Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[homo homini lupus]

been reading text of MP again and he talks about argument for ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

you get that a freakin' lot from those pro-fork lemmings.

Pro-forkers basically operate with the fear-argument, argument from ignorance, false analogies and so on.

Fact is: there is no problem with bitcoin today (that's why there isn't a need to do anything about it - what would you do about a problem that isn't one?)

[1713254879]

1713254879

[1713254879]

1713254879

[1713254879]

1713254879

[homo homini lupus]

I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain[/s] (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.

I'm afraid you are a victim of propaganda and lies.
The 1MB cap was always a temporary measure, bitcoin is just following it's original game plan of removing it. The true bitcoin will be the chain removing the choke.

I certainly am not a victim of any propaganda and it's certainly an insult to say so.

All i get here from these pro-forkers are insults and false arguments while they themselves of course ignore anything that disproves their stance.

This discussion makes me sick.

My announcement: i will not follow. Get lost.

[Buffer Overflow]

I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain[/s] (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.

I'm afraid you are a victim of propaganda and lies.
The 1MB cap was always a temporary measure, bitcoin is just following it's original game plan of removing it. The true bitcoin will be the chain removing the choke.

I certainly am not a victim of any propaganda and it's certainly an insult to say so.

All i get here from these pro-forkers are insults and false arguments while they themselves of course ignore anything that disproves their stance.

This discussion makes me sick.

My announcement: i will not follow. Get lost.

You don't think using the phrase "gavincoin" is in itself insulting?

[cbeast]

I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain[/s] (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.

I'm afraid you are a victim of propaganda and lies.
The 1MB cap was always a temporary measure, bitcoin is just following it's original game plan of removing it. The true bitcoin will be the chain removing the choke.

I compare the 1M cap to training wheels.

[homo homini lupus]

if i generate my own vanity addresses, and leave my bitcoins on them, they would not automatically be 'updated' if the fork would come true, correct?

The fork has no effect on anyone's existing bitcoin holding. It only affects newly mined bitcoins rewarded after the fork occurs.

edit: i.e. you don't want to mine on a fork which is not the majority fork, because the reward will be worth little or nothing.

This isn't true. After the fork only coin will be unaffected that didn't move as it will be possible to mess with broadcasts on both chains.

Say coins in adress x move on gavincoin fork. Same transaction could be broadcast on MPcoin fork by anyone and vice versa.
If you actually have Bitcoin at the time of the fork you will be automatically caught in a war between the chains as soon as you move your coins.
You will only be able to safely transact again after one chain died out which can take months or years.
I'd predict an epic crash of btcs' value right before the fork - almost a certainty.

You don't think using the phrase "gavincoin" is in itself insulting?

Does it hurt your feelings? I don't look at gavincoin as bitcoin so why should i call gavincoin bitcoin? I have no other name for it. If you think it's insulting, i'm sorry. Wasn't intended but you'd probably have to get used to it.

Mr. Overflow your style of argumentations is manipulative at best - same as most of the other pro-forkers'.

[Buffer Overflow]

Does it hurt your feelings?

No, I'm not Gavin.

Mr. Overflow your style of argumentations is manipulative at best - same as most of the other pro-forkers'.

I'm not the one trying to spin it around that the removal of the cap (which was the original game plan all along) isn't the "real" bitcoin.

[solex]

Say coins in adress x move on gavincoin fork. Same transaction could be broadcast on MPcoin fork by anyone and vice versa.

In that scenario:
If the utxo for x comes from an MPcoin block before the fork then the tx is discarded as a double-spend.
If the utxo for x comes from an MPcoin block after the fork then the tx is discarded due to unrecognized inputs.

[homo homini lupus]

Does it hurt your feelings?

No, I'm not Gavin.

So why do you then speak on his behalf?

Mr. Overflow your style of argumentations is manipulative at best - same as most of the other pro-forkers'.

I'm not the one trying to spin it around that the removal of the cap (which was the original game plan all along) isn't the "real" bitcoin.

Removal of the cap isn't the problem. Forking without consensus is. And there isn't a consensus for many good reasons.

Say coins in adress x move on gavincoin fork. Same transaction could be broadcast on MPcoin fork by anyone and vice versa.

In that scenario:
If the utxo for x comes from an MPcoin block before the fork then the tx is discarded as a double-spend.
If the utxo for x comes from an MPcoin block after the fork then the tx is discarded due to unrecognized inputs.

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

Transactions don't have to be douplicated but they potentially can be by anyone who wants to. It's going to be an epic mess.

[solex]

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes.
These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I create and broadcast a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'.

Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do.

[homo homini lupus]

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes.
These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I created a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'.

Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do.

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

Forking without consensus will most certainly lead to both chains/coins become completely worthless.

[LeMiner]

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes.
These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I created a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'.

Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do.

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

The majority of the people will make the step, there won't be a mess. I know me, and all of the miners I spoke to will make the step as well, as well as 90++% of all leading mining pools. Leaving you with a chain stuck with really high difficulty without enough hash to properly move it forward. When you finally do get it to the point where it readjusts difficulty you'll probably realize that it was incredibly stupid and that 1MBcapcoin is useless..... Maybe there will be people that will start using 1MBcapcoin to broadcast all their holdings to loads of different addresses, it won't matter because 1MBcapcoin won't be worth anything anyway.

[solex]

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

No one cares about this. Duplicate tx from MPcoin get discarded.

