Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[NewLiberty]

It's more likely Bitcoin mining will become part of many government budgets (or contractors) so they can set mining fees for taxes.

Maybe, maybe not...  but maybe also some caution is warranted when the protocol is shifted to make it so?
The result could be that we end up with either: it is government mining, or no mining.

When the door is closed to private individuals (and it is only businesses), businesses MUST register or be in violation of the law and risk seizure of all assets.  This is true most anywhere you stand on the planet.

[1714161652]

1714161652

[1714161652]

1714161652

[1714161652]

1714161652

[1714161652]

1714161652

[David Rabahy]

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

To prepare for a potential life-threatening situation, one could have some money readily available but more not readily available.  The thief wants your fungible money; killing you is not their top priority.  Accessing your safe money should put your assailant at risk of capture.

[onemorexmr]

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

To prepare for a potential life-threatening situation, one could have some money readily available but more not readily available.  The thief wants your fungible money; killing you is not their top priority.  Accessing your safe money should put your assailant at risk of capture.

that would mean that if you get btc from someone which are stolen from someone else that you would have to give it back to the original owner.

under that circumstances i'd never accept btc, because where should i know from that they are not stolen?

^ thats the reason why it is important that money is fungible

(for the people arguing about miner blacklists: by whom? usa? europe? russia? if every miner has a different blacklist nothing would change and any transaction would go through someday. if its a client-side blacklist which refuse blocks we will have country-specific forks)

[RoadStress]

Blacklists takes in account hystory of coins, so if a parent address is blacklisted by some services, if you have coins coming from the blacklist, you won't be able to buy your starbuck.

Because you say so? I don't agree. Blacklists take into account only specific addresses. Taking into account the history of the coins is simply retarded and will be done only by those that do not understand Bitcoin.

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

You are wrong. We already have blacklists when it comes to businesses and to people that made financials schemes. Every time someone opens a bank account they are verified in banks own black lists and banks share their black list database with other banks.

If you own a company and do maintain a business relation with another company that does tax evasion or does anything illegal you are not punished in any way. Stop with this blacklist nonsense!

[danielpbarron]

Regarding the "80% of the miners" : what part of "the miners will go where there is profit" don't you understand? I get it: the fork won't happen unless some majority of miners is stupid enough to upgrade. That doesn't mean they'll stay upgraded. I get it: transactions will slow down on the real chain if the fork happens. That doesn't mean they'll stay slow. The miners will find themselves with 3`600 new coins to sell every day, which is just about a million dollars at the moment. Add to that all the forked coins opponents of the change will be dumping on the market. Unless all the redditards and bezzletrons can scrape together enough money to cover that, the miners will be forced by matter of economic necessity to switch back to the real bitcoin.

What does it even mean to "bribe the miners" ?? If there's money to pay the miners off, aren't you just hiring them to mine for you? Are you just using this word in an attempt to besmirch?

i dont think one person (a billionare or not) is able to control a market. if the economic majority decides to sell all bitcoins after the fork (and keep their mpcoins) well it might happen.
but that will be a very huge disruption and the price will certainly fall on both chains. i will just keep both and see how it'll plays out. but i am sure bitcoin - and not mpcoin - will win.

Either way, you're renaming the real bitcoin after MP, and that in itself is already a victory for him.

Why don't we just remove the limit altogether and let the miners decide the blocksize? They've been doing that anyway so instead of an arbitrary cap, just let the market decide?

Because this:

VII. The minersⁱ decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

From my understanding of how a hard fork works then the miners will decide.

You. Are. Wrong. How many times do I have to explain this you damned dirty government agent.

You are confusing the mechanism by which the fork is triggered, with the economic pressure put on miners afterwards. You are confusing the pre-fork with the post-fork. It costs miners nothing to brand their blocks "version 4," whether they are actually going to adopt the new rules or not. It is an entirely different story when they start minting blocks that other nodes cannot validate. In the post-fork scenario, there will be two different versions of bitcoin for sale at two different prices. Miners will choose the most profitable coin to mine, just like altcoin miners shift around to different pools depending on changing difficulties and prices.

