happens you have havoc wreaked because certainly this was an outcome that some fraudsters were hoping for and the two chains look nothing alike -- with many, many coins spent differently between the two sides of the fork.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bigger blocksize.  I'm just pointing out that a hard fork will require a huge collective leap of faith -- and even this sole promise of dissent might be sufficient to torpedo that forking effort.

I was thinking more about the opposite direction. For the sake of argument let's say MP owns all of the unknown hash rate and 35% of the known. He has no intention of upgrading and there ends up being two legitimate bitcoin chains. What do you suppose the outcome of that would be? A lot of money lost I'm sure. Just as Slush and eleuthria lost money during the .7 to .8 upgrade someone else would too. But that was fixed quickly by the dev team in a rather frenzied session of downgrading and damage control. What would happen if half of the current mining power decided not to cooperate?

Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 11:08:43 PM
 #147

I have a few Qs...

1. Even If all miners accept the fork, can it sustain unless majority of nodes do not update themselves ?

On the technical side, you only need enough nodes using the software that implements the hard-fork to ensure that post-fork blocks get propagated.  But even if *nearly* all miners accept the fork, even if you only had something like 10% still hashing without the changes implemented you'ld still get a block every two hours -- frequently enough to include most high-value and high-fee transactions.   [Edit: (i.e., sustainable for anyone using a node without the hard-fork changes).]

2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
January 11, 2015, 11:19:00 PM
 #148

I have a few Qs...

1. Even If all miners accept the fork, can it sustain unless majority of nodes do not update themselves ?

On the technical side, you only need enough nodes using the software that implements the hard-fork to ensure that post-fork blocks get propagated.  But even if *nearly* all miners accept the fork, even if you only had something like 10% still hashing without the changes implemented you'ld still get a block every two hours -- frequently enough to include most high-value and high-fee transactions.

2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.

Here's another way to go about it:

It should be possible to create two transactions that each spend the same output, each into different addresses, and broadcast one to each of the two chains. Then you can safely deposit your real bitcoin into MPEx or some other sane service provider, and send your gavincoins into whatever exchange is stupid enough to honor them. Here's the really neat part: you could then withdraw the "bitcoin" and see if the exchange foolishly sends your funds from an output that hasn't been pre-split. If they did, split the real bitcoin out, rinse, and repeat.

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork.

And miners are essentially paid employees/contractors.

The Economic Majority is who the miners work for: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Now what isn't being appreciated is exactly how risky it is to miners to adopt changes that have the potential to put them mining on the wrong side of a fork.

Let's say you run an exchange (e.g., BitStamp), hosted (shared) E-Wallet (e.g., Coinapult), or merchant processor (e.g., BitPay).    If you start accepting bitcoins from miners (which become spendable after 100 confirmations) then you are taking on the entire risk of loss if the proposed fork fails to maintain the lead.   So maybe to protect against that risk you reject any deposits or purchases that include coins that are tainted from post-fork coinbases.  That immediately kills fungibility.  The miners won't want to take on the full risk themselves and begin to dump their newly mined post-fork coins at a discount.  Pretty soon the unchanged side of the blockchain fork gains hashing power and begins to snowball.  The writing is then on the wall.  Maybe 24 or 48 hours later, the proposed fork that initially had "wide support" is no longer the longest chain.

Now when that happens you have havoc wreaked because certainly this was an outcome that some fraudsters were hoping for and the two chains look nothing alike -- with many, many coins spent differently between the two sides of the fork.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bigger blocksize.  I'm just pointing out that a hard fork will require a huge collective leap of faith -- and even this sole promise of dissent might be sufficient to torpedo that forking effort.

I was thinking more about the opposite direction. For the sake of argument let's say MP owns all of the unknown hash rate and 35% of the known. He has no intention of upgrading and there ends up being two legitimate bitcoin chains. What do you suppose the outcome of that would be? A lot of money lost I'm sure. Just as Slush and eleuthria lost money during the .7 to .8 upgrade someone else would too. But that was fixed quickly by the dev team in a rather frenzied session of downgrading and damage control. What would happen if half of the current mining power decided not to cooperate?

If the fork actually happens, this is gonna get settled the way most things usually do. Through betting. If you're not the betting type, just make sure you have the private keys to your funds, and don't spend them until the dust settles. If you are the betting type, split your coins; sell one, buy the other.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
Flashman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Hodl!


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 11:25:38 PM
 #149

I have a few Qs...

