Fork off

[Flashman]

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.

[1714599521]

1714599521

[1714599521]

1714599521

[1714599521]

1714599521

[1714599521]

1714599521

[johnyj]

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]

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.

[danielpbarron]

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).

[doggieTattoo]

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)

[cbeast]

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!

[Lauda]

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?

[tvbcof]

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]

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]

...
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.

[cbeast]

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!

[smalltimer]

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.

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

Fuck you little prick

[cbeast]

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.

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.

[smalltimer]

guys, fuck you and your shit coin, seriously.

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

[tvbcof]

...
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]

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]

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.

[altcoin hitler]

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

[wang_yan]

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

"... Today Gavin posted on his personal blog an article titled "Looking before the Scaling Up Leap", stating "My goal is to prove that it is safe to raise the maximum block size from 1MB to at least 20MB" along with "I'll argue we should schedule a hard fork." Reddit soon blindly praised Gavin for his work, with comments such as "Fork it hard."

It appears as if Gavin will not give up unless his hard fork is a reality, and thus Mircea Popescu has made a declaration of war if Gavin proceeds with his plans. ..."

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

"... To make it perfectly clear : in no case will MPEx accept this fake Bitcoin, as it's not accepted any other fake Bitcoin to date, and for the exact reasons. Moreover, my budget to sink this scam exceeds the budget of everyone involved on the supporting side.vi That is all. ..."

So, Gavin, do you really want to lose little people their coins? Or could you just let it drop?

A fork, no matter hard or soft, would not be successful without >95% of miner's support. If Gavin's fork is really supported by 95% of miners, good luck to the 5% and MPEx: they will have a block every 200 minutes for 280 days, followed by a block every 50 minutes for 70 days, until they get back to normal speed.

But actually, block size could be increased without hardfork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 . It's just a bit cumbersome

I vote for this.

[johnyj]

It's good that we already had that unpreapared fork incident during 2013 so that we know more or less what will happen during such a scenario

The biggest limiting factor is network broadcasting time, with 1MB block it takes 1-2 minutes to broadcast the block to majority of the nodes. With 5MB block it will take almost 10 minutes to reach the far end of the network, which essentially segmented the whole network. Unless the average nodes have 1GB connection to internet, this is not going to work