Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Fatman3002]

I'm a whore. If the Bitcoin Core Junta would like to offer me some $$$ to push their warez I'm all up for it.

 

[AdrianX]

I'm a little disconnected from the Bitcoin network at the moment literally as I have almost no internet access anyway I'm enjoining the sun up north.

I've held back from reading this thread as I can't resist commenting trying until I saw some speculation about @cypherdoc and got sucked straight in.

I'm sure he's just taking a well deserted break. I hope so anyway.

 

[albin]

Am I missing something here or isn't the ETH/ETC split entirely untenable due to replay attacks?

 

[jbreher]

Replay attacks? Of what sort?
Spend on the ETH chain, spend on the ETC chain, or spend on both. I surmise that with some care, one is able to control the effects.

 

[jonny1000]

And how would you define what an economically viable block size limit if you can not quantify the effect that the 1MB limit has on stifling adoption?

Well, if technology improves, we could set the limit so high that there is almost no dispute, such that almost everyone agrees it is having no negative limit on meaningful adoption.

The limit could still be low enough, such that fees are high enough to prevent the chain being used as a cheap data storage for example. Would this be ok with you?

 

[theZerg]

Goat was a pirateat40 reseller. He posted an email that almost said "I know what pirate is doing and its legit" near the peak of the ponzi, among 100s of emails saying the opposite. I never invested but his post made me waste valuable time speculating on the use of BTC for wierd high profit activities like running a private gambling ring.

Anyway he didnt seem like a bad guy just naive so after the pop I had exchanged some pms on that other forum and linked to him the one post. I think he lawyered up and was given "the fear" -- he deleted his online life shortly after.

Maybe same with Cypherdoc?... anybody can sue anyone over anything and cypherdoc didn't write "this is not investment advice" after all his economics postings...

 

[sickpig]

Am I missing something here or isn't the ETH/ETC split entirely untenable due to replay attacks?

if you know what you're doing you can avoid the replay attack. i.e. just split your coins between the two branches of ethereum and you're safe, see:

https://medium.com/@khovratovich/unclonable-transactions-or-how-to-protect-against-replay-attacks-5e1be6f4012c#.q0qya73zd

edit: grammar

 

[pekatete]

Well, if technology improves, we could set the limit so high that there is almost no dispute, such that almost everyone agrees it is having no negative limit on meaningful adoption.

The limit could still be low enough, such that fees are high enough to prevent the chain being used as a cheap data storage for example. Would this be ok with you?

See what I mean? You can not answer a simple question with a straight answer, just your usual circular logic.

 

[Peter R]

Well, if technology improves, we could set the limit so high that there is almost no dispute, such that almost everyone agrees it is having no negative limit on meaningful adoption.

The limit could still be low enough, such that fees are high enough to prevent the chain being used as a cheap data storage for example. Would this be ok with you?

The average fee right now is about 25 cents per kilobyte. Thus it would cost $250 to write 1 MB to the blockchain and $250,000 to write 1 GB.

To put this into perspective, we just ordered a pile of 8 GB USB thumb drives to give away as "swag" at trade shows. They cost $5 each. Compare this to the $2 million it would cost to write 8 GB to the blockchain (at today's fees) and it's readily apparent that the blockchain is nowhere close to "cheap data storage."

 

[Zarathustra]

See what I mean? You can not answer a simple question with a straight answer, just your usual circular logic.

What can we expect from people (undead caricatures of cypherpunks) who support Kim Jong Thermos?

 

[freetrader]

Oh, this is delicious, can I can expect a steady supply of salt to go with the popcorn?

 

[_mr_e]

Grinding higher.... Sigh, doesn't sound as good when I say it

 

[freetrader]

I say, they should have nailed his ass to a post when they had a chance after he defrauded them. This is what you get when you exercise a > 0 tolerance policy with these folks.

 

[jonny1000]

it's readily apparent that the blockchain is nowhere close to "cheap data storage."

I agree that is the current situation. What made you think I disagree with this?
[doublepost=1469798521][/doublepost]

I think if anything, Eth/ETC has shown that the minority fork will always have some value as an item of exchange simply for speculators regardless of whether or not it's chain is longest or secure.

