Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Cryddit]

To expand on my previous post, there is also the matter of the sell pressure that will come from us "anti-forkers." So not only will Gavin's spambots need to support the usual 36 hundred bitcoin mined per day, but they will have to take on thousands if not millions of double-spent coins that were purchased before the fork. It's really comical that you guys think you have even the slightest sliver of a chance to win this thing. But by all means, quote me and laugh; I'll have the last one.

Seriously?  Your interest in this whole thing is for nothing but figuring out a way to steal?  What a pathetic piece of crap you are.  But, okay, let's run with it.

Let's say you take an output from your hip pocket, and then make two conflicting transactions -- one that sends it to your coat pocket and one that sends it to your shirt pocket.   After a few tries, you get the <1MB chain to think it's in your coat pocket and the >1MB chain to think it's in your shirt pocket.  Success!  Now you can make transactions that are valid only in one chain, so you can attempt to steal stuff from people by double spending!

Now, think about this.  Which set of people can you steal stuff from by double spending?  The ones who are getting tx accepted within 10 minutes and reach confirmation depth within an hour, or the ones who are getting 1/7 of their tx accepted in a given 3.3-hour span, and which, even when accepted, don't reach confirmation depth for a day and a half?

The people who are vulnerable to your double spending scam are the ones on the <1MB chain.  And when some bastard manages to scam you because you got stuck on the losing side of a hard fork, then the way to get safe is to get the hell off that crippled damn thing and onto the main branch.

It is in fact thieves like yourself who will do us the favor of putting the <1MB chain out of its misery.  The fact that you will do so by ripping people off and driving your victims away is despicable.

[1715694867]

1715694867

[1715694867]

1715694867

[lunarboy]

wow this thread was 5 pages long last time I checked.

What the hell happened did every Troll in the world come out to play? 

[BitUsher]

Reading through this thread makes me much more convinced that we need to hard fork bitcoin and increase the limit. I am beginning to be swayed into more of a dynamic approach to raising the limit based upon a multiple of a previous average.

Perhaps if this block limit adjustment was made dynamic where it was allowed to also decrease like difficulty(with certain restrictions to prevent attacks) it would allow the market to decide if off the chain transactions or sidechains/treechains are better methods of solving high transaction rates.

wow this thread was 5 pages long last time I checked.

What the hell happened did every Troll in the world come out to play? 

There certainly are a few trolls in this thread.

[traincarswreck]

Reading through this thread makes me much more convinced that we need to hard fork bitcoin and increase the limit. I am beginning to be swayed into more of a dynamic approach to raising the limit based upon a multiple of a previous average.

Perhaps if this block limit adjustment was made dynamic where it was allowed to also decrease like difficulty(with certain restrictions to prevent attacks) it would allow the market to decide if off the chain transactions or sidechains/treechains are better methods of solving high transaction rates.

Coo!  Is this your consensus?  Or should we debate about it some more?

[danielpbarron]

To expand on my previous post, there is also the matter of the sell pressure that will come from us "anti-forkers." So not only will Gavin's spambots need to support the usual 36 hundred bitcoin mined per day, but they will have to take on thousands if not millions of double-spent coins that were purchased before the fork. It's really comical that you guys think you have even the slightest sliver of a chance to win this thing. But by all means, quote me and laugh; I'll have the last one.

Seriously?  Your interest in this whole thing is for nothing but figuring out a way to steal?  What a pathetic piece of crap you are.  But, okay, let's run with it.

Let's say you take an output from your hip pocket, and then make two conflicting transactions -- one that sends it to your coat pocket and one that sends it to your shirt pocket.   After a few tries, you get the <1MB chain to think it's in your coat pocket and the >1MB chain to think it's in your shirt pocket.  Success!  Now you can make transactions that are valid only in one chain, so you can attempt to steal stuff from people by double spending!

