Announcement - Bitcoin project to full fork to flexible blocksizes

[largerblocks]

Note: Current development and testing status is here.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/page-4#post-14584

This full fork provides an option for users who prefer to follow Satoshi’s vision of a global peer-to-peer currency that is accessible and usable by everyone. Currently a large number of Bitcoin users want to use a version of Bitcoin that scales as originally intended, but have no option to do. I created this project because I intend to use a version of Bitcoin that scales to larger blocksizes, but based on current developer and miner statements it seems likely that this will not happen.

Other users who also want a version of Bitcoin that scales are welcome to join and participate in this effort. A description of the development plan is provided below. This project is far from complete and I hope others will join and assist in the effort.

There are many different views and opinions on how such a full fork should happen, and this project only reflects my preferences. I hope this effort will kick-start multiple different full fork options that offer multiple different options for users to choose from, and that the best option will win in time. In doing so Bitcoin benefits from its open nature and will follow user preferences based on market demand, not the whims of a corrupt board of directors.

This thread is the main discussion thread for the project

The github project is here:
https://github.com/satoshisbitcoin/satoshisbitcoin

I hope you will join this effort and/or work towards additional efforts to help Bitcoin scale.

Why a full fork?

Bitcoin was designed by Satoshi as a global peer-to-peer currency accessible and usable by everyone with instantaneous low cost transactions. This vision was clearly laid out in the Bitcoin white paper, widely understood and agreed by all users and advertised as the vision on the bitcoin.org website and all Bitcoin related forums and websites since 2009.

Despite this clear vision, Bitcoin is now being artificially constrained to low transaction throughputs well below what the Bitcoin network is capable of supporting. User demand has now reached these artificial constrains and many Bitcoin users are no longer able to use the network and are being denied access.

This artificial change is best described by one of the primary early Bitcoin developers since 2010 in the link below. The reasons are complex but revolve around centralized control. A single company who’s business model develops off-chain solutions now controls Bitcoin development and due to electricity cost advantages mining is no longer performed by the broad user community but by a small number of individuals. As a result, despite the fact that a large majority of Bitcoin users clearly want to scale Bitcoin, those who have taken control refuse to do so.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

However the strength of Satoshi’s design is users are in control of the system. Any individual user or group of users are able to decide for themselves what Bitcoin should be and which set of rules reflect their preferences. Because of this it is impossible for Bitcoin to ever be centrally controlled, as long as users are able to define for themselves which version of Bitcoin is optimal.

Additionally, it is hoped that this effort will demonstrate how users are in control of Bitcoin and kick-start multiple different full fork options that offer different multiple options for users and the market to choose from, and that the best option will win in time. In doing so Bitcoin benefits from its open nature and will follow user preferences based on market demand.

What is the full fork and what is being changed?

The full fork will change the set of rules that define the block chain on a fixed date. After this date a new branch will be created that follows a set of rules that more closely follow Satoshi’s vision. At this point there will be two separate branches of the blockchain and two separate Bitcoins. One branch will follow the existing rules and a new branch will follow the new rules. Each individual user will be able to decide for themselves which branch to follow. The transaction history and BTC owned will be common on both branches up through the fork date, and after that diverge.

The base client used is Bitcoin Classic version 0.11.2. On top of this version the following rule changes will activate at block height 407232, which is the difficulty adjustment scheduled for mid-April 2016.

• The block size limit will be removed and replaced with an adjustable limit based on the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume.
• The POW algorithm will changed

Note: mid-April 2016 is a target date, the final activation date will depend on development progress which depends on community participation in development as described further below.

I don't want to fork, will this affect me?

No. The fork is fully opt-in and people who do not opt-in will not be effected. To use the fork you have to switch your client from an existing client to the Satoshi's Bitcoin client. Only users who switch clients will follow the fork and use the new branch.

If you continue to use your existing client, you will continue to use the existing blockchain branch and this fork will not affect you in any manner.

Is this client ready?

No. Most development items still need to be completed, but they are relatively straight forward and should be done by the fork date. The work needed is listed below and open to community development.

