Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jonny1000]

I said that a majority of miners can ensure the success of a hard fork by simply agreeing to continue extending the large block chain even if the minority chain temporarily overtakes theirs. The mechanism via which they could accomplish that can accurately be described as a "soft fork" since it doesn't require any client participation.

That's where you jumped in and said that Core had planned to do that all along.

Well the main thing about the Core plan is to do the Softfork part of this say six months in advance of the hardfork, that way you avoid any confusion at the time the hardfork activates, no period when exchanges are down ect. If the hardfork and softfork happen at the same time then you get none of the advantages of the way the Core team plan to do it, so its not really the same idea.

Out of interest, would you be happy to modify your idea such that the softfork element happens say six months earlier than the hardfork?

I also said that miners planning the fork and preparing users for it ahead of time should tell everyone not to consider the fork complete until the first >1MB generation output has matured (become spendable), which does not occur until it's 100 blocks old.

Why do we need this network downtime? There is already a solution to this as I explained. Is it 100 blocks old or a 100 block lead? The game theory here starts to get complicated. I would probably oppose such an idea.

If the hard fork was done completely haphazardly, with no planning whatsoever and with the stupidest possible implementation then your probabilities are correct.

Oh you mean like Bitcoin Classic? Yes my probabilities assume Bitcoin Classic. I agree with your sentiment in the description of Classic, but I would try not to be rude and call it the "stupidest possible implementation", a 51% activation threshold would have been worse. Gavin is an extremely intelligent and capable person, it is just that these issues are new and difficult and require careful discussion and consideration

 

[Justus Ranvier]

would you be happy to

My only interest in interacting with you is to document the disingenuity of your arguments for posterity and derive enjoyment from the hoops you jump through when caught.

 

[Zarathustra]

Look through this thread, I have repeated that again and again. Please end the Classic campaign, then we can all start a sensible, collaborative, patient and calm discussion about a safe hardfork to increase the blocksize limit.

You have no power here. This is an uncensored forum where such Bullshit gets zero upvotes (zero consensus).

 

[freetrader]

* Except the power of repetition. @jonny1000 is like the Core morning post, delivered for free. I can't mistake it for unbiased reporting, but it's a useful stimulant against low blood pressure.

Please end the Classic campaign

How about 'No'.
Your actions are just motivating me to support ANYTHING except your (Core's) cause.
End your cartel involvement.

 

[Zarathustra]

Justus Ranvier said:
If the hard fork was done completely haphazardly, with no planning whatsoever and with the stupidest possible implementation then your probabilities are correct.

jonny1000 answered:
Oh you mean like Bitcoin Classic? Yes my probabilities assume Bitcoin Classic. I agree with your sentiment in the description of Classic, but I would try not to be rude and call it the "stupidest possible implementation", a 51% activation threshold would have been worse. Gavin is an extremely intelligent and capable person, it is just that these issues are new and difficult and require careful discussion and consideration.

I would always prefer a dispute with someone who calls me 'idiot' than someone who argues with such passive aggressive perfidiousness. But you are not guilty of being like that. Your will is not free.

Albert Einstein's credo:

"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper."

http://www.einstein-website.de/z_biography/credo.html

 

[priestc]

Had this been an asymmetrically unfavorable hardfork like Bitcoin Classic, as soon as Core got a lead, even for one block, the Classic coins would cease to exist.

Stop posting.

 

[jonny1000]

Stop posting.

I am sorry you feel that way, but the truth hurts. I know it is hard to take and I know its not the behavior you want your client to have in your heart, but the fact is that is how Bitcoin Classic nodes are configured to behave. My opposition to Classic is based on the actual code, not the beliefs in the minds and hearts of the people that run the Classic nodes. As soon as Core gets the lead, the Classic coins you bought on an exchange after the hardfork, would vanish from your wallet.

As this truth gradually sinks in and you learn from the ETH/ETC situation, I hope you slowly start to understand why there was really such a strong and genuine opposition to Bitcoin Classic.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Since the world is 100 pct deterministic, there is no such thing as a 'chance'.

Radioactive decay would like to have a word with you!
AFAIK determinism is pretty much refuted today, god actually does play dice.
[doublepost=1469865215][/doublepost]Oh and completely off topic, but this video creeps me out:

Am I to sensitive or does that look like a fucking dystopian movie plot?

