Bitcoin Unlimited with a new Genesis Block

[Domrada]

I can't be reasoned with on these beliefs, so dont try, let's just agree to disagree.

That's big of you to admit.

 

[adamstgbit]

Why? Who has the right to be Bitcoin? Who has the right to deny others to say they are the One True Coin? Where did this idea that some group gets to control or define Bitcoin come from?

who has the right? no one and everyone!
bitcoin IS whatever the majority believe it to be.
a minority forking off is by-passing nakamoto consensus, it is by definition an invalid chain, and pretending that it is bitcoin is a declaration of war.
sure you can do it, but dont expect peaceful coexistence, we will destroy all your base.

 

[freetrader]

"You do not take from this universe. It grants you what it will."
- Paul Muad'dib

 

[Tsontar]

> a minority forking off is by-passing nakamoto consensus,

I'm not sure what that even means. Nakamoto consensus is absolutely maintained for both forks.

> it is by definition an invalid chain,

Yes, the existing chain and its miners will see the new fork as an invalid chain. That is why you should calm down. If you want to run your current version of Bitcoin and have it mined by the current miners just like it is today, you can just do that, and this fork will have no bearing on your life.

> and pretending that it is bitcoin is a declaration of war.
> sure you can do it, but dont expect peaceful coexistence, we will destroy all your base.

I really can't understand the aggression. A spinoff coin is a the only non-coercive solution to the differences of opinion on blockchain scalability (and indeed other issues as well). No party in the debate fails to get what it wants.

The fact that you are so troubled leads me to believe that there's a miscommunication happening. I can't find any reason at all to be so upset.

If you hate the idea of the fork so bad, you can sell all your "new" coins, keeping your coins on the current fork, and use the proceeds from the sale of the "new" coins to increase your holdings on the old fork / current chain. You are literally better off because of the fork.

 

[adamstgbit]

>I'm not sure what that even means. Nakamoto consensus is absolutely maintained for both forks.

changes to bitcoin must be agreed on using Nakamoto consensus, you tried to get miners voting for 2MB and failed ( so far ) and so you bypass Nakamoto consensus by creating a new chain.

>this fork will have no bearing on your life.

BS i will have access to this "new coin" which i now have to manage, and i have to go around yelling "This is it boys this is war!"

> and altcoin is a non-coercive solution
with a spin off you are a threat trying to undermine the majority. we will sell the worthless coins you duplicated for us, and we will ddos your nodes, we will 51% your base, and we will have victory!

LOL!

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I can't be reasoned with on these beliefs, so dont try, let's just agree to disagree.

But...

IF the spin off, makes it impossible to do cross chain TX and makes it clear that they are not directly competing to BE bitcoin, i might have less issues.

This is exactly what my points are premised on. This is just one example of a point you have the wrong idea about (we don't disagree here), so I wouldn't be so quick to give up. I can promise clarity will reveal that there is no issue, only misunderstanding.

I think if you take all these points raised as given and re-examine the whole idea, its appeal will be apparent. I think all the objections you have raised are misconceptions, or things (like the prevention of cross-chain txs) that I would also have a problem with if they weren't solved.

As is it, your last comment has it exactly backwards: a spinoff is the greatest gift any dissenter could give you - the opportunity to take their stupid money away from them. There is no war, as nothing is being attacked, neither from a conceptual nor an investment perspective. A spinoff is all the investors who disagree with you offering you their money on a silver platter (assuming you are in the right!). What's not to like?

And @johnyj as I have explained in the GCBU thread, there is no inflation, no QE at all. Nothing of the sort, not in any way, shape or form. Take a look at the diagram I posted.

 

[freetrader]

we will ddos your nodes

I would not so hastily admit that. Cybercrimes and all that.

"Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

 

[adamstgbit]

I would not so hastily admit that. Cybercrimes and all that.

I didnt say i would ddos

but everyone seems to get ddos'd from time to time, my guess is if bitcoin feels threatened in anyway it will fight back.

 

[freetrader]

Anger is one thing, violence another.