How will the block size limit be changed?

The block size limit will be changed to follow the same mechanism as the difficulty for mining. Currently difficulty auto adjusts every 2 weeks and this adjustment is rate limited to only increase or decrease by a factor of 4.

The block size limit will similarly be set to auto adjust every 2 weeks based on the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume. The new block size limit for the next difficulty period will be reset to 10 times the previous difficulty period’s transaction volume, the adjustment will also be rate limited to only increase or decrease by a factor of 4.

In this manner the block size limit will function as a spam filter only as originally intended, and transaction throughput can grow based on user demand while providing protection against large block spam attacks.

Why change the POW algorithm?

This step is technically required to implement a full fork where a minority of users wishes to break away from the main chain.

At the fork date it is expected the mining power behind the new fork will be less than the current chain, and as a result the minority chain will not branch and instead continue to follow the larger chain if the same POW is used. By chaining the POW algorithm a hard full fork is set that a minority of users can follow.

Additionally changing the POW algorithm provides an opportunity to re-create a mining ecosystem that more closely follows Satoshi’s vision of one CPU one vote.

Bitcoin mining centralized because the cost structure of SHA256 mining when fully optimized is heavily dependent of electricity costs. As a result those with access to the lowest cost electricity have an artificial advantage and mining centralizes to the few individuals/firms with the lowest electricity costs.

Mining specialization and optimization cannot (and should not) be stopped. However it is possible to select and create algorithms that when fully optimized still use more standard hardware and reduce the advantage of low cost electricity. This creates more even competition in mining and by having more even competition encourages a more diverse miner ecosystem with more active user participation.

Changing the POW algorithm also brings back home hobbyist mining, which was a significant driver of Bitcoin’s early interest and adoption. This version of Bitcoin offers hobbyists the opportunity to actively participate in Bitcoin as in Bitcoin’s early days.

 

[largerblocks]

(continued due to message size limit)

Which POW will be used?

There are two options being considered. One option is to select an existing algorithm that has proven with alt-coins to be ASIC-resistant. ETH is using one such algorithm and may be selected. Another option is to create a new algorithm that improves on existing attempts, as described below.

If a new algorithm cannot be designed on time the first option will be selected, however if a new algorithm can be finalized in time that will be an option for consideration.

If the new algorithm option is selected, what will it be?

The overall goal is to take an existing algorithm, and make minor and easy adjustments that significantly reduce the effectiveness of ASIC or GPU implementations. We should still see specialization happen over time, but the optimal point should still create a more balanced environment.

Based prior experience in creating ASIC and FPGA hardware implementations of existing software algorithms, several characteristics of software algorithms have been identified which are difficult and sub-optimal to implement in hardware, or at least the advantage of a hardware implementation is drastically reduced over a general CPU core. The idea is to start with an existing algorithm and then modify it to have these characterizes. The process and these characteristics are:

• Start with the scrypt algorithm as a base starting point

The goal of scrypt is to force off-chip communication by using more data than can fit onto a single chip. The problem with the Litecoin implementation is the data size selected was much too small and it was possible to develop ASIC cores that required no off-chip communication.

• Select 1GB as an initial data set size for scrypt

1GB is well in excess of what can fit on a CMOS chip for the foreseeable future and still is reasonable for mid-range clients (cell phones, etc) to process. This number could be set to double every 5 or 10 years. This number can be debated but serves as an initial starting point.

• Change the algorithm to randomize data read from memory

By randomizing the next data element to process, it is not possible to create an efficient ASIC pipeline and instead execution flows in a sequential manner leaving most hardware elements idle. ASICs are only efficient when you have a full pipeline of operations such that every hardware element is performing work in parallel on each clock cycle. Randomizing data breaks this because execution becomes serial such as: a) determine data address, b) fetch data, c) wait long time, d) receive data, e) perform one simple computation, f) determine next data address that is based on e, g) fetch data, h) wait long time, ....

