Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[cbeast]

Apologies for thinking you were in that camp originally defending MP. ...

I'm pretty independent.  I've been reading the bitcoin-assets stuff and would say that some of my conceptions are a startling mirror of what they are up to so it would be fair to consider me 'in their camp'.  I don't know what the MP crew's actual driving motivations are so I cannot really go to bat for them.  I like what I see though.

Actually, in my mind the union of a defensible Bitcoin backing healthy sidechains ecosystem is where I really see value.  I've got nothing to do with the Blockstream guys either, but it would be even more appropriate to consider me as 'in their camp'.  Again, it's really the symbiosis of the two efforts where I really see a future worth working towards.  Success of either effort is a positive, but the combination would be, in my mind, a home run and may be tenable.

What makes you think side chains are real? They have all the earmarks of a vaporware funding scam. They have no analogy in other commodities or services. Immutable pegging can't exist in the real world because there is no logic to it. Supply and demand is decentralized and real, pegging is a unicorn. Nothing in real life is truly two-way pegged. Government made pegs are always broken.

[tvbcof]

...
" blockchain pruning " solutions are already being worked out to fix the storage issue
...

Wow!  So soon?  I figured we'd have to wait for Gavin to get his talking paperclip on the third GUI before such trivialities as blockchain pruning was considered. 

Anyway, wake me up when that happens.  (Or don't...bulk storage never was one of the real problems here anyway...it's just something that almost everyone can understand...the proverbial 'bikeshed'.)

[Chicago]

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

[tokeweed]

i think it's time to accept and use other projects like ripple, stellar, open transactions, etc...  to complement BTC and start doing transactions off the blockchain.  

[tvbcof]

Apologies for thinking you were in that camp originally defending MP. ...

I'm pretty independent.  I've been reading the bitcoin-assets stuff and would say that some of my conceptions are a startling mirror of what they are up to so it would be fair to consider me 'in their camp'.  I don't know what the MP crew's actual driving motivations are so I cannot really go to bat for them.  I like what I see though.

Actually, in my mind the union of a defensible Bitcoin backing healthy sidechains ecosystem is where I really see value.  I've got nothing to do with the Blockstream guys either, but it would be even more appropriate to consider me as 'in their camp'.  Again, it's really the symbiosis of the two efforts where I really see a future worth working towards.  Success of either effort is a positive, but the combination would be, in my mind, a home run and may be tenable.

What makes you think side chains are real? They have all the earmarks of a vaporware funding scam. They have no analogy in other commodities or services. Immutable pegging can't exist in the real world because there is no logic to it. Supply and demand is decentralized and real, pegging is a unicorn. Nothing in real life is truly two-way pegged. Government made pegs are always broken.

First and foremost, I have developed a great deal of confidence in certain of the more visible (and less visible) people involved over the years.  Maxwell, Wuille, and Back in particular, but also most of the others that I know of.  And, unlike most of the multitude of other efforts, I already trust these very people with my Bitcoin value anyway.  They are, after all, Bitcoin core contributors and among the most prolific.

Secondly, the basic idea of sidechains hit me right away.  Actually, the lack of realistic scaling and inefficiency of transaction flooding hit me as I was reading the whitepaper and as I thought about a solution, the general idea of subordinate chains was one of the first thing I imagined.

Thirdly, there is little reason that I see why they could not be made to work, and integrated into the native Bitcoin ecosystem safely and easily (unlike 'treechains' which I like even better.)  The general principles of the combination of mathematical soundness and open-source which make Bitcoin work are equally applicable (potentially) to the two-way-peg.  I doubt that it will be rocket science, or even especially complex.  And it won't be some corner-case effort with code that nobody is looking at.

[tvbcof]

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

Really?  I was amazed (and delighted) that the 'anti' crowd got over 20% given the amplitude and efforts in the opposite direction.

There is a suggestion that there is a bit of 'astroturfing' going on by interests who want Bitcoin to bloat for whatever reason or set of reasons.  I personally would not rule it out, but I've seen no hard evidence of such either.  I will say that if someone hired me to produce a strategy to 'control the threat' of Bitcoin at about the time it was used to throw Wikileaks a life-preserver I would have cultivated a healthy crop of rather mature operatives on this forum by this time.

And, of course, most of them would have visited this thread by this time if only to cast a vote.  (I'm not going to fire up my various sock puppets to cast an 'anti' vote because I would find it less than classy.)

[hdbuck]

dam there could be max profit from creating an exchange between the forks.. speculators must be excited.

edit: and just because of 'speculators' i dont think we will have a full 100% consensus.

[Chicago]

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

Really?  I was amazed (and delighted) that the 'anti' crowd got over 20% given the amplitude and efforts in the opposite direction.

There is a suggestion that there is a bit of 'astroturfing' going on by interests who want Bitcoin to bloat for whatever reason or set of reasons.  I personally would not rule it out, but I've seen no hard evidence of such either.  I will say that if someone hired me to produce a strategy to 'control the threat' of Bitcoin at about the time it was used to throw Wikileaks a life-preserver I would have cultivated a healthy crop of rather mature operatives on this forum by this time.

And, of course, most of them would have visited this thread by this time if only to cast a vote.  (I'm not going to fire up my various sock puppets to cast an 'anti' vote because I would find it less than classy.)

You may have misread my implied double-negative. The amazement was for the people in the pro crowd supporting Gavincoin.
I am for Bitcoin in the anti vote crowd.

Kind Regards,
-Chicago

[tvbcof]

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

Really?  I was amazed (and delighted) that the 'anti' crowd got over 20% given the amplitude and efforts in the opposite direction.
...

You may have misread my implied double-negative. The amazement was for the people in the pro crowd supporting Gavincoin.
I am for Bitcoin in the anti vote crowd.