I would say Bitcoin would wake up that day and feel just great.
As if getting rid of a spectre that's been haunting it for the last few years.

Take note that, as others have explained, a hard fork does not deny existing Bitcoin users any service.

 

[VeritasSapere]

If the genesis fork comes under this type of direct attack, I would not blame the genesis fork for these attacks. It is not Bitcoin that is fighting back, but people that feel threatened by a permissionless network and the freedom that it represents. I would consider that more their problem compared to a problem that is inherent with the idea of genesis forks themselves.

I would not consider many people threatening violence to be a good reason not to do something. After all the ability to fork also represents our right to self determination within Bitcoin.

The ability to split like this is from my perspective the perfect governance solution, when there is a fundamental disagreement within Bitcoin. This mechanism can fundamentally solve the age old problem of tyranny of the majority. I think it is because of this very mechanism that Bitcoin can remain truly free. It is immune to being captured by a government or a for profit company because it can always be forked. I consider this mechanism to be absolutely critical in keeping Bitcoin free and decentralized.

To be clear again, the genesis fork would go under a different name unless it gained the majority of hashpower, the definition of Bitcoin I think is at least pretty clear according to the whitepaper. I do not think there is any rational reason to fear the genesis forks, I think they should be embraced as being an important part of Bitcoins design.

After all since these genesis forks are relatively easy to implement, if you really did believe that such genesis forks do damage the value proposition of Bitcoin then it would be wiser to leave Bitcoin now since such genesis forks are inevitable, if they are not implemented today then I am sure someone else will eventually create such forks tomorrow, even just because it is possible.

Furthermore in regards to creating another Bitcoin clone with a new genesis block, I can not believe that it will be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies that are already out there. If we fork Bitcoin and it does not contain the same distribution as Bitcoin then it really does not have much going for it. Some Bitcoiners might not like to hear this but it might make more sense for them to just start buying altcoins, which is why forking Bitcoin in this way is more appealing to current Bitcoin holders since they get to maintain their share in the ledger as opposed to having to buy into several new ledgers.

 

[freetrader]

Well said, @VeritasSapere .

Genesis forks protect existing investments in Bitcoin against altcoins.
They are not inflationary as @Zangelbert Bingledack has eloquently demonstrated, and they are an integral part of Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin [1], as an extension of the well-known forkability of open source software [2,3].

The fact that Core has escalated what should be a technical issue (block size limit) into a governance issue is lamentable, but ultimately everyone reaps what they sow.

Currency competition is good.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
[2] http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.259.1050&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[3] https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/153135

Honeybadgers - stronger together.

 

[Tsontar]

changes to bitcoin must be agreed on using Nakamoto consensus, you tried to get miners voting for 2MB and failed ( so far ) and so you bypass Nakamoto consensus by creating a new chain.

Nobody is "bypassing" anything. Would we be "bypassing consensus" if we dumped our Bitcoin? "Bypassing" presumes some "path" that everyone must follow. Bitcoin is permissionless. There is no "path" that can be "bypassed."

BS i will have access to this "new coin" which i now have to manage, and i have to go around yelling "This is it boys this is war!"

Why? Your coins are safe on your chain, protected by the same hashpower that protects them now, with absolutely nobody attacking it. Why the violence? Nobody is acting violently towards you.

with a spin off you are a threat trying to undermine the majority. we will sell the worthless coins you duplicated for us, and we will ddos your nodes, we will 51% your base, and we will have victory!

You should absolutely sell the coins on whichever chain if you think the strategy of that chain makes the coins on that chain worth less in the long run. But you shouldn't act violently, which includes DDoS or 51% attacks, because (1) it's unethical (2) it makes you look like your code is weak on fundamentals and (3) it'll just cost you money in the long run, as Bitcoin is highly resilient to such attacks.

But see, there's no need for hostility, anger, or war. We're giving you free coins. Just sell them, and move on. Or ignore them. They didn't cost you anything. You still have every Bitcoin that you have today.