1. Even If all miners accept the fork, can it sustain unless majority of nodes do not update themselves ?

On the technical side, you only need enough nodes using the software that implements the hard-fork to ensure that post-fork blocks get propagated.  But even if *nearly* all miners accept the fork, even if you only had something like 10% still hashing without the changes implemented you'ld still get a block every two hours -- frequently enough to include most high-value and high-fee transactions.


Nice, then everyone is happy, bitcoin remains useful, MPCoin is for 1,000 MPCoin txes with insanely high fees.

TL;DR See Spot run. Run Spot run. .... .... Freelance interweb comedian, for teh lulz >>> 1MqAAR4XkJWfDt367hVTv5SstPZ54Fwse6

Bitcoin Custodian: Keeping BTC away from weak heads since Feb '13, adopter of homeless bitcoins.
GermanGiant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


“EON PROTOCOL (EOT)”


View Profile
January 11, 2015, 11:39:38 PM
 #150


2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.

Looks like the after fork situation is like a mining war Wink

▐███▄      ██████▄▄
 ▐████▄       ▀▀▀████▄
  ▐█████▄          ▀███▄
  ▐██▀████▄          ▀███
  ███  ▀████▄          ███
 ▐██     ▀████▄         ███
 ██▌       ▀████▄       ▐██▌
 ▐██         ▀████▄     ███
  ███          ▀████▄  ▐██▌
   ███▄          ▀████▄███
    ▀███▄          ▀█████▌
      ▀████▄▄▄       ▀████
         ▀▀██████      ▀███▌
EON████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █

    FIRST DECENTRALIZED GAME NETWORK  
▬▬▬▬ ││   REDDIT   ││   TELEGRAM   ││   TWITTER   ││   MEDIUM    ││▬▬▬▬
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
████  █
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 12:13:45 AM
 #151


2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.

Looks like the after fork situation is like a mining war Wink
Devs, Miners, Traders: they are the three branches of Bitcoin Government. They check and balance each other. Traders and miners have ruled too long. Their power is waning. It's time for devs to bring hope and change to the Bitcoin community. Then we can come back stronger.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 12:15:24 AM
 #152


2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.

Looks like the after fork situation is like a mining war Wink
Devs, Miners, Traders: they are the three branches of Bitcoin Government. They check and balance each other. Traders and miners have ruled too long. Their power is waning. It's time for devs to bring hope and change to the Bitcoin community. Then we can come back stronger.

Have you looked at the hash rate chart lately... I don't see the miners conceding any power.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1004


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 12:19:16 AM
 #153

Control of Bitcoin rests in the hands of miners when you're talking about a chain fork.

And miners are essentially paid employees/contractors.

The Economic Majority is who the miners work for: http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Now what isn't being appreciated is exactly how risky it is to miners to adopt changes that have the potential to put them mining on the wrong side of a fork.

Let's say you run an exchange (e.g., BitStamp), hosted (shared) E-Wallet (e.g., Coinapult), or merchant processor (e.g., BitPay).    If you start accepting bitcoins from miners (which become spendable after 100 confirmations) then you are taking on the entire risk of loss if the proposed fork fails to maintain the lead.   So maybe to protect against that risk you reject any deposits or purchases that include coins that are tainted from post-fork coinbases.  That immediately kills fungibility.  The miners won't want to take on the full risk themselves and begin to dump their newly mined post-fork coins at a discount.  Pretty soon the unchanged side of the blockchain fork gains hashing power and begins to snowball.  The writing is then on the wall.  Maybe 24 or 48 hours later, the proposed fork that initially had "wide support" is no longer the longest chain.

Now when that happens you have havoc wreaked because certainly this was an outcome that some fraudsters were hoping for and the two sides look nothing alike -- with many, many coins spent differently between the two sides of the fork.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bigger blocksize.  I'm just pointing out that a hard fork will require a huge collective leap of faith -- and even this sole promise of dissent might be sufficient to torpedo that forking effort.

I'm not sure I go along with this thesis which strikes me as a little simplistic in this day and age.

Firstly it assumes that miners are driven to much by economics and to little by politics than is probably true.  I'm sure that most of the miners who count these days have every likelihoods of looking out days or weeks into the future and taking a monetary hit for a future enduring reward.  That is, keeping the system operating in a way which benefits them...whatever that might be.  But wait, there's more...

