albin
Active Member
Be careful, if you keep this up he might start calling you an "extremist" and use that to refuse to respond to your objections.
I do have debates with the gearbox on my car.You don't have debates with your washing machine, do you?
Well actually, although it has been extremely difficult. I have had to have a thick skin, constantly repeat myself and be very patient. (At the same time I know I could have argued in a much better way, but I have tried my best.) However, it seems like some on this forum are very gradually starting to appreciate some of the unnecessary risks in the Classic implementation.Take your time and read through the thread as each and every argument you have put across has been sufficiently debunked
@jonny1000
OK, so just a clean flag day with no threshold and some way of distinguishing between the two chains should be sufficient, right?
[doublepost=1470014498][/doublepost]I think this is the first time that I've agreed with @jonny1000 in one of his debates against Justus.
If we assume that the big block fork will retain > 51% hashpower forever, then Justus's argument is solid. Jonny's point seems to be that we shouldn't be that confident in this, because hashpower can shift in the uncertainty following a fork.
Look at ETHF/ETC. There are many people (including me) who think that ETC actually has a decent shot (maybe 20%) at eventually overtaking ETHF in hashpower. It might take many months or even years for this to happen. Just because ETHF has more hashpower now doesn't mean we can be sure that it will continue to. A similar dynamic could play out in a Classic-like fork.
This distinction is relevant because Chain B could orphan Chain A in its entirety if it becomes the most-work chain in the case of an asymmetric fork (but not in the case of a symmetric fork).
You kid yourself, that is NOT how I read any of that (and of-course I do not speak for them).However, it seems like some on this forum are very gradually starting to appreciate some of the unnecessary risks in the Classic implementation.
If 100% of everyone posting here told you to go away, would that make you go away? I don't think it would. You're not here to converse with us, you're just here to repeat the same tired, debunked talking points over and over again. Wasting time trying to explain things to you is pointless. You're just like Greg Maxwell, only in it for the attention... The only attention you get from me is the middle fingerThank you, it is a shame others ask me to leave, since they appear to only want to speak to people they agree with.
Actually, I gave 16 million reasons why this is not a risk. Anyways, I believe Network A (the blockchain with the initial PoW lead) would be disadvantaged if it were to ensure any fork that occurred was symmetric because:...it seems like some on this forum are very gradually starting to appreciate some of the unnecessary risks in the Classic implementation.Peter R said:This distinction is relevant because Chain B could orphan Chain A in its entirety if it becomes the most-work chain in the case of an asymmetric fork (but not in the case of a symmetric fork).
I am not sure this is necessarily true, I think the hardforkers can decide whether this is the case or not, depending on how they implement the hardfork. For example if the symmetric HF was the same as Bitcoin Classic, except the client required the first block after activation to be over 1MB rather than merely allowing it, all SPV clients that would have followed Classic would also follow this symmetric HF. I do agree that deciding whether or not to take SPV clients along with you may be a difficult decision. I have no strong view on this yet.SPV clients would follow the minority chain (unless they too upgraded)
The new non mining nodes can just cease to enforce the old rule at a pre determined block number in the future or after a certain threshold. This is pretty equivalent to Bitcoin Classic, in this respect.Peter R said:It would require greater coordination between non-mining nodes and miners to pull off the fork (e.g., with an asymmetric (hard) fork, nodes can cease enforcing the old rules ahead of time as per Bitcoin Unlimited
No, not all of them, just one of the blocks would be sufficient. A special activation block that must include 1.1MB of junk data would do the trick.Peter R said:Network A would need to ensure that all of Network B's blocks are invalid
I do not see why this is a problem, it would just be a hard coded point in the non mining clients or a threshold, say 100,000 blocks after a softfork activates. This also solves the potential problem in Classic, which is that miners activate it, but then chicken out of actually being the first to produce the first block over 1MBPeter R said:Right now, non-mining nodes can stop enforcing the 1 MB rule whenever they want--only the miners need to worry about block-by-block coordination for forks. What you're proposing would change this, making coordination more difficult.
I tried to respond to that below:Actually, I gave 16 million reasons why this is not a risk.
What do you think?Well that is interesting, perhaps one strategy of the Core supporters would be to hold off selling the Classic Coins until the first difficulty adjustment. Then sell the Classic coins and drive the relative price of the Core coins up, such that mining is more profitable on the Core chain.
I hope you appreciate the astronomical size of the relative advantage the Core side has in this battle. If 20% of the miners stick to the existing rules, they have a c14% chance of overtaking a 1 block lead from Classic, just by chance, ignoring all the impacts of momentum, volatility, financial markets, sentiment and fear. Just imagine the fear in the Classic investors if Core reaches a 30% price like ETC did. Imagine the excitement and determination from the Core investors and miners, about the large relative massive profits they could make. This is a dream for the many short term speculators in this space and for all those upset about not investing in Bitcoin earlier. It will be coin with massive short term upside versus coin with massive short term downside, going head to head, in the market. Which side do you think the punters will choose?
In general the most work chain has the power to decide whether or not to take most of the existing SPV clients along with it, for most of the changes we are talking about (e.g. blocksize), whether it is an asymmetric or symmetric hardfork.Peter R said:Actually, thinking more about symmetric and asymmetric forks, wouldn't the minority fork be required to make their blockchain incompatible with the majority fork in order to support their SPV clients? And is not the only way the minority fork could do this, is with a hard-forking change?
I would urge us all not to fall for the Core rhetorical trap sprung by the re-use of the name 'Classic' in the Ethereum context.Anecdotal and does not affirm any of your flawed arguments against a Classic fork, let alone removing the block-size limit.
Of course not. The sensible ones among us will never start respecting those who are marching in fours with sick totalitarian traitors of a former libertarian project (according to Justus: "pathological liars"). Sitting at the same table with those traitors ostracizes: one is excommunicated from honest community by doing so. If they win, Bitcoin will have failed.Please can the sensible ones among you try to be more open minded and start respecting your small blocker peers again. Then lets do the HF in a safe, calm way together.
[doublepost=1470010127,1470009148][/doublepost]
Exactly.To speak to Zarathustra's argument, even if there isn't determinism, that doesn't imply free will.
The problem with all these theories (including the many-world theory) is, that there are still no working experiments to show they are true. They tried, and so far they have nothing.@majamalu
"Then, to be consistent, you should (at least) stop trying to convince people. I'm not saying you should, I'm just pointing out a contradiction."
I would contradict myself if I would stop trying to convince people. I believe that I am (pre-) determined to convince people. Why should I break that determinism?
[doublepost=1469922765,1469921725][/doublepost]
I like your post, Peter. I like all your posts. The problem that you explain here is solved in your non-local world:
There has recently been proposed a limit on the computational power of the universe, i.e. the ability [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon#Recent_views