Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
johnny1000:
In the case of a 75/25 percent split, classic style, the division point is where a large block is inserted into the chain. From that point, the 75% will mine three times faster than the 25%. The 75% of miners will not mine on both chains, every miner will have to choose. The blocks after the large block can be other large blocks, 1MB blocks, or blocks with only coinbase transactions - it doesn't matter. The distinction is only if the miner can tolerate that there is this large block buried at some point in the chain.
Therefore, the 30% chance of finding the block first at the crossroad, does not flow forward to the next block or the next block after that. The 75% threshold is so big that there is practically no risk of splitting the chain. Also don't forget there is a grace period, so the fraction may be closer to 99 percent. My guess is 1) there will be not even an orphan 2) if there is, the chain will stop there, 3) if not, there will be at most a chain of two blocks before the smallblock chain is given up. After all there is a cost to mining, and the risk of losing the reward and the fees increases cruelly for each block mined in the main chain.
Unless someone wants two chains, that is. But this can not go on for long, for economic reasons. There is too small difference between the two chains to make both useful.
In the case of a 75/25 percent split, classic style, the division point is where a large block is inserted into the chain. From that point, the 75% will mine three times faster than the 25%. The 75% of miners will not mine on both chains, every miner will have to choose. The blocks after the large block can be other large blocks, 1MB blocks, or blocks with only coinbase transactions - it doesn't matter. The distinction is only if the miner can tolerate that there is this large block buried at some point in the chain.
Therefore, the 30% chance of finding the block first at the crossroad, does not flow forward to the next block or the next block after that. The 75% threshold is so big that there is practically no risk of splitting the chain. Also don't forget there is a grace period, so the fraction may be closer to 99 percent. My guess is 1) there will be not even an orphan 2) if there is, the chain will stop there, 3) if not, there will be at most a chain of two blocks before the smallblock chain is given up. After all there is a cost to mining, and the risk of losing the reward and the fees increases cruelly for each block mined in the main chain.
Unless someone wants two chains, that is. But this can not go on for long, for economic reasons. There is too small difference between the two chains to make both useful.
"The 75% of miners will not mine on both chains, every miner will have to choose. "
No, Classic miners will by default mine on the longest valid chain. To them a chain of blocks all less than 1MB is valid, therefore if the 25% chain every gets the lead, the Classic miners will all automatically switch to it.
"Also don't forget there is a grace period, so the fraction may be closer to 99 percent"
But why risk it? Why not be sure of 99% rather than hoping? We should do a Soft-hardfork, like Core may be planning to do for their 2MB hardfork. What will happen is a new version number will be softforked in at a 95% threshold, once activated miners will refuse to build on blocks which do not comply with this version number, then it will have 100% of the hashrate. Then several months later the hardfork to 2MB will be live and there is no question of miners not having upgraded as 100% of the miners will now enforce this new rule due to the softfork, well before the first 1.01MB block and the actual hardfork.
Now it is clear you guys do not care about taking risks and doing the HF in a flimsy way. But why do you care if others want to do it in a robust way? Just let them be robust.
No, Classic miners will by default mine on the longest valid chain. To them a chain of blocks all less than 1MB is valid, therefore if the 25% chain every gets the lead, the Classic miners will all automatically switch to it.
"Also don't forget there is a grace period, so the fraction may be closer to 99 percent"
But why risk it? Why not be sure of 99% rather than hoping? We should do a Soft-hardfork, like Core may be planning to do for their 2MB hardfork. What will happen is a new version number will be softforked in at a 95% threshold, once activated miners will refuse to build on blocks which do not comply with this version number, then it will have 100% of the hashrate. Then several months later the hardfork to 2MB will be live and there is no question of miners not having upgraded as 100% of the miners will now enforce this new rule due to the softfork, well before the first 1.01MB block and the actual hardfork.
Now it is clear you guys do not care about taking risks and doing the HF in a flimsy way. But why do you care if others want to do it in a robust way? Just let them be robust.
That is correct, therefore, we might see orphaned largeblocks. This must be regarded as a failed attempt at changing the blocksize. The first large block might be mined by someone who is happy with taking the risk, or someone who wants to state his opinion, backed by a 12.5+ btc loss. But in the case of classic triggering at 75%, then a grace period, and then miners tiptoeing, hoping others mine the first largeblock, there will be no risk, so classic will follow the largeblock branch.
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Your investors may like that idea. Why don't you ask them to put some money for it on a table.
If they do, come back here and let us know the number.