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

Don't even worry about it. Such a thing would only ever be enforced on full nodes and not by block validation. That means certain companies/exchanges may decide to steal your coins because they came from a "blacklisted" parent output, and those companies will quickly discover that nobody wants to risk sending them any money. It's a non-issue; these companies won't stay in business long.

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

Oh GTFO you UnSavoryGarnish.

"I know it looks like I sent money into that exchange, but I was actually held at gun point so please reverse it!"

Let's start using social security numbers as our addresses while we're at it. So stupid.

[adworker]

Blacklists takes in account hystory of coins, so if a parent address is blacklisted by some services, if you have coins coming from the blacklist, you won't be able to buy your starbuck.

It cant work, sonner or later every address will contain some link to blacklisted coins. So basically only fresh mined coins will be able to buy your starbuck

[onemorexmr]

Blacklists takes in account hystory of coins, so if a parent address is blacklisted by some services, if you have coins coming from the blacklist, you won't be able to buy your starbuck.

Because you say so? I don't agree. Blacklists take into account only specific addresses. Taking into account the history of the coins is simply retarded and will be done only by those that do not understand Bitcoin.

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.

You are wrong. We already have blacklists when it comes to businesses and to people that made financials schemes. Every time someone opens a bank account they are verified in banks own black lists and banks share their black list database with other banks.

If you own a company and do maintain a business relation with another company that does tax evasion or does anything illegal you are not punished in any way. Stop with this blacklist nonsense!

blacklisting people is a different story than blacklisting specific coins.

where you every in a store and heard a cashier saying: no i dont take this coin, please give me another one?

[David Rabahy]

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

Oh GTFO you UnSavoryGarnish.

"I know it looks like I sent money into that exchange, but I was actually held at gun point so please reverse it!"

Let's start using social security numbers as our addresses while we're at it. So stupid.

If a thief is caught and still has the money then should they be forced to give it back?  If the thief gave it to their brother who still has it then should the brother be forced to give it back?  If the thief "bought" lunch from their brother-in-law who happens to own a restaurant then should the brother-in-law be forced to give it back?  When is the stolen money no longer rightfully the original owner's?

[onemorexmr]

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

Oh GTFO you UnSavoryGarnish.

"I know it looks like I sent money into that exchange, but I was actually held at gun point so please reverse it!"

Let's start using social security numbers as our addresses while we're at it. So stupid.

If a thief is caught and still has the money then should they be forced to give it back?  If the thief gave it to their brother who still has it then should the brother be forced to give it back?  If the thief "bought" lunch from their brother-in-law who happens to own a restaurant then should the brother-in-law be forced to give it back?  When is the stolen money no longer rightfully the original owner's?

is this also true in your jurisdication:
(both cases assume you can proof that you did not know about the theft)

 - you buy a stolen car, police finds you and take it back to the rightful owner
 - you sell something to a robber but you dont have to give the money back

thats the different of money vs goods and thats why it is important that money is fungible.

most coins you own (i mean fiat) were already used to buy drugs and have certainly been stolen at some point in the past. do you think a merchant should refuse to take them from you? is this true in your country?

(also: please explain to me HOW do you want to implement blacklists - i dont see a way which would work without multiple forks running in parallel)

[forevernoob]

Even if money (BTC, etc.) is stolen at gunpoint?  Blacklisting stolen money is a marvelous idea.

Oh GTFO you UnSavoryGarnish.

"I know it looks like I sent money into that exchange, but I was actually held at gun point so please reverse it!"

Let's start using social security numbers as our addresses while we're at it. So stupid.

If a thief is caught and still has the money then should they be forced to give it back?  If the thief gave it to their brother who still has it then should the brother be forced to give it back?  If the thief "bought" lunch from their brother-in-law who happens to own a restaurant then should the brother-in-law be forced to give it back?  When is the stolen money no longer rightfully the original owner's?

If your money is stolen at gunpoint it's your responsibility to get it back. You can't expect Bitcoin to help you get your money back because of some magical anti-theft function.
With that said, I don't see what blacklists has to do with the topic at hand.

