Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

So far, what core devs have been doing is terrible, they cheat, they lie, they hide, they even baked malicious behaviors into their code, thus becomes untrustworthy. When the trust is gone, nothing can be established further, anything from them becomes suspicious

So for me, the decision is super easy to make, it is not about the technology, just about people

there is great truth to this. they've done all of those and to some it's come down to a change in governance.

 

[jonny1000]

remove the discount and make it a SWHF with a+b<=4MB and i might support it.

I would also like this.

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

We could always HF to this later, once Classic support becomes insignificant. I would judge this to be at around the 2% to 3% miner support level. That is why I am commenting so much at the moment, if we can just push Classic support down a bit more, perhaps below around 3% for a few months, we may be able to HF to 2MB. I think we are getting close.

 

[albin]

@jonny1000

With all due respect, that sounds like you need a therapist rather than a technical/economic/political discussion.

 

[cypherdoc]

I would also like this.

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

why? Corallo offered up his version of the same thing: SWHF a+b<=3MB.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

"On the other hand, if Classic activates, we can confidently say that, at that moment, there is at least (approximately) 75% miner opposition to the status quo."

That is false, 70% of the miners could support Classic, and then they get lucky and cross the 75% threshold. In-fact, if you make assumptions, including that support for Classic gradually increases over time, then statistically speaking, Classic is most likely to activate with only 71% miner support.

Hence the "approximately."

 

[jonny1000]

why? Corallo offered up his version of the same thing: SWHF a+b<=3MB.

Yeah, I would be fine with either, 3MB or 4MB. Personally I would be fine with up to 10MB right now, but others are more conservative. You may not believe me, but I actually have always been towards the large block end of the spectrum, I just have a different vision how to get there. (A winning vision, rather than a losing one)

 

[Richy_T]

Sorry, When I say 25% opposition is locked in, I am talking about the metric used officially by the activation methodology.

When I say statically 71% is most likely, I mean actual miner support at the time. Yes it is correct, it is possible for actual miner support to be 100%.

This assumes a very slow ramp up to and through 71% minor support.

Found the article...

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-classic-hard-fork-likely-to-activate-at-hashrate-support-1457020892

“I estimate at most a 27 percent chance of activating with a true proportion of 70 percent of the network, but only after 100,000 blocks at that proportion, which would mean remaining at 70 percent for about two years. More realistically, the ‘yes’ voter proportion could stall for a few months, say 10,000 to 20,000 blocks, and in this case there's a 3 to 6 percent change of activating at 70 percent.”

So there it is, a 27% chance of activating at 70% hashrate after a *long* period of time and which assumes that the hash rate doesn't increase or decrease in the meantime.

In truth, 70% isn't that much different from 75%. The important thing is that it is a good distance away from 50% which would cause complications.

The title of the linked article is annoyingly ambiguous FWIW. It can be read as "It is likely that when/if Classic activates, it will be at 71%" but reading the text, it should be read as "If Classic receives 71% of hashrate, it will likely activate before it expires". Except even that isn't true as the chance is 27%

Oh, and FWIW, since classic has been running for a while now, there are less blocks for it to achieve this in so the likelihood is now even lower than 27%.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Sorry, When I say 25% opposition is locked in, I am talking about the metric used officially by the activation methodology.

So ... when you say that "25% miner opposition is locked in" at the time of activation, all you're really saying is that Classic is activated when 750 of the last 1,000 blocks are Classic blocks? Well in that case, your assertion is both trivial and a VERY strange use of the English language. That said, language is an open-source protocol and you are free to "fork" it at any time. But if you don't get some measure of "consensus" on your fork, you're just talking to yourself.

BTW, I actually really love the Bitcoin / language analogy. Here's an old comment of mine that addresses the claim that Bitcoin is likely to prove to be an Esperanto-like project.

 

[Richy_T]

Wait, more from that article:

“I think a true proportion of ‘yes’ voters at 70.5 percent to 71 percent of the network could activate Bitcoin classic early with 50 percent probability.”

So he calculated the chances for 70% but he "thinks" for 70.5-71% WTH? What is this, /r/theydidtheguess ?

 

[AdrianX]

Exactly, so the new 1MB rule was a soft fork, since the 1MB rule was compatible with the old clients at the time. Agreed?

if I agree with you can we just call it a soft fork and let miners mine blocks greater than the 1MB limit and go back to the default 32MB? It was a hard fork' I'll pull out satoshi quote tomorrow and show you that he defined it as a hard fork.

Your logik is correct when it comes to the deployment, in that old nodes could have been unaffected and my point is it became the default hard fork in the absence of your consensus process.

If you understand Bitcoin Unlimited, we (all the users of Bitcoin) can remove the limit in the exact same way in which it became deployed. It will also happen free of any consensus process. No centralised control BC/Core needed. you can call the BU block tolerance a soft fork if it makes you feel less coerced.

 

[Richy_T]

OK, so thinking about it more...

A slow ramp up through 71% would mean that there was a lot of blocks gone by before getting to that point. Which would reduce the chance of activation before expiry. A fast ramp up would mean very likely going beyond the 71% fairly rapidly. The whole scenario presented depends on a rapid rise to 71% and then hanging out there for "reasons". It's interesting from an academic point of view but doesn't really have much reflection in the real world (where classic apparently topped out at 5% so far)

 

[AdrianX]

One of the things I really like about SegWit is the 95% activation threshold, even though its only a softfork and doesn't even need 95%, ...

95% of who votes exactly? those miners in back room meetings with Blockstream who then make promises that lay the seeds to destroy the integrity of the network and undermine the miners potential revenue using false logic to convince them it's in there best interests.