Splitting my funds isn't theft, and the bitcoin confirmation time isn't going to bottom out. You may think repetition is a valid substitute for reason, but that won't make it so. Since I've already covered the hashrate thing, I'll stick to the allegations of theft for this post.

Let's look at MPEx. It won't recognize USGavincoin. That means you can't withdraw them, and you can't deposit them. The reason for this is simple: MP is in no way legally (lol since when would that matter anyway?) or ethically obligated to maintain a USGavincoin node for the purposes of facilitating customer withdraws in two currencies. His exchange has always been a bitcoin exchange, and it will not change for some muppet. Maybe this sounds unfair; you are more than welcome to withdraw your funds before the fork happens. Otherwise, I'm sure he will split the funds himself and sell the fake ones on the open market.

Now let's look at.. bitstamp. Let's say they switch right on over to USGavincoin. Well the problem is, my bitcoin unspent outputs are valid on both chains. Bitstamp claims to only see the new one, but my old stuff still works. That's not my problem! It's also not my fault that I can get one chain to think my funds are in one address, and the other chain in another -- as you have described. So I go ahead and send my USGavincoins into bitstamp, and they tell me I have a balance X. If they are smart, they already split out all the real bitcoin. If they aren't smart, I can request a withdraw, and see if they use an output that exists on both chains. If they do, I simply tell the old chain about it. This is not theft; it is bitstamp being retarded. So I go ahead and split the new funds, and send the fake ones back in. Rinse and repeat. Still not theft. How was this possible? Because bitstamp, not me, decided to change the definition of what 'bitcoin' means.

[traincarswreck]

The consensus for change is starting to seem a lot more difficult than the consensus for "not change'.

[Cryddit]

Explaining exactly how you intend to steal an asset which you will immediately render worthless by stealing it doesn't mean that what you are doing is not stealing.

[danielpbarron]

Explaining exactly how you intend to steal an asset which you will immediately render worthless by stealing it doesn't mean that what you are doing is not stealing.

I guess I'm a little burned out from arguing with idiots all day, because that wasn't even the point I wanted to make. Not that I take any of it back, but I doubt that scenario will even happen. Most exchanges will probably be smart enough to make the split themselves, and therefor avoid the embarrassment of paying out double.

The broader effect of the fork is that everyone will be splitting their coins. An exchange that sees only USGavincoin will have no problem taking them from me and letting me convert it to FIAT. That is certainly not theft. After doing this, I'll still have unspent outputs on the old chain. You know, the "dead" one. So what do you even care? How do you call this theft? Everyone is happy. Until the dust settles and it turns out nobody really wants USGavincoin, and anyone who didn't have the private keys to their funds is now screwed out of their bitcoin. And who screwed them out of it? The exchanges they left it with; not me!

[BitUsher]

This was much a more fruitful thread once traincarswreck and danielpbarron where set to ignore. I appreciate a healthy debate and can even stomach arrogant attitudes but there needs to be at least some minimum standard to raise this discourse .

"Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."  ~Mark Twain

I understand the dynamic adjustment was avoided because it could possibly be gamed, but couldn't sufficient limits be imposed like we do with the difficulty retarget where such an attack would be mitigated?

Some of the disagreement with those voting no simply lies within the fact they are content with the status quo and see no need to raise the cap when most blocks are only 1/3rd full. If a hard cap introduced a dynamic where a multiple of 3 times a previous 2 week mean which was allowed to adjust lower with certain limits like difficulty than shouldn't that give everyone enough time to find other solutions and ultimately let the market decide how they prefer to use the blockchain?

Are there any potential weaknesses or drawbacks to this hard fork vs set increments like Gavin is proposing?

[tvbcof]

To expand on my previous post, there is also the matter of the sell pressure that will come from us "anti-forkers." So not only will Gavin's spambots need to support the usual 36 hundred bitcoin mined per day, but they will have to take on thousands if not millions of double-spent coins that were purchased before the fork. It's really comical that you guys think you have even the slightest sliver of a chance to win this thing. But by all means, quote me and laugh; I'll have the last one.

