Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2018, 02:40:00 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   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 37119 times)
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1318


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 02:45:56 AM
 #161

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

It's no big deal.

Yeah, it's no big deal. Until they send Pieter Wuille to make a thread telling us all what went wrong. lol

1537800001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537800001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537800001
Reply with quote  #2

1537800001
Report to moderator
1537800001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537800001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537800001
Reply with quote  #2

1537800001
Report to moderator
1537800001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537800001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537800001
Reply with quote  #2

1537800001
Report to moderator
Einax Airdrops and Bounties made easy! List your ERC-20 token
FREE
ETH markets launching soon!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1000


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 02:55:42 AM
 #162

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If the system works bad without larger block size (many transactions will get queued forever due to more and more transactions entering the queue), the first reaction from pools and farms will be reducing the payout transaction frequency, for example from 3 transactions per day to 1 large transaction per day. This will give the effect that equals to raising the block size by 3 times, and should be good for another couple of years. Merchants still need to process the transactions from buyers (They could use "Refill your bitcoin reserve and spend later" type of practice to reduce the real transactions happened on chain every day, but for consumer this is not convenient, unless there is a bonus for that reserve, and merchant becomes banks: Risk)

At mean time, the number of users will likely to increase at a speed of 2X per year, so the reducing of trade frequency can only delay the problem a little bit, not a permanent solution

My guess is that the 1MB block size limit will not be raised until 1GB bandwidth and 10TB hard drive has become the norm in average home





Flashman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500


Hodl!


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 03:01:15 AM
 #163

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If you haven't seen it already, you haven't been paying attention. Has happened temporarily a few times when luck has given us a cluster of 20 or 30 minute blocks during medium/heavy tx volume...  tx start getting backed up.

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.
johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1000


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 03:16:29 AM
 #164

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If you haven't seen it already, you haven't been paying attention. Has happened temporarily a few times when luck has given us a cluster of 20 or 30 minute blocks during medium/heavy tx volume...  tx start getting backed up.

No I didn't. But I guess that it is not yet a problem when they can be cleared in a hour or two. For small transactions, I don't care about confirmation, will just deliver the goods when seeing unconfirmed transaction. For larger transaction, wait one day is still faster than most of the bank transfer today

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 03:32:32 AM
 #165

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If you haven't seen it already, you haven't been paying attention. Has happened temporarily a few times when luck has given us a cluster of 20 or 30 minute blocks during medium/heavy tx volume...  tx start getting backed up.

No I didn't. But I guess that it is not yet a problem when they can be cleared in a hour or two. For small transactions, I don't care about confirmation, will just deliver the goods when seeing unconfirmed transaction. For larger transaction, wait one day is still faster than most of the bank transfer today
Someone gets away with a double spend because not enough blocks verify the transaction and you never hear the end of it, but miners getting behind and not doing their job and nobody says a word. You can bet the detractors would be using that if they were paying attention. It looks like the miners need this fork more than they know.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
January 12, 2015, 03:46:21 AM
 #166

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_.)



It's "dangerous" in the sense that you may want to insist on receiving equal amounts of mpcoin and gavincoin in exchange for your goods or services. That is, if you don't want to pick a side in this war. A transaction gets "tainted" in the sense that 1 bitcoin pre-fork becomes 1 mpcoin and 1 gavincoin post-fork; these two different coins stay together in one unspent output, in the same block. If you spend the output on either chain, anybody watching the network can broadcast it to the other chain (both see it as a valid unspent output sending funds to a valid address). The taint appears when the transaction is finally confirmed in both chains. It's in two different blocks instead of the same one (even if still sharing the same address).

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
doggieTattoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 03:59:24 AM
 #167

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If you haven't seen it already, you haven't been paying attention. Has happened temporarily a few times when luck has given us a cluster of 20 or 30 minute blocks during medium/heavy tx volume...  tx start getting backed up.

No I didn't. But I guess that it is not yet a problem when they can be cleared in a hour or two. For small transactions, I don't care about confirmation, will just deliver the goods when seeing unconfirmed transaction. For larger transaction, wait one day is still faster than most of the bank transfer today
If the long term average number of transactions per 10 minutes is greater then what the network can handle then the average wait time to get a confirmation will always increase until the max block size is either increased or the market evolves so that less transactions are sent per every 10 minutes (on average)

TIDEX ▬▬ .CRYPTO COINS AND ASSET TRADING. ▬▬ TIDEX
▬▬▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▰▬▬▰▰▬▬
NEW EXCHANGE   ZERO FEES
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 03:59:45 AM
 #168

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_.)



It's "dangerous" in the sense that you may want to insist on receiving equal amounts of mpcoin and gavincoin in exchange for your goods or services. That is, if you don't want to pick a side in this war. A transaction gets "tainted" in the sense that 1 bitcoin pre-fork becomes 1 mpcoin and 1 gavincoin post-fork; these two different coins stay together in one unspent output, in the same block. If you spend the output on either chain, anybody watching the network can broadcast it to the other chain (both see it as a valid unspent output sending funds to a valid address). The taint appears when the transaction is finally confirmed in both chains. It's in two different blocks instead of the same one (even if still sharing the same address).
I don't know about all that, but your website is hilarious!

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

Activity: 1974
Merit: 1600


GUNBOT Licenses up to 70% OFF - 'GrumpyKitty'.