No thanks, I prefer the wisdom of crowds, Bitcoin unlimited leaves the process 100% decentralised. and lets each miner make there own value judgment free of Blockstream/Core coercion.

 

[albin]

Short of total surveillance or extreme mining centralization with openly-transparent verifiable KPI's for all mining firms released regularly to the public, hashpower is not knowable except by inference to actual blocks. There is no functional difference between a lucky 71% and an unlucky 79%, or conversely an unlucky 29% and a lucky 21%.

 

[AdrianX]

I would also like this.

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

We could always HF to this later, once Classic support becomes insignificant. I would judge this to be at around the 2% to 3% miner support level. That is why I am commenting so much at the moment, if we can just push Classic support down a bit more, perhaps below around 3% for a few months, we may be able to HF to 2MB. I think we are getting close.

you make me LOL,

So to just clarify my understanding, you support 2MB blocks and don't actually support the current SegWits plan but you're willing to fight the 2MB block limit increase and would rather see bitcoin become worthless that see 2MB activated outside of the Centralised control of the Core authority.


[doublepost=1465365578][/doublepost]

Yeah, I would be fine with either, 3MB or 4MB. Personally I would be fine with up to 10MB right now, but others are more conservative. You may not believe me, but I actually have always been towards the large block end of the spectrum, I just have a different vision how to get there. (A winning vision, rather than a losing one)

Ok lets drop Classic for a while I agree it shouldn't activate with a 750 blocks out of 1000 support, that was a huge mistake it was set so high as a courtesy. Now when we analyse how the block size limit is removed with Bitcoin Unlimited, no activation threshold is needed. Is there anything you oppose there, I like it because it doesn't require an authority or your 95% extreme consensus, and I presume you'll like it as it is deployed as a soft fork according to your understanding and it doesn't require an activation threshold.

not to mention it lets you vote for a 10MB block limit independent of what the rest of the network thinks.
[doublepost=1465365978,1465364997][/doublepost]

That said, language is an open-source protocol and you are free to "fork" it at any time. But if you don't get some measure of "consensus" on your fork, you're just talking to yourself.

wow that's a great analogy thanks. now lets consider for a moment that we needed 95% extreme consensus to start introducing new vocabulary, what a mess.

 

[Zarathustra]

True, but at the moment and from an ethical perspective I prefer the Swiss Franc over Bitcoin, which is produced mainly by a few oligarchs in a totalitarian country who follow their accomplices at the Kore Gang. As long as the Kore Gang and the Chinese oligarchs dominate Bitcoin, cypherpunks and libertarians will slowly but steadily replace their holdings with another cryptocurrency. Satoshi invented the Blockchain and Cryptocurrency. There lies the resilience. In Switzerland the people (lambs and wolves) decided about the question whether the Central Bank has to hold at least a fifth of its assets in Gold. We did not want such kind of 'sound money' and rejected it. Debt has always been the real money. A commodity is a commodity and debt/credit is money, whether the Gold Bugs like it or not.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/swiss-voters-set-to-reject-gold-initiative-polling-group-says-1417349029

 

[jonny1000]

So he calculated the chances for 70% but he "thinks" for 70.5-71% WTH? What is this, /r/theydidtheguess ?

I did very basic maths, just now, I know this is not perfect, and there are much better ways of doing it, so please do not blame me.

I chose different 1,000 random consecutive sets of two digits each, from pi. The number above x was above the 75% threshold in the following number of cases:

69: 0
70: 1
71: 5
72: 14
73: 120

As you can see, things pick up quite quickly around 71%. At 71% it happened 5 in 1,000 attempts. Then without adjusting for overlaps, you get c105 attempts in a two year period, 105 * 5/1000 = 52.5% chance of activating. With overlaps, it could be around 65%.

 

[Zarathustra]

In Switzerland, we will also vote on the so called Vollgeld-Initiative ('full money initiative'), which is a full joke that would forbid fractional reserve.

https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2016/03/03/vollgeld-what-it-means-for-fractional-reserve-banking-in-switzerland/

http://www.vollgeld-initiative.ch/english/

 

[jonny1000]

So ... when you say that "25% miner opposition is locked in" at the time of activation, all you're really saying is that Classic is activated when 750 of the last 1,000 blocks are Classic blocks? Well in that case, your assertion is both trivial and a VERY strange

Well no, there could be a voting window where Classic needs at least 75% support, for example.

 

[Epilido]

Exactly, so the new 1MB rule was a soft fork, since the 1MB rule was compatible with the old clients at the time. Agreed?

No its not compatible with the old mining nodes the only nodes that extend the chain. If one of these old mining nodes produced at block larger than 1mb that block would be invalid by the rest of the network. It would not be relayed or built upon by any if the new rule nodes mining or otherwise.

 

[jonny1000]

if I agree with you can we just call it a soft fork and let miners mine blocks greater than the 1MB limit and go back to the default 32MB?

A reduction in the limit is a softfork, while an increase is a hardfork.
[doublepost=1465368444][/doublepost]

So to just clarify my understanding, you support 2MB blocks and don't actually support the current SegWits plan but you're willing to fight the 2MB block limit increase and would rather see bitcoin become worthless that see 2MB activated outside of the Centralised control of the Core authority.

• you support 2MB blocks - Yes
  
• don't actually support the current SegWits plan - No, I do support SegWit, I would also be fine with SegWit HF, a+b <4MB
  
• but you're willing to fight the 2MB block limit increase and would rather see bitcoin become worthless that see 2MB activated outside of the Centralised control of the Core authority - No, nothing to do with Core authority, it needs strong consensus across the enitire community, otherwise yes, I would rather the price fall to near zero