That's the beauty of non-coercion: before, people (ie XT, Classic) were trying to impose their ideas on the entire group, by asking that at least 75% agree to a fork. With a spinoff, nobody's ideas are imposed on anyone else. Everyone gets their coins on the chain that they believe has the best fundamentals, and the market can make a free and fair decision.

That's why your anger is misplaced. You have 100% freedom to choose as you see fit. Nobody is forcing anything on you, and nobody is taking anything from you.

 

[johnyj]

who has the right? no one and everyone!
bitcoin IS whatever the majority believe it to be.
a minority forking off is by-passing nakamoto consensus, it is by definition an invalid chain, and pretending that it is bitcoin is a declaration of war.
sure you can do it, but dont expect peaceful coexistence, we will destroy all your base.

The question is who represent "economy majority"? Suppose that most of the devs and hash power are controlled by government/banks and they intentionally cripple bitcoin, and a minority fork is supported by minor hash power and a few devs, which one is economy majority?

If you remember, last year majority of the mining pools were supporting BIP100 to increase the blocksize using miner voting, and they almost had 70% hash rate support for BIP100. And now they changed their stance and collude with BS devs, and majority of the hash rate suddenly switched back

This clearly indicated, a few large mining pools are in fact control the majority of the hash power. There are two reasons:

1. most of the miners have no idea about bitcoin politics and just blindly give their decision making right to mining pool operators (the slush pool vote indicated that only a small fraction of users and only half of the hash power voted, although the support from both sides are quite close)

2. majority of the hash power is in the hands of a few guys, large capitals controls bitcoin hash power

Given such kind of hash power distribution, you can not say the major hash power is the economy majority of bitcoin, since they only represent a few guys' opinion

Coin voting could be another way to measure investors' opinion but this model has not been developed yet

Without a clear measurement of the community opinion, you can not say the economy majority is with core right now, chinese pools just stick to that hongkong meeting agreement to give them more time to evaluate the situation

But the fundamental problem here is, since most of the people don't understand bitcoin's inner workings, thus they don't have a position when it comes to bitcoin technical politics. As a result, who is good at social engineering will focus their effort on those large actors in the industry and try to form an OPEC like organization, nothing is preventing that from happening and we have seen what Blockstream has done

So far, a genesis fork is the only solution for anyone that is disagree with those guys vision, although the chance that a minority fork succeeding is small, but at least it gives people freedom. As an investor, you lose nothing in such a fork since you have pre-fork coins, it will just hurt the market confidence of the new comer: They get confused by twin blockchain and added total coin supply in the whole bitcoin economy

 

[adamstgbit]

If the genesis fork comes under this type of direct attack, I would not blame the genesis fork for these attacks. It is not Bitcoin that is fighting back, but people that feel threatened by a permissionless network and the freedom that it represents. I would consider that more their problem compared to a problem that is inherent with the idea of genesis forks themselves.

I would not consider many people threatening violence to be a good reason not to do something. After all the ability to fork also represents our right to self determination within Bitcoin.

The ability to split like this is from my perspective the perfect governance solution, when there is a fundamental disagreement within Bitcoin. This mechanism can fundamentally solve the age old problem of tyranny of the majority. I think it is because of this very mechanism that Bitcoin can remain truly free. It is immune to being captured by a government or a for profit company because it can always be forked. I consider this mechanism to be absolutely critical in keeping Bitcoin free and decentralized.

To be clear again, the genesis fork would go under a different name unless it gained the majority of hashpower, the definition of Bitcoin I think is at least pretty clear according to the whitepaper. I do not think there is any rational reason to fear the genesis forks, I think they should be embraced as being an important part of Bitcoins design.

After all since these genesis forks are relatively easy to implement, if you really did believe that such genesis forks do damage the value proposition of Bitcoin then it would be wiser to leave Bitcoin now since such genesis forks are inevitable, if they are not implemented today then I am sure someone else will eventually create such forks tomorrow, even just because it is possible.

