Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

Be careful, if you keep this up he might start calling you an "extremist" and use that to refuse to respond to your objections.

 

[Richy_T]

You don't have debates with your washing machine, do you?

I do have debates with the gearbox on my car.

 

[jonny1000]

Take your time and read through the thread as each and every argument you have put across has been sufficiently debunked

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.

@jonny1000

OK, so just a clean flag day with no threshold and some way of distinguishing between the two chains should be sufficient, right?

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.

[doublepost=1470014498][/doublepost]

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).

 

[Richy_T]

To speak to Zarathustra's argument, even if there isn't determinism, that doesn't imply free will.

 

[pekatete]

However, it seems like some on this forum are very gradually starting to appreciate some of the unnecessary risks in the Classic implementation.

You kid yourself, that is NOT how I read any of that (and of-course I do not speak for them).
They may indeed agree in writing that you are a human being (since you insist on being one in writing), but that does not mean that because I have not put it writing I do not know you to be human. Try and read through again, and do take your time.

 

[jonny1000]

The discussion on this forum feels like the following:

• Larger blocker = LB
• Me = SB
• Larger blocks = lowering a draw bridge that is surrounded by a group of soldiers and engineers

LB: We want the bridge down, let’s defeat those soldiers in battle and get the bridge down now

SM: I also want the bridge lowered, that may not be the best way to get it down. Let’s just ask them politely and I am sure they will lower the bridge.

LB: No you are either with us or against us, if you are not in this battle with us, you are a liar, we do not believe that you want the bridge lowered. We did ask them to lower the bridge before but they refused.

SM: To repeat again, I do want the bridge lowered. They refused before because you threatened them, you said lower the bridge or we will attack. Why not ask them nicely? They even said if you ask nicely they will lower the bridge. They said they are working on fixing a small technical problem with one of the gears, once that is done they will lower the bridge. If you are going to go into battle, why don’t you at least ensure you have sufficient numbers, or you will be defeated anyway?

LB: We do not believe that nonsense with the gears, that if they lower the bridge it will collapse, that is just FUD. We have plenty of fighters. You would say we have insufficient numbers as you are not on our side. Besides we will win anyway.

SM: To repeat again, I do want the bridge lowered, I am on your side. Just from a basic count, it looks like they have 5x more fighters than you. At least put on armor, they have weapons

LB: We do not need armor, stop being paranoid, we will easily beat them, we have more men. You are against us, you would say that

SM: Why don’t you at least remove those handcuffs, why go into battle with your hands bound?

LB: Stop being paranoid, we will easily beat them. You are against us, you would say that. That is just a delaying tactic

SM: To repeat again, I do want the bridge lowered. Why don’t you take you those blindfolds off? You will be easily defeated if you cannot see.

LB: We do not need to see, stop being paranoid, we will easily beat them. You are against us, you would say that.

LB2: Hmm, actually I might agree with this point, perhaps we should consider removing our blindfolds before attacking. Although I still do not believe SM wants the bridge down, but he may have a point about the blindfolds. What is the disadvantage of removing the blindfolds?

LB: Do not listen to SM, he is against us and "perverted". Lets make SM go away. We have no time, lets keep it simple and attack now, with our handcuffs and blindfolds on!

 

[priestc]

Thank you, it is a shame others ask me to leave, since they appear to only want to speak to people they agree with.

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 finger

 

[chriswilmer]

@Bloomie Is there a way for users to ignore the posts of other users?

 

[Epilido]

Click on the user's name then choose ignore in the pop-up box. Option is to the right side in Orange.

The pages become much more readable

Edit added the last sentence


.

 

[Peter R]

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).

...it seems like some on this forum are very gradually starting to appreciate some of the unnecessary risks in the Classic implementation.

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:

• SPV clients would follow the minority chain (unless they too upgraded) [retracted]
• 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).

In other words, I think your suggestion is bad advice and would put the big-block initiative at a disadvantage.

 

[jonny1000]

SPV clients would follow the minority chain (unless they too upgraded)

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.

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

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]

"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. I do agree that deciding whether or not to take SPV clients along with you may be a difficult decision."

Maybe not. Let's think about it: Network A would need to ensure that Network B's blockchain is invalid (according to A's rules) without making either the block headers invalid or any transactions confirming to the original rules invalid either.

I suppose Network A could require that blocks contain another "special" transaction after the coinbase TX, but otherwise keep everything else the same. The "special transaction" can just be some magic number like "42." This way, all SPV clients would still accept the block headers and Merkle branch proofs from the majority chain but Network A nodes would rule all Network B block as invalid (since they didn't contain the second "special" TX).

I retract that bullet point.

"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."

At the forking point, the nodes need to stop accepting blocks without the new "special" TX and start only accepting blocks with this new special "TX." I pretty sure this means that the entire network--miners and non-mining nodes--need to switch over to the new rules at the same block.

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.

 

[jonny1000]

Network A would need to ensure that all of Network B's blocks are invalid

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.

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 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 1MB

Actually, I gave 16 million reasons why this is not a risk.

I tried to respond to that below:

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?

What do you think?

 

[jonny1000]

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?

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.

 

[priestc]

People need to stop talking about SPV. Hardly any wallets use SPV on the network these days. Back in 2011 SPV was state of the art technology, but now-a-days there are better ways to build lightweight wallets. SPV is riddled with all kinds of weaknesses.

 

[Peter R]

Actually, thinking more about symmetric and asymmetric forks, the minority network will need some way to keep their SPV clients from following the big-block majority fork.

One way to do this would be with a hard-forking change to the block header format. Another way could be by having SPV nodes use some block on Chain B after the forking point as a checkpoint.

Anyways, this conversation is largely pointless: there's no practical concern that the minority chain will overtake the majority chain. And really the minority chain will be the chain motivated to make a clean break, if not to solve the SPV problem I just mentioned, to prevent the majority fork from 51% attacking.

 

[freetrader]

Anecdotal and does not affirm any of your flawed arguments against a Classic fork, let alone removing the block-size limit.

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.

Let's call it ETC or ETHC, or identify it as 'Ethereum Classic', and keep the short form 'Classic' for the Bitcoin project which had it first.

It is only logical that they will try to conflate the term with whatever ill effects they ascribe to the ETH fork.

 

[Zarathustra]

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]

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.

I call the Kore Gang the one great curse, the one great innermost corruption, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means is poisonous, stealthy, subterranean, small enough—I call it the one immortal blemish of the whole cryptocurrency space.

 

[Zarathustra]

To speak to Zarathustra's argument, even if there isn't determinism, that doesn't imply free will.

Exactly.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@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

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.

Btw, you can't break determinism.

Anyway, time to change the subject. I learned some new things so that is good.
I don't believe in determinism and from what I know there is no way knowing if it exists or not.
And I even believe in free will. Ha!

-----
Back to Bitcoin.

Two things I thought about:

1) Anybody thought about PoS and forks? With PoW, if we have chain A and B and miners have to decide, where to point their hashing power. This makes it easy to create a "majority" and a "minority" chain, where one eventually vanishes or at least becomes much smaller than the other. If we change the PoW the distinction becomes even clearer.
If I use PoS I can validate as many chains as I want to. I'm not sure about the implications.

2) Has there ever been the idea for an Altcoin, that absorbs all top n cryptos?
More of an thought experiment, but what if I created a Coin that merges Bitcoin and Ethereum?