[danielpbarron]

You are confusing the mechanism by which the fork is triggered, with the economic pressure put on miners afterwards. You are confusing the pre-fork with the post-fork. It costs miners nothing to brand their blocks "version 4," whether they are actually going to adopt the new rules or not. It is an entirely different story when they start minting blocks that other nodes cannot validate. In the post-fork scenario, there will be two different versions of bitcoin for sale at two different prices. Miners will choose the most profitable coin to mine, just like altcoin miners shift around to different pools depending on changing difficulties and prices.

what you don't seem to understand is that the switch from "0% of block advertising gigablocks" and "95% of block advertising gigablocks (*)" will not happen overnight.

It will take months, if not years. The discussion will continue, and each and every one of the (very few) miners that are actually mining (not "hashing") will make the conscious choice to accept the gigablocks or to not accept them.

The ones "hashing" (not mining) have more power in that relationship. If a "hasher" doesn't like the version his pool is branding, he can just move to a different pool. What you "don't seem to understand" is that "discussion" and "conscious choice" among poor people is not what causes these kinds of changes. The investors that brought you the 300 dollar bitcoin will not abide USGavincoin, and changetippers alone cannot make up the difference.

TALKING ABOUT BITCOIN, EVEN IF IN A GROUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU PART OF BITCOIN.

[hdbuck]

(*) : I don't know why Gavin's proposal is to fork at 80% of hashing power, when the other hard forks happened or will happen at 95%. I think it's a mistake since with 20% of the hashrate, MPcoin could have a serious chance to survive for some time, when with 5% it will surely die within days, if not hours, after the fork.

i think its just what he does, throwing random numbers knowing that 95% is less likely considering decentralization.

[danielpbarron]

You are confusing the mechanism by which the fork is triggered, with the economic pressure put on miners afterwards. You are confusing the pre-fork with the post-fork. It costs miners nothing to brand their blocks "version 4," whether they are actually going to adopt the new rules or not. It is an entirely different story when they start minting blocks that other nodes cannot validate. In the post-fork scenario, there will be two different versions of bitcoin for sale at two different prices. Miners will choose the most profitable coin to mine, just like altcoin miners shift around to different pools depending on changing difficulties and prices.

what you don't seem to understand is that the switch from "0% of block advertising gigablocks" and "95% of block advertising gigablocks (*)" will not happen overnight.

It will take months, if not years. The discussion will continue, and each and every one of the (very few) miners that are actually mining (not "hashing") will make the conscious choice to accept the gigablocks or to not accept them.

The ones "hashing" (not mining) have more power in that relationship. If a "hasher" doesn't like the version his pool is branding, he can just move to a different pool. What you "don't seem to understand" is that "discussion" and "conscious choice" among poor people is not what causes these kinds of changes. The investors that brought you the 300 dollar bitcoin will not abide USGavincoin, and changetippers alone cannot make up the difference.

Yes, obviously. But what you are describing is miners never gaining 95% of the hashrate (because hashers switch to non gigablocks pools), and the hard fork never happening.

That's not exactly the same as "miners switching back to non gigablocks after 95% of their peers already have accepted gigablocks", "because reasons".

The "because reasons" you're attempting to gloss over here is "to make more money." The result of a fork will be much like the creation of an altcoin where funds at the moment of fork are mirrored onto the new chain. From that point onward the economics that govern altcoins takes over. It's called "pool hopping" and it's currently a thing; it isn't some far-fetched pipe dream of mine. Miners/hashers/whatever will change targets to optimize profit per energy unit spent. If there is a large demand for real bitcoin and little demand for USGavincoin, even if 95% 80% 51% (lol why not because democracy!) of the blocks previously declared allegiance to the fork, hashing power will shift from the latter to the former.

[ebliever]

It seems to me the whole concept of blacklisting coins requires the institution of centralized authority that can and will abuse their power to award and withhold bitcoin. The determination of whether a given coin is blacklisted or not will be a human judgment outside of the raw computations of the blockchain, and as such subject to corruption.

I suggest advocates or those intrigued by the possibilities of blacklisting do a poll and see how comfortable people would be choosing to use a coin with such "features" compared to one that does not. I expect that you'll find people would be very skittish about using such a coin because of the perceived risk of being wronged by the controlling authority, compared to those who would be hopeful of recovering from being victimized by thieves or whatever.

