when? just after the ETH HF? same time?...so, a block every 3.3 hours if hashpower is 5%? I think the ETC people probably would have HF'd to reset the difficulty in that casesickpig said:Slightly topic change: Do you think ETC had been the way it is, if the POW difficulty re-target would have been similar to the one we have in Bitcoin (2016@10mins block)?
Sounds great but it is completely flawed analysis. The only reason that ETHC continues to exist is the difficulty adjustment difference compared with bitcoin. Oh and the speculators allied with the DAO attacker who owns 15% of the coin supply (and murkily, poloniex). Were it not for that incentive the chain would have perished.It does not have to be a lack of throughput in Core causing the transactions not to match on both chains, after the hardfork people may be frantically splitting the coins to trade them or sell the coin they do not like in exchange for coins on the other chain.
Lets consider the following scenario:
This is one of the many reasons, why in order to successfully implement an asymmetric hardfork, where the status quo has a massive advantage, you need to ensure there is no significant opposition. (e.g. 95% miner activation threshold should be considered as easily obtainable)
- Bitcoin Classic has:
- 80% of miner support
- 80% of token holder support
- 80% of user support
- Bitcoin Classic activates
- Poloniex the exchange complies with its ethical and legal obligations to protect client assets and splits the coins on deposit and allows withdraw on both sides. It also sets up a Bitcoin Core/Bitcoin Classic pair trade
- Since Bitcoin Classic has 80% support, lets say Core coins only trade at 5% of the price. Bitcoin Classic has a large mining lead
- At one point during a period of low trading liquidity, Core supporters (who own 20% of the Classic coins), dump a large amount of the coins on the exchange and buy Core coins. The price of Core coins then reaches 30% of Classic (Like ETC has already traded at)
- Miners see the huge profit opportunity on Core and start to switch over.
- The 80% of Classic supporters begin to worry, they know that if Core ever takes the mining lead, all the coins they bought on the exchange vanish from their Classic wallets. Core users of course have no such fear, their coins are reasonably safe when Classic has the lead
- This creates a snowball effect and Classic holders start panic selling.
- Despite only having 20% support, the small Core minority has managed to resoundingly defeat the Classic Chain, and all the early Classic coin investors have lost their funds.
[doublepost=1469933782][/doublepost]
Sorry I do not follow. Once Core has the lead over Classic, all the miners will switch to the Core chain and the entire Classic chain will be orphaned.
Remeber I am talking in the context of Bitcoin Classic/XT. There has been a huge campaign to activate these on the network and many people here still support these ideas. My opposition is to Classic/XT. Under these proposals the coins would vanish forever. If you are talking about some other implementation, then we are talking on cross purposes. Remember I support a 2MB HF, I told Gavin I would support 8MB in May 2015, if he implemented it right. IF you have a different idea, like Core's Soft-Hardfork idea for example. Please write up your idea and I may support it.
The same exact same time would be ideal, to avoid some period of time where blocks are super slow. The only good reason I see for waiting is if it's necessary to make sure the code is solid.when? just after the ETH HF? same time?
how they would have activate? by block height?
It seems to me that the situation would be quite complicated. I'm genuinely interested in understanding how you envision the implementation of this fork, especially in the context of a potential bitcoin HF.
Why do you continue to constantly underestimate your opponents? Waiting a few months is not a big deal? Don't you think the prudent thing to do is to overestimate your opponents?Sounds great but it is completely flawed analysis. The only reason that ETHC continues to exist is the difficulty adjustment difference compared with bitcoin. Oh and the speculators allied with the DAO attacker who owns 15% of the coin supply (and murkily, poloniex). Were it not for that incentive the chain would have perished.
Making sure the code is solid sounds like a good idea. Now only if you guys can make the process calm, safe, sensible and collaborative, we can get back together as a community again. and do the HF. Unless of course you disagree with Andreas here:go1111111 said:The only good reason I see for waiting is if it's necessary to make sure the code is solid.
Source: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BEqEhxJjN05HgAZ_OYvVUJ6kxDvEDxGebLvea7XqP-c/edit?ts=57958319&pref=2&pli=1Andreas Antonopoulos said:Blockstream does not profit with LN. LN is not a blockstream product, it is an open protocol with at least four active development teams that are independent and mostly interoperable. I think the idea that Blockstream is limiting the blocksize limit for their own gain and profit is ridiculous conspiracy shit. It has no relation to reality.
Thank you, it is a shame others ask me to leave, since they appear to only want to speak to people they agree with.We should be thankful for @jonny1000 who is willing to come and debate
This is the biggest lie of all.we can get back together as a community again.
Why? Because you hate the small blockers so much? Because you think they are evil?Justus Ranvier said:This is the biggest lie of all.
As someone pointed out here, one of Classic most important supporters (perhaps third behind Gavin and Jeff) appears to be open mined and changed:Take your own advice you troll. Do you really still believe that anyone gives a 4x what your opinion is here (at this the dawn of the crystallisation of the junta's greatest ever stalling tripe)?
Your last-throw-of-the-dice edge-case doomsday nonsense of a Classic fork losing have been shown up for what they truly are, along with a long list of other figments of your imagination, but you still insist on manufacturing yet even more nonsense. You may feel secure in riding on a members vouching for you here, but that was weeks ago, and you have spouted a lot of gibberish since for anyone to make their own minds up about you and your twaddle.
I am happy to continue to discuss the issues. However, you appear to assume bad faith making this difficult.Anecdotal and does not affirm any of your flawed arguments
In general HFs do provide additional types of liabilities to custodians. That is what happened with the ETH HF.We have exactly zero evidence that anything relating to this claim is actually true
I understand that you believe the points are flawed. Please help point out these flawed areas, in a polite and respectful way, so that we can discuss them more. Perhaps you are correct, I would love to find out if my arguments are flawed.(edge-case) flawed arguments in support of your position