Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jonny1000]

just an elimination of the vague concept you call 'strong consensus' and its replacement with an objective process that anyone can understand and that can reflect the wider community.

I have been crystal clear:

• 95% miner consensus
• 6 month grace period

You have a lot to learn about Bitcoin. SF, HF are all kore concepts kore gang created to retain control.

Please end the counterproductive bad faith. The consepts of SF & HF were well known before Core existed.
[doublepost=1465648940][/doublepost]

The thing is that if Kore would raise the block size to 2mb in a new "official" bitcoin clien we would have a strong consensus even for that

I keep repeating, this should occur when the attempt to change the rules without consensus becomes insignificant. We are getting close to that point, that is why I am commetning a lot. During an attempt to HF without consensus, the community should rally behind the existing rules.
[doublepost=1465649167][/doublepost]

Core has never actually shown itself capable of a hard fork, in fact it has doubled down against them, vilifying them and any who proposed them. My minimum standard to prove themselves capable of it would be for them to release publicly and on time the HF code, honoring the terms of their deal in HK.
This would be a public release of their software, tested and ready to be deployed by the miners and anyone supporting an increase in the blocksize cap, and not including other agenda items that were not publicly agreed. Will this ever happen?

Five Core developers commited to implement an increase in the non witness data to around 2MB, in July 2016. In a calm enviroment, with no suignificant pressure, threats or attacks, this is likley to be accsepted by Core. If we are in a confrontational enviroment at the time, Core are likley to rally behind the exisiting rules. For example if SegWit is not being activated due to a threat from the miners to get a 2MB HF from Core, it may not happen. It is vital the situation is calm and attacks are insignificant in the period running up to July, August & September, if we want a successful HF to 2MB.

 

[freetrader]

@jonny1000 : Wasn't Core HF supposed to be released in July? That would make it (probably) 95% and 12 months (since they talked about activation in July 2017). Now please explain how that isn't even stronger consensus than you propose, and how therefore it isn't better (from a Core / "strong consensus" view) than your 6-months proposition?
And if your idea has any support, then why isn't anyone putting it out - you or your investors first and foremost?

"You have a lot to learn about Bitcoin. SF, HF are all kore concepts kore gang created to retain control."

Please attribute your quotes correctly.

 

[jonny1000]

Reading Satoshi's whitepaper I fundamentally grasped hard-forking as a vital defensive mechanism, to allow Bitcoin to shake off miners and developers who do not live up to the market's expectations.

You do not need to HF to "shake of developers", just run a different compatible implementation. Stop conflating seperate issues.
[doublepost=1465649533][/doublepost]

@jonny1000 : Wasn't Core HF supposed to be released in July?

No, that was not Core, that was 5 developers.

@jonny1000
That would make it (probably) 95% and 12 months (since they talked about activation in July 2017). Now please explain how that isn't even stronger consensus than you propose, and how therefore it isn't better (from a Core / "strong consensus" view) than your 6-months proposition?

Yes a 12 month grace period is probably better and closer to the example grace period Satoshi gave. Any Core fork will probably be a SoftHardfork, which would be even better.
[doublepost=1465649594][/doublepost]

And if your idea has any support, then why isn't anyone putting it out

As I keep repeating, during the period of a significant attempt to change the rules without consensus, we must rally behind the exisiting rules.

 

[Bagatell]

The consepts of SF & HF were well known before Core existed.

Softfork appears to be an entirely Bitcoin thing.

"This question and answer seems to be about "software forks", which are completely different than "blockchain forks", correct? I was under the impression blockchain forks happen on the daily, whenever two miners mine blocks nearly-simultaneously.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

https://startpage.com/do/search?q=soft+fork

 

[freetrader]

You do not need to HF to "shake of developers", just run a different compatible implementation.

Disingenious much. We're not talking about petty issues here, like a different wallet implementation.
We're talking about the developers of the most popular implementation wanting to transform Bitcoin from electronic cash for everyone into a settlement system for monied interests. There is no "compatible" between those two if the process involves an artificial resource scarcity being forced on the users.

We're talking about protocol changes (some specified, like RBF, others leaving a wide open door to soft-forking in script changes), and economic changes (SWSF with its distorted block space accounting) being forced on the community by a small minority.

We will not allow [...]

IOW, we shouldn't upset the applecart(el).
Thanks for making it clear who is using force, threats etc.

 

[cypherdoc]

Exceedingly well said. Simple yet elegant.

Nakamoto himself suggested raising blocksize with a simple height trigger. This would result in either 51+% support and a lasting fork, or a failure to fork. Sounds like Nakamoto himself believed 51% was sufficient for a hard fork.

The "stronger" your consensus requirement, the easier it is to break. 90% consensus -> 10% can prevent it. 95% -> 5% can prevent it. When it comes to economic systems, the fear isn't tyranny of the majority, it is tyranny of the minority. "Strong consensus" grants control to a small minority. Decentralized control necessitates simple majority consensus.

 

[jonny1000]

We're talking about the developers of the most popular implementation wanting to transform Bitcoin from electronic cash for everyone into a settlement system for monied interests

Stop spreading false, counterproductive, malicous and divisive rumours. Even if that was true, run another compaitible implementation. Once Core market share is low, then the new team can HF, with consensus across the enitire community. If the old Core team oppose it, they could be insigificant.
[doublepost=1465650303][/doublepost]

Nakamoto himself suggested raising blocksize with a simple height trigger. This would result in either 51+% support and a lasting fork, or a failure to fork. Sounds like Nakamoto himself believed 51% was sufficient for a hard fork.