Do you realize that every time a soft-fork activate it's like someone is peeling an onion one more time?
Eventually you'll run out of layers to remove and your full validating node (onion) will become a useless machine until its operator decide to turn it off or to upgrade it.
A soft-fork is just a way to shift decision power from the entire users base to the miners only.
You could even state that 100% of the hashing power should be needed to activate a soft-fork, still it will be a small minority of the entire group of bitcoin users.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
With this soft-hardfork activation methodology, it looks like it isn't exactly the posters in this thread that have the problem with adversarial thinking!
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Dusty
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 362
- 1,172
Of couse then: I thought the proposal was also for the mining camp.
In this case I fully agree with your proposal.
From me, it was intended for miners who for any reason don't want to change the version he is used to, to build 1MB blocks, but still want to be on the chain with a buried largeblock, if it is the longest chain. But may be it is too late to make such patch. It probably has to be tested on testnet. Sounds like work.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
@awemany:
Couldn't find a screenshot or cached page now, but it had a nice single-page tabular overview of hard and soft-forks and their respective status (in progress, failed, succeeded etc.)
If one wanted to know the current status of a versionbits soft-fork it was quite handy.
Original BCT announcement thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458929.0
Couldn't find a screenshot or cached page now, but it had a nice single-page tabular overview of hard and soft-forks and their respective status (in progress, failed, succeeded etc.)
If one wanted to know the current status of a versionbits soft-fork it was quite handy.
Original BCT announcement thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458929.0
Part 4 of 5:
https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-3512f3382276
Xthin cuts the bandwidth required for block propagation by a factor of 24.
[doublepost=1465224371,1465223611][/doublepost]Interestingly, the post was censored from /r/bitcoin and then later uncensored. The bad news is that it was never at the top of "New" and thus didn't have as much of a chance to receive upvotes (and it looks like it was significantly downvoted during the period where it was censored).
https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-3512f3382276
Xthin cuts the bandwidth required for block propagation by a factor of 24.
[doublepost=1465224371,1465223611][/doublepost]Interestingly, the post was censored from /r/bitcoin and then later uncensored. The bad news is that it was never at the top of "New" and thus didn't have as much of a chance to receive upvotes (and it looks like it was significantly downvoted during the period where it was censored).
@bracek: Even if he would be, labelling him a troll will probably not make matters better...
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
@jonny1000 I think it is better to embrace the concept of a split. If people want to split the chain over any change let them. It is their freedom of choice to do so. Attempting to make this harder seems futile, instead of fighting peoples freedom of choice I think it would be better to embrace this as a positive feature of Bitcoin. If certain people prefer to split the chain by staying behind when the blocksize is increased then good for them, they made their own choice. It is better to just let people do what they want to do, that is how the protocol is designed. And the ideology of the "tyranny of consensus" is not going to change this since you will never be able to convince everyone to think this way. I would also consider "ideology" a rather weak defense for such a system. I have much more confidence in the cryptographic rules and the game theory supporting them.
This is How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Fork.
[doublepost=1465225940][/doublepost]@bracek I see it very differently, what @jonny1000 is doing here is very valuable for this forum. We need opposing opinions and dissent. Otherwise the danger exists for this space to become an echo chamber as well. Our ideas thrive when constantly questioned and challenged, this is healthy and that type of censorship is never justified. We can lead by example here.
So thank you @jonny1000, I do appreciate your participation here.
This is How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Fork.
[doublepost=1465225940][/doublepost]@bracek I see it very differently, what @jonny1000 is doing here is very valuable for this forum. We need opposing opinions and dissent. Otherwise the danger exists for this space to become an echo chamber as well. Our ideas thrive when constantly questioned and challenged, this is healthy and that type of censorship is never justified. We can lead by example here.
So thank you @jonny1000, I do appreciate your participation here.
I'm not sure if you are some kind of clever satire on the small block position - its hard to tell with so many emotive terms, passive-aggressive jabs in every post and self-invented concepts like "strong consensus".
Whatever, keep it up as time shows the small block side to have zero rational basis for desperately clinging to some temporary network limit. And your posts are quite funny in a canute-like way.
Last edited:
Latest threads
-
-
-
BUY MDPHP APVP METH ALPRAZOLAM ONLINE DISCREET DELIVERY narcochems.com
- derikpatos
- 0 replies
-
BUY MDPHP APVP METH ALPRAZOLAM ONLINE DISCREET DELIVERY narcochems.com
- derikpatos
- 0 replies
Members online
No members online now.