And after a few horror stories of government abuse, or simply just excess "red tape" by the authorities trying to prevent abuse of the blacklisting system, any significant support would go up in smoke.

May, MAYBE, in a future world dominated by cryptocurrency, with several dozen major cryptos in use (optimized for different financial functions such as B2B transfers, daily use accounts, long-term high security storage, tax payments, etc.) they may be a market demand for a coin with blacklisting controls and operated by a trusted and competent central authority. But I would expect it to be a niche product, definitely not for mainstream use.

[davout]

Yes, obviously. But what you are describing is miners never gaining 95% of the hashrate (because hashers switch to non gigablocks pools), and the hard fork never happening.

That's not exactly the same as "miners switching back to non gigablocks after 95% of their peers already have accepted gigablocks", "because reasons".

How about a miner, or a group of miners, broadcast v4 blocks, or even go as far as actually playing along with the fork, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating the exchange rate of gavincoin?

For an actor, or a group, with a reasonable chunk of hashpower, that would be a pretty efficient way to manipulate the cross-chain market and make a killing in the process.

[Cryddit]

Have you noticed that, in the USA, whenever you pay for something with a $50 or $100 bill, the cashier has to record the serial number of the bill?  

Guess what?  Those serial numbers are being compared to a 'blacklist' of bills known to be counterfeited, stolen, or otherwise involved in crimes.  So, no, I don't think blacklisting will affect bitcoin fungibility substantially more than it already affects dollar fungibility.  

What people are scaremongering about here is a strawman version of blacklists, where the coins cannot be spent and are therefore worthless.  The actual USA policy about blacklists, with existing money, does not normally affect its fungibility.  Instead, it is about determining where investigative efforts need to be directed.  

Is anybody here from a country where the strawman version of blacklists has actually been implemented against high-denomination currency?  

[danielpbarron]

The "because reasons" you're attempting to gloss over here is "to make more money." The result of a fork will be much like the creation of an altcoin where funds at the moment of fork are mirrored onto the new chain. From that point onward the economics that govern altcoins takes over. It's called "pool hopping" and it's currently a thing; it isn't some far-fetched pipe dream of mine. Miners/hashers/whatever will change targets to optimize profit per energy unit spent. If there is a large demand for real bitcoin and little demand for USGavincoin, even if 95% 80% 51% (lol why not because democracy!) of the blocks previously declared allegiance to the fork, hashing power will shift from the latter to the former.

Please notice that you last sentence starts with "IF", and that you did not provide a single argument why the chain with 5% of the hashrate, which, even if not actively attacked, would release its first spendable coins 2 weeks after the fork (100*10*20 = 20000 minutes), would have coins that would be more valuable than the coins from the other chain.

You sorta answered your own question there. Since when does limiting the supply of something lead to a decrease in its price?

But that's not my answer. My answer is this: because MPEx will not accept altcoins; especially not those promoted by CIA muppets. That's somewhere between 300k and 400k that will be dumped into the USGavincoin market in addition to 3.6k daily.

[onemorexmr]

Have you noticed that, in the USA, whenever you pay for something with a $50 or $100 bill, the cashier has to record the serial number of the bill?  

really???

well i am in germany and here it is definitely not the case.
and this works? the cashier sends a list to fincen or what? for ANY note he received?

is this immediate? as in the cashier can refuse to take the bill or has to call the police or whatever?

i can pay with a 1000€ bill without the cashier writing down the serial...

sounds unbelieveable

edit: btw this is exactly was fungible means... fungible means any coin is the same... when there is a sn which makes some bad then the dollar is in fact not fungible anymore.

[davout]

I am not so sure that the cross chain market will even exist. How many confirmations will you request from the small chain after the fork, knowing that the entire history can be rewritten since the fork by malicious miners ?

I can guarantee you that it will exist, long before the fork even happens.

[gentlemand]

Is anybody here from a country where the strawman version of blacklists has actually been implemented against high-denomination currency?  

They have a wonderfully simple system in the UK for handling the £50 note, which is the biggest denomination worth about $75. They are almost 100% impossible to spend. I've only had three pass through my hands and wandered from shop to shop trying to spend them and they just tell you to go away.