Seriously?  Your interest in this whole thing is for nothing but figuring out a way to steal?  What a pathetic piece of crap you are.  But, okay, let's run with it.

Let's say you take an output from your hip pocket, and then make two conflicting transactions -- one that sends it to your coat pocket and one that sends it to your shirt pocket.   After a few tries, you get the <1MB chain to think it's in your coat pocket and the >1MB chain to think it's in your shirt pocket.  Success!  Now you can make transactions that are valid only in one chain, so you can attempt to steal stuff from people by double spending!

Now, think about this.  Which set of people can you steal stuff from by double spending?  The ones who are getting tx accepted within 10 minutes and reach confirmation depth within an hour, or the ones who are getting 1/7 of their tx accepted in a given 3.3-hour span, and which, even when accepted, don't reach confirmation depth for a day and a half?

The people who are vulnerable to your double spending scam are the ones on the <1MB chain.  And when some bastard manages to scam you because you got stuck on the losing side of a hard fork, then the way to get safe is to get the hell off that crippled damn thing and onto the main branch.

It is in fact thieves like yourself who will do us the favor of putting the <1MB chain out of its misery.  The fact that you will do so by ripping people off and driving your victims away is despicable.

Oh, no no no...

You are the folks making an alt here.   If you are leveraging the current blockchain as a pre-mine, it make no sense in any context to classify exploitation of your own pernicious activities as 'theft'.  Nice try though.

From my standpoint you guys are actively attacking the solution and it's potential to be something worthwhile.  I'd take advantage of that for personal gain even if it was 'theft' because it would also be an appropriate response to an attack.  That is, to make the attack be as painful for the attacker as possible.  Go ahead with your little hard-fork, but don't expect we who consider it an attack to actually support you in doing so.

If I'm wrong and/or misjudge reality, I lose out on the future-value of gavincoins.  Oops.

If you gavincoin folks don't like it you better roll in some other protections along with your fork.  Or quickly thereafter if you sense that doing so simultaneously will panic the herd.  You could easily monitor other forks (note the plural) and 'red-list' values which circulate in other crypto-currencies for instance, and such {color}-listing will be eminently possible when most infrastructure support is provided by people who cannot easily walk away from their investment when threatened by the corp/gov powers-that-be.  That's probably the driving force behind the whole gavincoin/govincoin/govcoin project anyway.

[Cryddit]

If you gavincoin folks don't like it you better roll in some other protections along with your fork.  Or quickly thereafter if you sense that doing so simultaneously will panic the herd.

No thanks.  There's no need to protect it from a hopeless would-be attack that won't work anyway.  This is like seeing a tramp standing there with a spoon hoping it'll start to rain soup.  Maybe it'll rain.  Maybe he'll catch a few drops in his spoon.  It won't do him any good to eat it, and if he plans to convince someone else that it's real soup and sell it to them, that's dishonest but so what? It isn't going to work anyway.  There's no point taking his spoon away, except perhaps to remind him that honest people work for a living.  And that's something his parents ought to've done, not something the law needs to worry about.

[NewLiberty]

What is the difference between debate and consensus?

Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the Eurocurrency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland. The people voted against that, for various reasons. But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a money is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.

The difference is most everything.  Consensus is agreement.  Usually there isn't any debating at that point.
If it comes to a vote, or a battle, then it isn't a consensus.

[traincarswreck]

The difference is most everything.  Consensus is agreement.  Usually there isn't any debating at that point.
If it comes to a vote, or a battle, then it isn't a consensus.

Agreed.  But it is in fact consensus that we need to "move forward" right (ie not debate)?

[justusranvier]

The consensus process will be users of the network upgrading their software to versions that support version 4 blocks, and miners producing those blocks.

The blockchain will record the point at which a consensus has been reached.