View Profile WWW
January 12, 2015, 05:59:02 AM
 #169

This is one of the reasons why this should have been done in the past. Less people, less useless complaints.
I wonder what you will say when we start hitting our current limit?

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:27:31 AM
 #170

This is one of the reasons why this should have been done in the past. Less people, less useless complaints.
I wonder what you will say when we start hitting our current limit?

"Look!  Meaningful transaction fees after only 7 8 9 ? years."

But meaningful transaction fees probably won't happen at all unless the 'tbfcoin' bloatchain fork fails.  To many people are to attached to the quaint notion that indigents get stuff for free after growing up in and environment rife with public services and welfare and such.  Seems that nobody is more attached to this notion of deep subsidies for all than the ardent Libertarians around here.  Go figure?

---

BTW, I think that 'tbfcoin' is more appropriate (and effective and fun) than 'gavincoin'.  The Bitcoin Foundation funds the work and their upper-tier membership are the ones who benefit (or imagine that they will at least.)

Not so crazy about 'mpcoin' either, also for propaganda reasons.  Hopefully it will be just plain old 'bitcoin', but the victors write the history books.


smalltimer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:30:57 AM
 #171

LOL
You are out of control.

I don't know if gavin reads this but i think it's not such a good idea to destroy bitcoin in this way because it will be bad press for other crypto too.
I think the giga-blocks will be spammed massively by the oponents and all that's achieved from forking is:
you get two chains, newbe users aren't sure what the deal is, the gigachain will be spammed and massively bloated from the start, nobody knows who uses which chain.

A fork without consensus is practically creating chaos and will destroy bitcoin. Not that i would care too much because my holdings in litecoin, unobtanium and many other alts will explode in value from that.
Bitcoin market will crash because this situation will create massive unease with people.

Go ahead. Destroy it.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:39:07 AM
 #172

...
A fork without consensus is practically creating chaos and will destroy bitcoin.

Read Gavin's post including the comments. The fork will not happen without miners' explicitly signaling consensus by updating the version number in the blocks they create.


Not that i would care too much because my holdings in litecoin, unobtanium and many other alts will explode in value from that.
...

Oh. I see the problem. You're an idiot. Smiley

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: https://onchainfx.com
Frontpage of crypto: https://messari.io
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:41:06 AM
 #173

This is one of the reasons why this should have been done in the past. Less people, less useless complaints.
I wonder what you will say when we start hitting our current limit?

"Look!  Meaningful transaction fees after only 7 8 9 ? years."

But meaningful transaction fees probably won't happen at all unless the 'tbfcoin' bloatchain fork fails.  To many people are to attached to the quaint notion that indigents get stuff for free after growing up in and environment rife with public services and welfare and such.  Seems that nobody is more attached to this notion of deep subsidies for all than the ardent Libertarians around here.  Go figure?

---

BTW, I think that 'tbfcoin' is more appropriate (and effective and fun) than 'gavincoin'.  The Bitcoin Foundation funds the work and their upper-tier membership are the ones who benefit (or imagine that they will at least.)

Not so crazy about 'mpcoin' either, also for propaganda reasons.  Hopefully it will be just plain old 'bitcoin', but the victors write the history books.


There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
smalltimer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:44:15 AM
 #174



Not that i would care too much because my holdings in litecoin, unobtanium and many other alts will explode in value from that.
...

Oh. I see the problem. You're an idiot. Smiley


you call me an idiot? You want to see an idiot go off in your dumb face?

Fuck you little prick
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:45:33 AM
 #175



Not that i would care too much because my holdings in litecoin, unobtanium and many other alts will explode in value from that.
...

Oh. I see the problem. You're an idiot. Smiley


you call me an idiot? You want to see an idiot go off in your dumb face?
No thanks, You're mama told me all about it.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
smalltimer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
January 12, 2015, 06:47:13 AM
 #176

guys, fuck you and your shit coin, seriously.

You're gonna get sunk by the spam. You break consensus, you create trouble.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1005


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 07:00:44 AM
 #177

...
I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

I wonder about Multibit (which I don't and cannot use) and whether anyone using it would really know or care what was happening vis-a-vis forks and potential wars associated with them?  As I understand things the client just asks some random unknown someone for an spv proof and maybe verifies it with some headers or some such.  Would people running that client (most these days I would guess) even need to upgrade or push any buttons or anything?

I've always been negative about Multibit (and like things) because as far as I can tell they don't do jack shit to support the network other than increase the head-count of the herd.  When I was more interested in being peeved about it, I theorized that it might be used to more conveniently herd the sheep but I lost interest in trying to find out.  Now I'm more interested again.


Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1007

Newbie


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 07:21:33 AM
 #178

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.

You assume that miners are poor guys working for food. It's not our case. In Bitcoin they are rich and own other companies, they are the economic majority.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1000

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 07:40:52 AM
 #179

How does one respond to a declaration of war? Do you RSVP? Can you bring a date? Seriously, so tired of empty threats. Dumpers dump. Forkers fork. Hodlers hodl. Greed wins and there are miners waiting to take your place.  Honeybadger don't give a fuck.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
altcoin hitler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 12, 2015, 07:50:47 AM
 #180

pahaha. Your chain is going to get buttraped from left, right and behind.

King of the real Bitcoin Foundation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=934517.0
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!