• Change the algorithm to randomize the code path to perform on a given data packet

By performing different code paths on different data packets it is not possible to process data packets in parallel. This makes not just ASIC implementations inefficient, but GPU implementations inefficient as well.

What work has been completed?

Not much in this initial release. The following changes have been made over Bitcoin Classic 0.11.2

• The block height for the fork has been set to 407232
• The block size post-fork has been fixed to 2MB
• The difficulty adjustment at the fork point is re-set to 1. This is needed because the mining hash rate is unknown, by re-setting the hash rate the branch will effectively work with a small amount of hash power and then self adjust to match the real hash rate the market brings.

What work still needs to be done?

Quite a bit. This is the list of items I think need to be done, but it is likely there are more items. I plan to work on this as able given current commitments but doubt it can be done by mid-April. If you are interested and able to contribute to making this fork happen, that is great.

• A new block version needs to be created for the fork. At the fork point only blocks with this version or higher will be accepted and this version tage will be used in block verification to select the new block size and POW. This approach simplifies coding effort.
• The block size limit needs to be changed from a fixed limit to the auto-adjusting limit
• The new POW algorithm (either existing or newly developed) needs to be implemented in the crypto library
• The new POW algorithm needs to activate at the fork height.
• The client name needs to be changed from Bitcoin Classic to Satoshi’s Vision
• The list of peers to initially search for needs to be recreated. Otherwise on startup the client will only connect to nodes on the existing branch and not nodes using the new branch.
• More?

If other items need to be done, please submit a pull request to this README and add it to the list.

After the fork what is the long term roadmap?

This client will follow developments that enable scaling Bitcoin to a large number of transactions so that as many people can use Bitcoin directly as possible. This includes expected developments that reduce block propagation times such as thin blocks, IBLT and sub-chains, among others.

 

[Bloomie]

Is satoshisbitcoin the official name? Who is behind the project?

 

[VeritasSapere]

I do not think the POW algorithm should be changed, this is very important. I have explained my reasoning more thoroughly here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip015-decentralize-mining-with-the-fair-pow-algorithm-and-an-user-configurable-pow-setting.809/page-2#post-12996

That thread also discusses the possibility of a POW algorithm change. I also think that it is still to early to take such an action. Classic might still be adopted by the miners and it does seems like there is more community support now as well.

 

[jl777]

wouldnt this be just another altcoin, just with a blockchain snapshot for initial distribution? While the ideals are good, to me it seems not so practical.

The reality of bitcoin is that the miners control things, pretty directly and they will choose the hardfork that suits them.

So, if a credible attempt is to be made to become the new defacto bitcoin, then it must appeal to the powerbase, the miners. Changing the PoW and obsoleting all the miner's investment makes this DOA as a bitcoin alternative. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is logical analysis.

I think it is clear how a new development team can take the leadership position away from the current parties that are contaminated with conflict of interest and commercial employment. I think the Persians have the answer:

Baksheesh

the entire blocksize "debate" is just about money. The miners are looking at the halving and ever increasing hash rates and this is almost forcing them to stonewall any blocksize increase. It is not a matter of them doing what is good for bitcoin in the long run, why would they are if they would go bankrupt?

Of course competition will swoop in to replace any miners that go away, but it just replaces one miner with another and so I suggest a version that is Backward Compatible with the existing bitcoin network, but simply hard codes a higher mining fee. You will be surprised at how quickly the miners will realize that a bigger blocksize is perfectly fine if they can get more revenues.

It cant be a flat fee, but I think some sort of percentage based range. Once this happens, I expect to see the miners push for blocksize increase as the more tx per block, the more txfees.

I dont have any specific recommendations for fees, but something like 0.001 for tx less than BTC, but need a way for lower value tx to be able to not have a crazy high fee. Maybe make it so that the first 1MB of tx goes to the "first class" txfees and the second class only gets confirmed if the first class is sold out. The miners are the customers that need to buy the hardfork.

Now, we also need to make sure the higher fees are acceptable to the users, but if we open up bitcoin development and get it on the path to a fully scalable solution, I dont think many would begrudge a slightly higher txfee.