For a long time now it has occurred to me that sitting on a pile of BTC is a very good proxy for mining, and that is even more the case if miners cannot see more than a few feet in front of them.  It would be trivial for someone with BTC to simply buy the coinbase for 100-on-the-dollar (so to speak) and eliminate the risk to a miner of mining the wrong chain.  Many of whales got involved at about the time when a days worth of mining (at the 50 BTC coinbase) cost an average coder two weeks of wages or less, so it is pretty certain that there are people with the resources to keep an arbitrary chain going for some time.

Thirdly, I would be highly surprised not to see some entities having bizarre network, power, and legal problems at an inopportune time should a war break out at this phase of the game.  Bitcoin has enough potential at this point that various tangential actors (state, corporate, etc) might have a significant interest in the outcome.  Just a guess on my part.


cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 12:39:48 AM
 #154


2. If all miners do not accept the fork, then there will probably be 2 blockchains for some time. At that period of time, wont all coins be spendable twice on 2 different chain ?

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.    I personallly will not have a single millibit remaining on any exchange or e-wallet at the time of the fork if there is any hint of dissent like this.  I will only accept payment transactions that confirm on both sides, ... which can only happen if the transaction had no UTXOs tainted with post-fork coinbases.   Maybe after a week or two and there's essentially nobody remaining mining the original side of the fork will I be willing to accept post-fork coins.

Looks like the after fork situation is like a mining war Wink
Devs, Miners, Traders: they are the three branches of Bitcoin Government. They check and balance each other. Traders and miners have ruled too long. Their power is waning. It's time for devs to bring hope and change to the Bitcoin community. Then we can come back stronger.

Have you looked at the hash rate chart lately... I don't see the miners conceding any power.
Hash rate is declining, but sales and development of mining equipment is falling faster. There is a lag, but the loss of investment in new equipment leads to mining consolidation. Hash rate is declining and will continue to do so with falling price due to traders. Any political posturing by miners is an empty threat because they only hurt themselves. New development will bring the long term traders back along with new mining competition and decentralization.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1005


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 01:04:19 AM
 #155

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.  

If you are on one fork then you wouldn't even see txns using coninbase inputs from the other fork.   Your fork would simply see the txns as invalid no different then if someone right now made up a bogus input (or a coinbase with 100,000 BTC reward) and tried to send you imaginary bitcoins.  Invalid is invalid.
Flashman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Hodl!


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 01:45:45 AM
 #156

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.   

If you are on one fork then you wouldn't even see txns using coninbase inputs from the other fork.   Your fork would simply see the txns as invalid no different then if someone right now made upa bogus input and tried to send you imaginary bitcoins.

Shhh, MP thinks different LOL

TL;DR See Spot run. Run Spot run. .... .... Freelance interweb comedian, for teh lulz >>> 1MqAAR4XkJWfDt367hVTv5SstPZ54Fwse6

Bitcoin Custodian: Keeping BTC away from weak heads since Feb '13, adopter of homeless bitcoins.
cr1776
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 01:50:10 AM
 #157

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.   

If you are on one fork then you wouldn't even see txns using coninbase inputs from the other fork.   Your fork would simply see the txns as invalid no different then if someone right now made upa bogus input and tried to send you imaginary bitcoins.

Shhh, MP thinks different LOL

It is somewhat humorous that he doesn't understand that.
oblivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 02:10:01 AM
 #158

The debate is getting pretty headed about the fork.. I thought we would be able to achieve a consensus for Bitcoin's sake.

..C..
.....................
........What is C?.........
..............
...........ICO            Dec 1st – Dec 30th............
       ............Open            Dec 1st- Dec 30th............
...................ANN thread      Bounty....................

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1004


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 02:16:10 AM
 #159

Yes, that's why it will be so dangerous to accept payments from anyone that includes coins tainted with post-fork coinbases.  

If you are on one fork then you wouldn't even see txns using coninbase inputs from the other fork.   Your fork would simply see the txns as invalid no different then if someone right now made up a bogus input (or a coinbase with 100,000 BTC reward) and tried to send you imaginary bitcoins.  Invalid is invalid.

My read of Gornick's sentence is that tainting would happen on a particular chain.  That is to say, and transaction containing a coinbase input or derivative thereof (post-fork) on the same chain would be considered 'tainted' (and destroy fungibility _on that chain_.)


flyup
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 18
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 02:31:36 AM
 #160

We've already handled a fork years ago... when changing database cores.

It's no big deal.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!