 

[Zarathustra]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
"Radioactive decay would like to have a word with you!
AFAIK determinism is pretty much refuted today, god actually does play dice."

Never ever. It's just the Kopenhagen Esoterics that postulates such Creationism (creatio ex nihilo).
Einstein never believed in that Religion. The Bohmian interpretation is also deterministic, as well as the many world interpretation:

Q1 Who believes in many-worlds?
"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].

1) "Yes, I think MWI is true" 58%
2) "No, I don't accept MWI" 18%
3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced" 13%
4) "I have no opinion one way or the other" 11%
Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No, I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.

The findings of this poll are in accord with other polls, that many- worlds is most popular amongst scientists who may rather loosely be described as string theorists or quantum gravitists/cosmologists. It is less popular amongst the wider scientific community who mostly remain in ignorance of it.

http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

 

[freetrader]

KNC blocks now far and few between. Has the last been seen?

https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night

EDIT: happy to be wrong on this occasion.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Zarathustra
As long as you can't find a pattern / can't forecast the decay, the reasonable assumption is, that it is random. You can still believe, that you don't have all information and that it is not truly random, but that's just that, belief. From all we know, the world isn't deterministic.

As I'm not a physicist, I don't want to go out on a limb, but afaik Einsteins objections towards quantum physics have been refuted and he just didn't live long enough to see that.
It's very anti-intuitive, Max Planck didn't want his first experiments to be true...

 

[Zarathustra]

@satoshis_sockpuppet

"As long as you can't find a pattern / can't forecast the decay, the reasonable assumption is, that it is random."

What do you mean by 'random'? Ex nihilo? As soon as there is an effect, it must have a cause and therefore it is deterministic. Deterministic chaos does not need a pattern to be found to be deterministic.

"From all we know, the world isn't deterministic."

Never ever. From the old greeks til Laplace, Nietzsche and Einstein; a majority of wise people never believed in creatio ex nihilo (creationism). From all we know, effects are caused.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Zarathustra

What do you mean by 'random'? Ex nihilo? As soon as there is an effect, it must have a cause and therefore it is deterministic. Deterministic chaos does not need a pattern to be found to be deterministic.

There is something you would call a cause for the macroscopic effect, but you can't forecast the time for the decay. Never. Only probabilities.
It's random ("ex nihilo").

Never ever. From the old greeks til Laplace, Nietzsche and Einstein; a majority of wise people never believed in creatio ex nihilo (creationism). From all we know, effects are caused.

Laplace and Nietzsche didn't know quantum physics and important positions of Einstein in this area are disproved.
Like you say: It's belief. You can always believe what you want and find a world theory where everything somehow fits. But if you accept several premises (logic etc.) you must come to the conclusion, that with today's knowledge, the world isn't deterministic. At least, it isn't reasonable to view the world as deterministic when you are viewing something like radioactive decay.

 

[kyuupichan]

Cypherdoc's departure is eerily similar to Goat's disappearance. Anyone heard from Goat recently?

Reading this I sent Goat an email. He's living in northern Thailand, got a masters in crypto, but not sure what to do with himself. He doesn't spend much time online.

 

[Zarathustra]

@Zarathustra

There is something you would call a cause for the macroscopic effect, but you can't forecast the time for the decay. Never. Only probabilities.
It's random ("ex nihilo").

Forecast? Do you really believe that an event is not caused, if the homo sapiens is not able to forecast it? The meteorologists can forecast the weather for the next 3-5 days more or less, because it is deterministic. Do you really believe the weather begins to behave indeterministic (creationistic) from day 5??

Laplace and Nietzsche didn't know quantum physics and important positions of Einstein in this area are disproved.

As I 'proved' for you already: It's just the silly Kopenhagen interpretation that postulates indeterminism (creationism). The majority of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" believe into the many world interpretation which is deterministic, others believe into the Bohmian Mechanics, which is deterministic too.

Like you say: It's belief. You can always believe what you want and find a world theory where everything somehow fits. But if you accept several premises (logic etc.) you must come to the conclusion, that with today's knowledge, the world isn't deterministic.

The opposite. Effect without cause is beyond any logic. It's creationism.