My analysis is that this is a txfee negotiation between the users and the miners that needs to be brokered by the dev team. And no amount if denial will change the fact that miners have always been and always be in control of bitcoin and which hardfork is chosen.

James

 

[largerblocks]

@Bloomie
Yes, "Satoshi's Bitcoin" is the project name. I am starting this myself and hope others join the effort as either developers or users. The changes on top of Classic are straightforward enough, although I admittedly to not have too much extra time so the time frame stated is tentative and based on progress but should be doable. The project is a straight fork from Classic and can be easily diff'ed to see the changes.

@VeritasSapere
It is not effective or even possible to fork with a minority of users and hash on the same POW, changing it is needed for a full fork.

In Bitcoin every user or group of users can create their own branch and the free market will determine which is the most favorable and useful branch. You are free to make an alternative branch with the same POW and if that gains the most market adoption great.

Both options should available to the market and the best option will win. If you want a full fork on the same POW please start that project and if that version wins great.

All,
I tried announcing this effort on /r/btc but both the announcement was censored and the follow up post questioning the censorship was censored.

I take this censorship to mean that this project is on the right track....
Censored announcement is here
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48v08i/announcement_bitcoin_project_to_full_fork_to/
and the post questioning the censorship that was censored is here
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48v987/my_post_to_rbtc_was_silently_censored_how_can_i/

 

[largerblocks]

wouldnt this be just another altcoin, just with a blockchain snapshot for initial distribution? While the ideals are good, to me it seems not so practical.

All active branches are alternate coins from each other, so yes this is best described as an alt coin.

The difference is it is an alt coin that preserves Bitcoin's transaction history and ownership up through the date of the fork.

If Bitcoin is going to be artificially constrained and an alt coin is going to win, I would prefer that alt coin maintains the ownership structure and history of Bitcoin, and suspect most early adopters would as well.

The reality of bitcoin is that the miners control things, pretty directly and they will choose the hardfork that suits them.

So, if a credible attempt is to be made to become the new defacto bitcoin, then it must appeal to the powerbase, the miners. Changing the PoW and obsoleting all the miner's investment makes this DOA as a bitcoin alternative. Sorry to be so harsh, but this is logical analysis.

I respectively disagree. I believe the user base in is control of Bticoin. Users control Bitcion by selecting which block validation rules they use and through that which branch to follow. For example users can choose to reject mined blocks that are below 1MB in size, miners have no power or ability to force users to accept their blocks.

Miners are only suppose to be in charge of transaction ordering. That is the purpose of POW mining, to create a fixed order to transactions.

But it is users who are in control of the rules. That is what I want to bring to the table through this project.

Regarding the POW, changing it does not DOA the new system. A new set of miners will appear based on the value of the alternate branch, and miners will mine up to the value of the blocks rewards. Changing the POW will not stop this, there is money to be made on every branch. The alt coin space has shown this, every alt coin had miners up to the value of the alt coin's rewards. Well it will be the same with this alternate branch.

The goal is not to create a branch that everyone follows. It is to create a branch that is better and slowly takes over in time.

 

[jl777]

I meant DOA as a bitcoin replacement. Certainly a new altcoin can be made, but I thought the former was the goal?

I do not see all the bitcoin based businesses just switching to an altcoin. Just my analysis and we can agree to disagree. Since all existing bitcoin users will get the new altcoin and still have their existing bitcoins, people will just treat this like CLAM. not saying it wont do well, but it doesnt get rid of the old bitcoin,so does not solve the issue

sorry

 

[freetrader]

In Bitcoin every user or group of users can create their own branch and the free market will determine which is the most favorable and useful branch. You are free to make an alternative branch with the same POW and if that gains the most market adoption great.

Both options should available to the market and the best option will win. If you want a full fork on the same POW please start that project and if that version wins great
[/user]

I think this concept is well established and I'm glad to see your project embraces it.

Do you think the importance of in-project governance is secondary to this "law of nature" (survival of the fittest project) ?

Or is it down to to the merits of the decisions a project actually makes?