Stop confusing want you want and fact:
1. 51% of the miners is mechnically not sufficient to HF - This is a fact
2. You would like 51% of the miners to be sufficient to do a HF - This is an opinion

If you use the grace period that Satoshi chose, rather than 28 days, that would be much better.

 

[freetrader]

Stop spreading false, counterproductive, malicous and divisive rumours.

I know the truth hurts. How about you stop spreading false hope and empty promises.
Rumors of hard forks which will never be delivered the way they were marketed in shady deals.
Better yet, get off your ass and implement what you want instead of prescribing to others what they are allowed to do.

Run another compaitible implementation

I'm sorry @jonny1000. Perhaps Core will in the future run a compatible implementation.

 

[cypherdoc]

@jonny1000 is a newbie. What, not even a year in the public scene? And yet he preaches relentlessly to many of us old timers? To wonder if we're imagining things here in this thread, all you have to do is listen to both of Roger Ver's interviews lately, where he describes his interactions with several kore gang from devs. They respond with shit like "fuck Satoshi". Are you kidding me? screw them. Most of those guys couldn't invent their way out of a paper bag.

Softfork appears to be an entirely Bitcoin thing.

"This question and answer seems to be about "software forks", which are completely different than "blockchain forks", correct? I was under the impression blockchain forks happen on the daily, whenever two miners mine blocks nearly-simultaneously.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

https://startpage.com/do/search?q=soft+fork

@jonn

 

[Bagatell]

Stop spreading false, counterproductive, malicous and divisive rumours.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/commandments-of-rational-debate.1185/#post-21349

 

[jonny1000]

Just to be clear is everyone here in agreement on the definition of a softfork and hardfork?

• Softfork - A change to the rules on block validity, such that if exisiting nodes do not upgrade, they will still regard the new blocks as valid
• Hardfork - A change to the rules on block validity, such that if exisiting nodes do not upgrade, they will may not regard the new blocks as valid

 

[freetrader]

I propose another type of fork - the LimpFork, which promises but does not deliver.

To receive it, you have to be prepared to settle™ for less than you imagined Bitcoin would be.

 

[jonny1000]

@jonny1000 is a newbie. What, not even a year in the public scene? And yet he preaches relentlessly to many of us old timers?

If you want to criticize my charecter, rather than the technical content of my comments, that is fine. I graciously accept and agree with any negative comments you have about my charecter. I only seek to discuss the issue with those interested in finding the truth based on technical merit.

 

[cypherdoc]

The thing is that if Kore would raise the block size to 2mb in a new "official" bitcoin clien we would have a strong consensus even for that, and the whole community would be reunite again, because, as the miners have already stated, they are willing to hard fork to raise the block size.

I keep suggesting this to @jonny1000, yet he never answers despite it being an obvious answer

 

[jonny1000]

thing is that if Kore would raise the block size to 2mb in a new "official" bitcoin clien we would have a strong consensus even for that, and the whole community would be reunite again, because, as the miners have already stated, they are willing to hard fork to raise the block size.

I keep suggesting this to @jonny1000, yet he never answers despite it being an obvious answer

As I keep repeating, during the period of a significant attempt to change the rules without consensus, we must rally behind the exisiting rules.

[doublepost=1465651732][/doublepost]

We know that the few miners run Kore code and so this is expected.
This is not a "strong consensus". This is "strong consensus of miners"

What about the 85% of non mining nodes, what is your excuse for that?

 

[sickpig]

@Gavin Andresen on gmax "abrasive" attitude

 

[Zarathustra]

If we are in a confrontational enviroment at the time, Core are likley to rally behind the exisiting rules.

Translation: If the Kore Gang weren't the Kore Gang, (the notorious vandal and obstructionist not the notorious vandal and obstructionist, the catholicist psychopath with his desire to kill non-catholicist preachers not the catholicist psychopath with his desire to kill non-catholicist preachers etc. etc.), vulgo: if the evil people were good people, then we could have a productive environment. Since fiction is not reality, we have to fork away as far as possible from such people and their collaborators.

 

[cypherdoc]

I'm having trouble viewing/loading reddit comments on this forum while on Android. Any suggestions?

 

[albin]

Softfork appears to be an entirely Bitcoin thing.

He's setting trap with the intentional ambiguity in his original statement, so that he can come back and pedantify you by defining Bitcoin Core as specifically when the software branding change happened.
[doublepost=1465654201][/doublepost]

Thanks for your comment, I find it ironic becuase I had always thought assuming that the 51% Nakamoto consensus idea could solve the governance problem could be charectirsed as a bit "autistic". Realising that Nakamoto consensus only really works for solving the double spend problem and assosiated contentions, rather than solving general issues in governance or politics is an important part of maturity, in your Bitcoin understanding.

Of course you are right, my comment did focus on the "mechanics" and of course determining consensus on the rules is also a human/market phenomenon. Therefore we need to look at the situtation from a number of angles. I was merely pointing out that conducting a hardfork is "mechincally" different from situtauions where Nakamoto consensus works. There are other ways of looking at it, however my point is sufficient to prove your claim that Nakamoto consensus can determine a hardfrok in the same way as it can resolve a double spend, is false.

Everybody on this board is starting to become a blurred single person to you, because you are replying to an amalgamation of what at least a half dozen people are arguing then falsely attributing it to me.

I find the progression entertaining... first character assassination and silent treatment, then here "I know you are but what am I", followed by outright lying about what people said. Your shamelessness is almost beautiful.

 

[cypherdoc]

Please end the counterproductive bad faith. The consepts of SF & HF were well known before Core existed.-@jonny1000

Stop preaching to me. You're just a newb.