Kind Regards,
-Chicago

I don't think I did misread.  I'm also in the 'anti' crowd, and I feel it fair (and also a good troll point which I always find fun) to classify being 'in the anti crowd' as being synonymous with being 'pro Bitcoin'.

My point was that given what I've seen on this forum I'm surprised that the bloatchain fork proponents are only in the 60% range and there are a healthy 20's percentage of people who seem to see things as I do...or at least wish for the same end point whatever their rational might be.

I'm very used to being in a much smaller minority on various things around here over the years

[insidertradingeverywhere]

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

yes, people vote for ending bitcoin it seems...

It really amazes me how many people have voted against Bitcoin in the poll at the top of this thread to instead create Gavincoin.

Really?  I was amazed (and delighted) that the 'anti' crowd got over 20% given the amplitude and efforts in the opposite direction.

There is a suggestion that there is a bit of 'astroturfing' going on by interests who want Bitcoin to bloat for whatever reason or set of reasons.  I personally would not rule it out, but I've seen no hard evidence of such either.  I will say that if someone hired me to produce a strategy to 'control the threat' of Bitcoin at about the time it was used to throw Wikileaks a life-preserver I would have cultivated a healthy crop of rather mature operatives on this forum by this time.

And, of course, most of them would have visited this thread by this time if only to cast a vote.  (I'm not going to fire up my various sock puppets to cast an 'anti' vote because I would find it less than classy.)

The poll is likely faked. Yes, astroturf

[hdbuck]

im not getting the mining stake here..

if the massive mining ops switch to 20MB blocks, that will leave hobbyist miners (me) the ability to get their home miners out of their boxes to sustain the 1MB bitcoin, for which the hashrate would be 'bearable' again?

edit: how will the block rewards split between the two blockchains?

[insidertradingeverywhere]

I think this hardfork is intended to open doors for constant hardforks - like every few months a fork so they can do how they are pleased.
They want it to be routine to be able to do what they want with it - with central control of course. It's the attrition-strategy.


Gavin lost my trust btw.

[CoinCidental]

im not getting the mining stake here..

if the massive mining ops switch to 20MB blocks, that will leave hobbyist miners (me) the ability to get their home miners out of their boxes to sustain the 1MB bitcoin, for which the hashrate would be 'bearable' again?

edit: how will the block rewards split between the two blockchains?

the longest or prevailing  chain will get the reward ,the other chain would get orphaned ?

if there were two forks and one was "easy" to mine and the other had current difficulty levels
then the coins would have to have differnt values

a gavincoin would be worth a btc  and the  MPcoin would be worth less ,maybe like a litecoin

how about the hodlers ? anyone who has a million coins in storage will spend them on the fork that is worth the most or is it not optional ?

[hdbuck]

a gavincoin would be worth a btc  and the  MPcoin would be worth less ,maybe like a litecoin

from my little understanding the mpcoin would hold more value, at least at first and considering the 'decentralisation' and 'scarcity' pov, besides MP's ability to sustain if not grow value out of his investments..

but thats just the speculator speaking.

[Buffer Overflow]

I think this hardfork is intended to open doors for constant hardforks - like every few months a fork so they can do how they are pleased.
They want it to be routine to be able to do what they want with it - with central control of course. It's the attrition-strategy.


Gavin lost my trust btw.

The block size cap was always a temporary measure, always has been. Gavin is just following the original game plan of removing the temporary choke. Why would that make you lose his trust?

[adworker]

i think it's time to accept and use other projects like ripple, stellar, open transactions, etc...  to complement BTC and start doing transactions off the blockchain.  

The point of increasing block size cap is we dont need to use zillion coins in future. Much easier to use only one coin, thats why I support any increase in block size cap

[viboracecata]

68 for anti-votes, how many people in this ever run full nodes?

[hdbuck]

68 for anti-votes, how many people in this ever run full nodes?

i do. (using this script: http://pankkake.headfucking.net/2014/08/05/setting-up-a-debian-based-bitcoin-node/)

but im an agnostic just trying to preserve my investment.

edit: and speculating a little..

[balu2]

microtransactions can happen offchain. Why would they need to be on chain? What percentage of txs are micro? I guess most.

Gavins' approach is:
-alienating
-wasteful with recouces (storage)
-inefficient
-lowers security
-brings in more centralisation
-causes trouble because it's very controversal

i have no idea how anyone in their right minds can vote for this without even demanding alternative proposals

It's not your storage but the storage of the people on their systems. Maybe that's why you like to waste it?

[tvbcof]

...
how about the hodlers ? anyone who has a million coins in storage will spend them on the fork that is worth the most or is it not optional ?

Absent so far undisclosed implementation details of the gavincoin hard fork, hodlers could generally expect be able to spend their stash on BOTH forks (or I should say, ALL forks.)

That said, if Bitcoin (or a fork of it) gets into the habit of doing hard forks to solve problems, I would expect one of the forks be to schedule a forced spend.  That is, one must spend older UTXOs (send your BTC to yourself or lose them.)  One of the problems this would solve would be that it would help with the blockchain bloat 'problem'.  All UTXOs below a certain depth would vanish and thus allow simplified blockchain pruning.

Another nicitiy of a forced spend would be that it would give the tainting authority a good opportunity to tag individuals (part of 'validation') since a lot of that information which dates back to a time when things were not as closely monitored is lost.  I'd look for this hard fork to occur after Big Brother kindly requests that users register as part of a Bitcoin Licensee program.  Naturally solving these problems won't be used as PR as much as the more simplistic 'filled my hard drive' problem which almost anyone can understand...or at least sympathize with in the interest of, you know, 'decentralization.'