Please ignore this question if you like, it is merely my philosophical bent and curiosity getting the better of me.

From my naive outside observations of Bitcoin up to now, the first "forking generation" since Satoshi was "copy all the bits and be not much better", the second one was "let's subject ourselves to corporate governance", the third one seems to be a reversion to the open source and free software principles with a dose of "good project governance is needed".

What's next in your view - do you have ambitions or dreams in regard to "your" project's governance, and if so could you elaborate a little on your vision?

 

[VeritasSapere]

It is not effective or even possible to fork with a minority of users and hash on the same POW, changing it is needed for a full fork.

You say this but it is a completely unqualified statement, I have now argued extensively that it is possible and even preferable to keep the same POW algorithm in such a "genesis fork". I have even argued that changing the POW is counterproductive to the goals you are attempting to achieve.

Please counter my criticisms or otherwise at the very least explain to me why it is impossible to split without changing the POW algorithm.

I think the others are right, when you change the POW algorithm you are just creating another altcoin, not a very good one as well I might add. However if we split maintaining the POW algorithm then this can be seen as a continuation of the Bitcoin experiment, if in the future our "genesis fork" gains the most value then miners can return to this chain and for all intents and purposes that would be Bitcoin, as the longest chain, as defined in the whitepaper.

Please read my posts on the matter and reconsider your position.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip...onfigurable-pow-setting.809/page-2#post-12996

 

[freetrader]

Not saying it wont do well, but it doesnt get rid of the old bitcoin,so does not solve the issue

I also don't see this happening, unless Satoshi were to burn his coins on the old, bad bitcoin and move them on the new one to announce his presence.

I wager that would need a damn good reason to happen (e.g. old bitcoin is about to unleash the destruction of humankind in some way ;-)

 

[SysMan]

(continued due to message size limit)
There are two options being considered. One option is to select an existing algorithm that has proven with alt-coins to be ASIC-resistant. ETH is using one such algorithm and may be selected.

ETH are going for PoS soon.
P.s. PoS in weaker - there are no additional protection barrier - aka mining hardware hash-rate protection (PoW) level. in PoS all economy & transaction will relay only on majority of coins, meaning it will be less secure, because then 60% of money will control other 40% of money and their transactions.

 

[largerblocks]

I meant DOA as a bitcoin replacement. Certainly a new altcoin can be made, but I thought the former was the goal?

I do not see all the bitcoin based businesses just switching to an altcoin. Just my analysis and we can agree to disagree. Since all existing bitcoin users will get the new altcoin and still have their existing bitcoins, people will just treat this like CLAM. not saying it wont do well, but it doesnt get rid of the old bitcoin,so does not solve the issue

sorry

Great point and yes that is exactly right.

The goal is not to try and switch everyone over smoothly and together. That is what Classic is trying to achieve with the 75% miner consensus path. If this path is successful then there is no need for the Satoshi's Bitcoin branch and the project will be abandoned.

However if Classic is unsuccessful in moving the entire Bitcoin space over smoothly, then an alternative is for a minority to branch off and form a new coin based on the transaction history up to the fork date. Then try and grow the branch from a small group into a larger and larger group over time. This is what every alt coin tries to do.

An advantage of taking a fork approach instead of an alt coin approach is the original BTC ownership structure is preserved, this means that many start off with a stake in the new version. I also think the POW change will re-enable home mining by hobbyist which was a major contributor to Bitcoin's early traction.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@largerblocks I agree with the notion to split, in the future if Classic does not gain any headway. Though I do not think the POW algorithm should be changed. I have addressed these issues thoroughly in my previous posts so I still await your response.

 

[largerblocks]

I think this concept is well established and I'm glad to see your project embraces it.

Do you think the importance of in-project governance is secondary to this "law of nature" (survival of the fittest project) ?

Or is it down to to the merits of the decisions a project actually makes?

Please ignore this question if you like, it is merely my philosophical bent and curiosity getting the better of me.