[inBitweTrust]

The difference is most everything.  Consensus is agreement.  Usually there isn't any debating at that point.
If it comes to a vote, or a battle, then it isn't a consensus.

Consensus is preferred, but it is already clear that certain individuals are unwilling to compromise no matter what, so ultimately it will
never be reached between the whole bitcoin community. Ultimately, 95% consensus will be reached to make this happen. How quickly will the remaining 5% upgrade when the hardfork initiates will also be interesting to watch. My guess is at least 1% will fail to upgrade due to be stubborn or oblivious.

It would be wise for those being left behind to start getting ready to release their own hard fork to solve some serious concerns when they control less than 5% hashing power overnight on a forked coin. They should create their own github and start marketing it to users and miners to solve this serious problem which will make their currency unusable overnight unless they adjust difficulty retarget manually and possibly implement more checkpoints.

It will be interesting to see if their coin survives and for how long? Most miners and pools would be unlikely to attack their coin but with such a small hash rate one group may attempt a 51% attack out of spite, curiosity, or for profit.

Bitcoin has always remained interesting to say the least.

[danielpbarron]

It would be wise for those being left behind to start getting ready to release their own hard fork to solve some serious concerns when they control less than 5% hashing power overnight on a forked coin. They should create their own github and start marketing it to users and miners to solve this serious problem which will make their currency unusable overnight unless they adjust difficulty retarget manually and possibly implement more checkpoints.

You must be a paid stooge. Nobody can be this stupid. We already have a code repository, and it is you guys who are making the fork! This is like.. straight out of an Orwell novel: "the guys trying to keep the old rules are the ones trying to change it!"

[Cryddit]

You must be a paid stooge. Nobody can be this stupid. We already have a code repository, and it is you guys who are making the fork! This is like.. straight out of an Orwell novel: "the guys trying to keep the old rules are the ones trying to change it!"

True, you'll remain able to get the old version out of the repository, because it has all the past versions.  If you intend never to change anything ever again, I guess that's enough. 

Good luck with that. 

[traincarswreck]

I guess we decided to go back to debate.  But I think its still relevant to point out the difference between consensus and debate.  It seems to matter not whether we are discussing either the individual type or of the miner type consensus. To me, debating about consensus is a logical absurdity, nonetheless here we are.  

Another helpful perspective might be to ask, and relation to the game we outlined (and keeping in mind I am the worlds greatest poker player, other than perhaps Satoshi, Nash, or Szabo to which they are free to come in and argue otherwise)...

Is there anyone here, who has already chosen their strategy (to which truly we all have in some form), that might be able to deviate and gain?  And we can and should also look at this from the hypothetical or theoretical sense in regards to miner's and bigger players like even whales or governments or MPcoiners or Gav coiners etc...Is there anyone here that can put up their hand and show that they could in fact gain from such a deviation?

[inBitweTrust]

True, you'll remain able to get the old version out of the repository, because it has all the past versions.  If you intend never to change anything ever again, I guess that's enough.  

Good luck with that.  

It will be enough if they wish to have an unusable coin with confirmations being processed at a practically unusable speed for at least 2 weeks, and than slow as molasses for another 2 weeks. It may take many months with more miners dropping off with fear before they reach equilibrium due to the retarget limits set in the current source code.

This is why I was offering some friendly advice for them to get ready to create their own hard fork and migrate it to a new github so they have a chance of surviving during the brutal transition they will witness.

This isn't even going to address the possibility of an attack by existing miners either which brings up a whole other concern that they will need to consider.

[traincarswreck]

It will be enough if they wish to have an unusable coin with confirmations being processed at a practically unusable speed for at least 2 weeks, and than slow as molasses for another 2 weeks. It may take many months with more miners dropping off with fear before they reach equilibrium due to the retarget limits set in the current source code.

I'm off for some hours so don't fear my spam...but a quick question I leave us with..

Are you talking theoretically?  Or IRL?