Furthermore in regards to creating another Bitcoin clone with a new genesis block, I can not believe that it will be able to compete with the alternative cryptocurrencies that are already out there. If we fork Bitcoin and it does not contain the same distribution as Bitcoin then it really does not have much going for it. Some Bitcoiners might not like to hear this but it might make more sense for them to just start buying altcoins, which is why forking Bitcoin in this way is more appealing to current Bitcoin holders since they get to maintain their share in the ledger as opposed to having to buy into several new ledgers.

the more i think about the more i believe we need to try to spin off with <5%

i believe you're living in a fantasy world if you think that fork won't get killed, fucking killed. ( my idea is if the fork is at all threatening or could potentially be threatening in the future it will get attacked from every angle )

but its probably a good idea to try and see if its indeed possible for a minority group to fork bitcoin.
[doublepost=1461634607][/doublepost]ill add that i strongly disagree with your views.
it allows and promotes the idea of forking off every time there is a disagreement
consensus will be a joke once we've split off into 3-4 like minded groups.

i think the better idea is having everyone forced to work together. with one side ultimately coming up with the best solution that expresses a compromise, one size fits all, type solution

do i think thats what core achieved??? NO they are not playing ball fairly they simply lie when they say they will propose a 2MB HF later. they will actually simply reopen the debate next year. they have 0 intention of backing a 2MB incress.

but i dont think its time to start a war just yet, i believe there support will fade as there empty promises disappoint everyone.

 

[Domrada]

ill add that i strongly disagree with your views.

You've made that abundantly clear already.

i think the better idea is having everyone forced to work together.

Yeah, that's the reason I got into Bitcoin originally, because I enjoy being forced into things.

 

[adamstgbit]

you will accept the will of the majority or we will use cyber-virtual-deadly-51%-DOS force.
welcome to bitcoin
resistance is futile

 

[freetrader]

 

[johnyj]

i think the better idea is having everyone forced to work together. with one side ultimately coming up with the best solution that expresses a compromise, one size fits all, type solution

do i think thats what core achieved??? NO they are not playing ball fairly they simply lie when they say they will propose a 2MB HF later. they will actually simply reopen the debate next year. they have 0 intention of backing a 2MB incress.

but i dont think its time to start a war just yet, i believe there support will fade as there empty promises disappoint everyone.

The fact that core ignored all the consensus pointing block size increase BIPs, while pushing out their impossible-to-reach-consensus segwit solution means core has long been compromised

Both Jeff and Gavin are politically weak, they dare not to use the same hard measure as BS, as a result they got kicked out. And general public do not like weak hands, since that reduce their confidence

 

[rebuilder]

ill add that i strongly disagree with your views.
it allows and promotes the idea of forking off every time there is a disagreement
consensus will be a joke once we've split off into 3-4 like minded groups.

I'm kind of jumping in here from nowhere, but what if this is a good thing?

What I mean is: the base Bitcoin protocol should be as permissive as possible. The less restrictive the ruleset, the less room for disagreement there can be. Lowering the threshold to fork in a disagreement would lead to either fragmentation or a minimally restrictive protocol. It could well be the latter.

Case in point, blocksize... Decide on the protocol level or let the users decide?

 

[adamstgbit]

@rebuilder
yes i agree the protocol should not define any limits or rules, the rules at the protocol level rules should be really basic, like defining the structure of a TX or a block.
limits such as block size could be implemented at a higher level. ( kinda like how miners had a soft limit)
Different nodes could have different rules, only the rules that have reached >75% acceptance by node would be safe to enforce.
example some 5% of nodes have a rule that stats " blocks >2MB are OK " but since miners only have 5% accepting this rule they won't mine a 2MB block, once it reaches 75% its fairly safe for them to mine a 2MB block and not have it orphaned as it will only be rejected by 25% of the network
of course this causes a fork where the 25% get forked off the network but OH WELL, they can either continue down this 1MB fork or keep up with the rules as they change.

we are actually seeing this now, this is more or less what's happening with Classic and Core nodes, but its seen as taboo and RETARDS are promoting the idea that changes to bitcoin MUST come from core, since only core devs are competent... and everyone's buying it.