From my naive outside observations of Bitcoin up to now, the first "forking generation" since Satoshi was "copy all the bits and be not much better", the second one was "let's subject ourselves to corporate governance", the third one seems to be a reversion to the open source and free software principles with a dose of "good project governance is needed".

What's next in your view - do you have ambitions or dreams in regard to "your" project's governance, and if so could you elaborate a little on your vision?

This is a great question.

Mike Hearn had a great post a while back where he made the argument that open source software functions best when there is a maintainer in control of the vision and direction. Linus is that for Linux and Satoshi/Gavin was that for Bitcoin till 2014. We've seen what happened after Gavin left.

I plan to follow scaling improvements that are added to Bitcoin Classic. BU is an alternative voting structure, which is great and we already have that, but I am not trying to replicate or replace that.

If the project one day has traction and matters, but my direction goes against users, then users should fork again to a better vision. That is a fundamental strength of Bitcoin and a process I am hoping to start with this.
[doublepost=1457109554][/doublepost]

You say this but it is a completely unqualified statement, I have now argued extensively that it is possible and even preferable to keep the same POW algorithm in such a "genesis fork". I have even argued that changing the POW is counterproductive to the goals you are attempting to achieve.

Please counter my criticisms or otherwise at the very least explain to me why it is impossible to split without changing the POW algorithm.

I think the others are right, when you change the POW algorithm you are just creating another altcoin, not a very good one as well I might add. However if we split maintaining the POW algorithm then this can be seen as a continuation of the Bitcoin experiment, if in the future our "genesis fork" gains the most value then miners can return to this chain and for all intents and purposes that would be Bitcoin, as the longest chain, as defined in the whitepaper.

Please read my posts on the matter and reconsider your position.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip...onfigurable-pow-setting.809/page-2#post-12996

VS, I have read all of your posts and respectively disagree. Unfortunately I do not have time to address them one by one.

You are free to make another project that does the same fork but keeps the POW, but please do not keep posting the same points in this thread.

I have tried to layout a clear vision and plan in the initial posts. If you are interested in this please participate, but if you are not or disagree please just ignore the project since it is not for you. Posting that you disagree 3-4 times in the first page is not going to stop me from trying this, as is my right as one individual Bitcoin user. I hope you can respect that.
[doublepost=1457109755][/doublepost]

I also don't see this happening, unless Satoshi were to burn his coins on the old, bad bitcoin and move them on the new one to announce his presence.

I wager that would need a damn good reason to happen (e.g. old bitcoin is about to unleash the destruction of humankind in some way ;-)

Both would continue to exist, it is just a question of which coin becomes dominate.

Today Bitcoin co-exists with many other alts, but only 5ish matter. Hopefully this version of Bitcoin makes it to that list.
[doublepost=1457109835][/doublepost]

ETH are going for PoS soon.
P.s. PoS in weaker - there are no additional protection barrier - aka mining hardware hash-rate protection (PoW) level. in PoS all economy & transaction will relay only on majority of coins, meaning it will be less secure, because then 60% of money will control other 40% of money and their transactions.

Good question.

This project will not follow POS mining until or unless it is proven to be a superior to POW. So far there are still some significant flaws. Hopefully that answers the question.

 

[freetrader]

@largerblocks: (sorry but the quoting system of this site doesn't allow easily better quoting of the last post)

then users should fork again to a better vision

Do you believe that decision making of Bitcoin is subjected to a kind of "rule by Satoshi" by virtue of his existing coins?

Does it give him/her/them the power to effectively decide on the success of future Bitcoin forks ad eternum, or at least for a few generations of "mishaps" such as the one you referred to by "what happened after Gavin left"?

I can see a possible way to refute that, but I am interested in your view (*).

(*) especially since your project has assumed a quite assertive name / heavy burden

[edit: i see your response. Feel free to ignore this post if you feel you have exhaustively answered it by way of your previous response]

 

[VeritasSapere]

@largerblocks Glad to know that you have read my posts. That is a start, next comes the discussion. Though do I understand correctly that you do not even want to discuss this? While you have not even justified or supplied any argumentation for your position?