 

[steffen]

@Tomothy It is true that there is some asymmetry to a block size limit hard fork because the small blocks are still valid large blocks.

If the small block fork produces more proof of work than the large block fork, then all clients will follow the fork, even the large block clients.

This means the the large block fork can't happen with out a bare majority of the hashing power, and the closer to at 50/50 split there is when the first >1 MB blockfork is mined the more short-term turbulence will be experienced.

@Justus Ranvier
Have you considered having a rule in Bigblockcoin so that from block number x (where the split occurs) ALL future blocks must have a >1 MB block size? It seems to me that will keep the two chains completely apart without requiring >50% initial miner support. Bigblockcoin wallets could also know that rule so they follow the right chain. I wrote more about the idea in https://bitco.in/forum/posts/24675/. The idea came to me not as a way to keep the two chains apart but as a way to prevent evil miners from mining empty blocks on a future bigblockcoin chain. Think miners owned by the Bilderberg Group and/or Hillary Clinton.

 

[pekatete]

@steffen - Just to add that. In addition to the forking client having a >1MB rule at block X, the code could also monitor the "other chain" and whence the forking chain is, for example, 100 blocks ahead, then the >1MB rule can be dropped as the chain is now clearly in the lead. Just a thought.

I said that a majority of miners can ensure the success of a hard fork by simply agreeing to continue extending the large block chain even if the minority chain temporarily overtakes theirs. The mechanism via which they could accomplish that can accurately be described as a "soft fork" since it doesn't require any client participation.

In a perverse way, this is eerily the same scenario in which Core remained the reference client in the face of XT and Classic post HK agreement. It is so plain to see that a simple majority of hashing power from trusted miners at fork height would be enough to ensure the fork's success, they simply refuse to extend any chain that contains invalid blocks post height X and refuse to stop building on their chain even when they fall behind the other chain. With majority hashing power, it is a matter of time before they re-take the lead.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

As soon as Core gets the lead, the Classic coins you bought on an exchange after the hardfork, would vanish from your wallet.

...and then they'd reappear again immediately as soon as the majority Classic fork pulled ahead again as it's mathematically guaranteed to do, OR when the transaction that paid you was also mined in the Core fork. And after a few hours the risk of a reorg would drop to negligible levels so if everybody just went to sleep after the hard fork began everything would be fine in the morning when they woke up.

But you don't want to mention that part because it doesn't fit your scare-mothering narrative.
[doublepost=1469889158][/doublepost]

@Justus Ranvier
Have you considered having a rule in Bigblockcoin so that from block number x (where the split occurs) ALL future blocks must have a >1 MB block size?

That's not a very good rule.

Sometimes a block is found immediately after the previous block, before a substantial amount of new transactions have arrived to be mined.

It's also unnecessary. If a majority of miners support a fork, even a majority as low as 51%, all they (not the other nodes in the network) need to do is pin the first forking block in their chains temporarily until the risk of a reorg is negligible.

Nodes that recognise the large block may reorg a few times until the fork is complete, but that's really not a difficult problem.

Humanity has solved more far more complex problems then how to tell users of a network, "We're going to perform a planned upgrade at time X. Don't take any irreversible action based on incoming transactions until time Y."

 

[priestc]

I am sorry you feel that way, but the truth hurts. I know it is hard to take and I know its not the behavior you want your client to have in your heart, but the fact is that is how Bitcoin Classic nodes are configured to behave. My opposition to Classic is based on the actual code, not the beliefs in the minds and hearts of the people that run the Classic nodes. As soon as Core gets the lead, the Classic coins you bought on an exchange after the hardfork, would vanish from your wallet.

As this truth gradually sinks in and you learn from the ETH/ETC situation, I hope you slowly start to understand why there was really such a strong and genuine opposition to Bitcoin Classic.

Nobody likes you.

 

[steffen]

Sometimes a block is found immediately after the previous block, before a substantial amount of new transactions have arrived to be mined.

I know, and in those situations some unnecessary fill transactions would be needed to reach 1 MB. That would primarily be an annoyance for attackers trying to prevent real user transactions from being confirmed because they have the problem constantly. The miners mining real user transactions seldom have the problem, only when the find a new block very quickly.