Forking without consensus will most certainly lead to both chains/coins become completely worthless.

Forking without consensus is exactly what will happen if volumes suddenly ramp up filling the 1MB blocks and everyone is yelling about ridiculous delays, bad press, collapsing price, etc, and a large number of nodes feel it necessary to increase the limit, while others refuse to, welcoming the "necessary pain".

That is why Gavin has proposed re-using the block version majority process, which worked very well in 2013 for P2SH, and at least gets a big consensus in the mining power. A well-executed fork, done over many months, will be very smooth for all users.

LeMiner, fully agree.

[homo homini lupus]

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

No one cares about this. Duplicates from MPcoin get discarded.

Gavincoins are douplicates of Mpcoin - you can't discard them.



In case your hopes for the difficulty causing trouble won't come a reality you're toast with the Gavinfork.

---------

no matter how it plays out:

people will be better off using altchains that they can use with their internetconnection and HD's (in case Mpcoin doesn't make it - but if difficulty doesn't kill it, it will most likely be the surviving chain in the long run)

[CoinCidental]

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes.
These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I created a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'.

Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do.

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

The majority of the people will make the step, there won't be a mess. I know me, and all of the miners I spoke to will make the step as well, as well as 90++% of all leading mining pools. Leaving you with a chain stuck with really high difficulty without enough hash to properly move it forward. When you finally do get it to the point where it readjusts difficulty you'll probably realize that it was incredibly stupid and that 1MBcapcoin is useless..... Maybe there will be people that will start using 1MBcapcoin to broadcast all their holdings to loads of different addresses, it won't matter because 1MBcapcoin won't be worth anything anyway.

i think 95% of people will stick with bitcoin core/satoshicoin/gavincoin  and remove the 1MB transaction limit,
the other 5% chain will die out  if difficulty is insanely high and there is not enough mining
power to match it

two chains will not co exist at 50% each ,theres just zero chance of that happening

[homo homini lupus]

Guys, this makes me tired. You loose your philosophical backbone and a lot of support in this fork without consensus.

The opponents of crypto are going to be all over your fork. Up until this point you have only faced critique from within. Wait for the critics from outside.


btw benjamindees has been fully ingnored right now.


These pro-forkers are some arrogant, ignorant and manipulative folks; that's for sure.

[altcoin hitler]

[croato]

I dont say 20MB fork is bad thing but if Bitcoin is decentralised that is too big decission for any group to decide w/o whole community to be involved. I am sad cause whole thing and hope BTC will not break in two pieces. Also we have Bitcoin elite in making now who make decissions on their own, have closed mitings and all so that is so sad and against original idea.

[CoinCidental]

I dont say 20MB fork is bad thing but if Bitcoin is decentralised that is too big decission for any group to decide w/o whole community to be involved. I am sad cause whole thing and hope BTC will not break in two pieces. Also we have Bitcoin elite in making now who make decissions on their own, have closed mitings and all so that is so sad and against original idea.

every idiot with a fraction of a bitcoin  and barely any knowledge of how it even works  cant have an equal vote ,
that would just never work

it makes sense that the bitcoin millionaires and exchange owners and large mining pool owners are having a meeting to figure out whats best  way forward without all the spitters and shitters just taking  the chaos of this thread alone into consideration ..........

[Sitarow]

You are looking at it wrong. Transactions are signed with privatekeys. Same adresses have same privatekeys on both networks. Mpcoin nodes don't have to communicate with Gavincoin nodes to doublicate the transactions.

There are not two networks. There are two sets of nodes which disagree on which is the "One True Blockchain". Up until the fork (a certain block height) all the nodes have 100% agreement, but then after the fork, a subset, "MPnodes", start to reference utxo from blocks which are unknown to the Bitcoin nodes.
These tx are rejected by Bitcoin nodes just the same way, as if I created a tx for 123,000 BTC to send to an address I own, so I can have a nice fat bitcoin holding to rival the Winklevoss'.

Companies which accept bitcoins for products and services will be anxious to ensure that their nodes conform to the majority view and have the same blockchain that the exchanges, and payment processors do.

You don't get it. Nodes of the different networks don't have to communicate. Hashes are the same on both networks so anyone who watches the transactions on one chain can broadcast them on the other chain.  

The majority of the people will make the step, there won't be a mess. I know me, and all of the miners I spoke to will make the step as well, as well as 90++% of all leading mining pools. Leaving you with a chain stuck with really high difficulty without enough hash to properly move it forward. When you finally do get it to the point where it readjusts difficulty you'll probably realize that it was incredibly stupid and that 1MBcapcoin is useless..... Maybe there will be people that will start using 1MBcapcoin to broadcast all their holdings to loads of different addresses, it won't matter because 1MBcapcoin won't be worth anything anyway.

i think 95% of people will stick with bitcoin core/satoshicoin/gavincoin  and remove the 1MB transaction limit,
the other 5% chain will die out  if difficulty is insanely high and there is not enough mining
power to match it

two chains will not co exist at 50% each ,theres just zero chance of that happening

Correct. Btc is btc.

[Buffer Overflow]

Also we have Bitcoin elite in making now who make decissions on their own, have closed mitings and all so that is so sad and against original idea.

You are free to continue along the original path of bitcoin with the adjusted size cap, or along the altcoin fork keeping the current 1MB cap or you can make your own altcoin fork.
I think this is a great thing. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. I love it.