For instance, you say that it is impossible to split without changing the POW algorithm, might I just simply ask, why?

In my posts I pointed out that even today there are several SHA256 coins, that all happily co exists next to Bitcoin, I do not see how this would not be the case with a "genesis fork"?

 

[largerblocks]

(*) especially since your project has assumed a quite assertive name / heavy burden

Good point on the burden that comes with the name. None of us can claim to know what Satoshi's full vision was or what he would prefer to do in today's situation.

What we do know is the vision clearly stated in the white paper, which is to scale Bitcoin's on chain transactions capability. He designed multiple aspects of the block chain, mining and P2P network around this and clearly discusses this.

This project will follow that vision in the white paper. A more accurate name would be "Satoshi's White Paper Bitcoin", but that name is too long so I am using "Satoshi's Bitcoin" for now.

The reality is all we can know about Satoshi's views come from the white paper and his postings. I will try to follow those writing. Hope that helps.

 

[freetrader]

Cool. What are your views on the Bitcoin 9000 scaling plan?

Are you planning to independently proceed on implementation of any of those proposals within your project?

 

[largerblocks]

@largerblocks Glad to know that you have read my posts. That is a start, next comes the discussion. Though do I understand correctly that you do not even want to discuss this? While you have not even justified or supplied any argumentation for your position?

For instance, you say that it is impossible to split without changing the POW algorithm, might I just simply ask, why?

In my posts I pointed out that even today there are several SHA256 coins, that all happily co exists next to Bitcoin, I do not see how this would not be the case with a "genesis fork"?

I am happy to discuss the POW change and the motivations for it. What I don't want to get into is a long discussion of "you shouldn't change the POW", because that is the direction for this project.

The reasons for making this choice are:

1) You are correct that technically a fork is possible with the same POW. For example the fork could force accepting a new block version and reject blocks below that version.

However I don't think it is practical. If the branch is much smaller than the main chain (which it will be initially) then doing so opens the branch up to attacks that are easy for a main chain miner to start. For example if the minority branch has 1000th the value of the main chain, then any 0.1% miner could successfully 51% attack the branch.

Yes there are some alt coins using SHA256, but none of them are real threats to Bitcoin. If one did become a threat it would probably be attacked. So far out of all of the alt coins that have real traction (i.e. the top 5 alts) none use SHA256 mining.

This project directly attacks the main branch, so it is likely there would be more interest in attacking it. Changing the POW is one level of protection.

2) Changing the POW is meant to create a risk to the miner community. If a new-POW branch starts to gain traction, hopefully that will motivate more to increase the block size, rather than to keep blocks artificially small and risk a different branch taking over.

3) I believe the optimizations that were possible with SHA256 make for a very unfair and unbalanced mining community, and has been a main factor in the centralization we have seen.

I believe we can do better than SHA256 and other alt coin attempts, to create a mining algorithm that after full optimization still has more balanced and fair economics. I am basing this view on past experience in porting many software algorithms to FPGA and ASIC implementations (which is a very specialized skill set) and having an intuitive understanding of what types of algorithms are difficult and/or not worthwhile to fully convert to power hungry ASICs.

The POW I am creating will after fully optimized have characteristics similar to the FPGA era of Bitcoin mining, during this era capital costs were much higher than electricity costs and low cost electricity was not as much as an advantage. This POW will also likely not fully optimize to an FPGA, but to a low power CPU core connected to external low power DRAM. This will produce a better environment IMHO.

Most people probably doubt this and that is fine, all I can say is I will put this out there and we'll see what happens.
[doublepost=1457123679][/doublepost]

Cool. What are your views on the Bitcoin 9000 scaling plan?

Are you planning to independently proceed on implementation of any of those proposals within your project?

I haven't read the paper yet, but based on the announcement yes this is exactly the type of direction to focus on.

I doubt core will let this project be integrated onto the Bitcoin main client or chain, maybe post forking the new branch could be a place for this project to be implemented and used. So far thing blocks, IBLT and sub-chains enable a decent scaling roadmap...