As I keep trying to explain, the ETH/ETC situation is very different from the proposed XT/Classic idea, which has entirely different dynamics.

• With Classic, if the Core chain has the most work at any point, the Classic coins will cease to exist. This would make the battle asymmetric ensuring the non HF chain has a very high chance of winning. For example if you had Classic coins and Core coins trading on the market against each other, Core coin holders would know their coin will be around in the future, in contrast Classic coin holders would fear their coins could vanish if Core becomes the most work chain at any point. The Classic coin holders would then be in fear and sell their coins ensuring defeat for Classic.
• With the ETH HF, it required the DAO funds to be ceased. Therefore both ETC and ETH remain valid on each network whichever chain has the most work. This is a symmetric HF with both chains having a chance of survival.

If you are going to be an asymmetric HF you need a very strong majority on your side to have a chance of winning. This is why I have been so strongly opposed to Classic and its 75% threshold as its a losing defeatist idea. I hope this ETC/ETH illustration demonstrates that if you want to do an asymmetric HF that you need very strong consensus (at least 95% miner consensus).

Let me try to break it down:

• Asymmetric HF in favor of the non HF. e.g. Classic/XT - Very strong consensus across the entire community is required for the HF to succeed (c95% of the miners)
• Symmetric HF. e.g. ETH HF - Both chains have a chance of survival
• Asymmetric HF in favor of the HF (Softfork for the old chain). e.g. The new chain includes a data structure with valid empty blocks in the old chain format - Nakamoto consensus is required (51% of the miners)

Are you guys beginning to get it now? Do you see why strong consensus is required? Do you see why strong consensus only applies to such a tiny set of possible changes? Do you see why it is based on maths/game theory rather than stupid irrational ideology?

 

[lunar]

Aggghhhhh my eyes.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

The central premise of @jonny1000's defence of the Core strategy is that hard forks can be dangerous and thus the prevention of them justifies extraordinary measures.

From the last few pages of the thread you should notice a few things:

• It's very easy to debunk this premise in its entirety.
• When the debunking is presented, @jonny1000 ignores it entirely and retreats into esoteric trivia about data storage costs.

There's a name for this tactic: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/

 

[jonny1000]

I have made the above argument into an image, which hopefully makes it easier to follow:

And to explain again, why with Bitcoin Classic the status quo has such a powerful natural advantage:

• If the two coins trade side by side, traders will know that if Core overtakes Classic even once, Core wins and Classic disappears, therefore they sell Classic coins out of fear
• If two coins are mined side by side, miners know that if the Core side gets lucky and gets a lead even once, all miners switch to Core and the Classic chain disappears
  
• Core has all the existing miners and nodes on their side by default

Therefore in order to win, Classic needs a strong majority, massive momentum and an absolutely resounding victory. (The exact opposite to the weak approach Classic took)

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

Do you see why it is based on [Peter Todd's shower thoughts] rather than stupid irrational ideology?

FTFY


@jonny1000:

Miners that choose to support the +1MB Fork are doing so consciously. We shouldn't assume they would be helpless in avoiding an inadvertent switch back to the <1MB Fork if it gained a temporary lead in PoW. All it would take is a bit of code that gives preference to valid chains that contain blocks over 1 MB.

 

[jonny1000]

We shouldn't assume they would be helpless in avoiding an inadvertent switch back to the <1MB Fork if it gained a temporary lead in PoW.

That is exactly how their clients would have worked if they adopted Classic. This is such a frustrating part of the large blocker thought process I find so difficult to understand. Large blockers seem to have an ideology and then assume clients will follow the ideology of the person running it, even if it is not configured to do so.

All it would take is a bit of code that gives preference to valid chains that contain blocks over 1 MB

That code never existed in Classic and XT. That is why I opposed these clients so vigorously. Also it should not "give preference to", that sounds like you are unnecessarily opening up new double spend attack vectors.
[doublepost=1469802356][/doublepost]

When the debunking is presented, @jonny1000 ignores it entirely and retreats into esoteric trivia about data storage costs.

What debunking?

 

[Jonathan Vaage]

I call bullshit.

Why spend all this time arguing for extreme consensus if your criticism really boiled down to a missing software feature?

I won't address unarticulated attack vectors.