Sorry to hear that!Right - beginning to look like i just lost $120,000. Bad day.
Sorry to hear that!Right - beginning to look like i just lost $120,000. Bad day.
(edit to his original comment post to zanetackett)EDIT2: To be absolutely clear I hope that this doesn't happen. If it does, I'm not sure what value proposition bitcoin would have left. Uncensorable, nonpolitical money is what bitcoin is about, and without that it is nothing. If this manages to go through, I hope the outrage pushes people to fight for more decentralization and fungibility at the protocol level. Otherwise I don't know what future bitcoin would have.
If you restate this in positive terms rather than normative terms, it is correct.Ie when the economic value is great enough to overcome the block reward than its OK to rollback.
Since you agree that only an assymetric fork requires strong consensus, this shouldn't be an issue if the fork is symmetric.Once the campaign to activate Classic becomes insignificant, I think you will be surprised about how [united] everyone is on the desire for large capacity increases.
The last public demand of his that I saw was for a poorly-designed proof of storage to be added to the consensus rules. That wouldn't be satisfied by a 95% activation threshold change.Popescu alone has promised that, and he doesn't strike me as a guy that plays around on that type of thing.
Doesn't the ETC/ETHF situation suggest otherwise? Do you think it's not analogous, or do you think ETC has no real chance? If the later, I'd be willing to bet you.Anyways, this conversation is largely pointless: there's no practical concern that the minority chain will overtake the majority chain.
To understand @jonny1000, realize he's specifically saying Classic is doing it wrong with the 75% threshold. He has been pushing for a 95% threshold, but he would be fine with no threshold at all, as I understand it. In other words, he holds a more radically big block position than Classic, not less. He is saying that if you want a threshold it needs to be extremely high but that really there is no need for a threshold in the first place. (Correct me if I misrepresented you.)
Classic/XT/BIP109 do not have such a checkpoint. If you do not agree with the Classic process and instead would like a checkpoint, please end the support for Classic and put forward your checkpoint idea. Perhaps the level of opposition to your new proposal will not be that large.Peter R said:The users of the other chain could use a check point to avoid the reorg
Bitcoin is already a weird, unknown, complex and abstract concept to at least 99.5% of people. I am not convinced a long period of uncertainty over the "one true chain" and then a large group of people losing funds is particularly helpful.Peter R said:or just accept the death of that chain.
This is already possible with wallets that are built using moneywagon. You can select which nodes you want to pull information from. After the fork occurs, you can tell it to only use nodes that are on your preferred side of the fork. Or better yet, you can have it follow both forks...IMO what this conversation shows is that it'd be useful to have some sort of convention for how hard forks happen, allowing SPV wallet users to specify ahead of time how they want their wallets to handle hard forks. Users could specify "Always follow the majority hashpower, but alert me", "Default to staying on the original chain, but alert me", etc.
Like some others here, I don't understand your fixation with stamping out all support for Classic before moving on to more productive discussion. Yes, the Classic thing was handled in a divisive way, and the code is not ideal, but I don't see many people agitating for Classic specifically right now. People just want a reasonable block size increase. It seems like you are way more fixated on Classic than anyone else.please end the support for Classic and put forward your checkpoint idea
You are playing with words (like Kore): they want to increase on-chain capacity only with soft forks and with changes that only accidentally or marginally make room for more txs.it is a misconception that the Core team do not want on-chain capacity increases
Because they don't want to increase the 1MB (non-witness) block size, ever.Why isn't there a list of preferred blocksize caps among Core devs? If you are really correct that almost everyone wants at least 2MB, a 95% consensus requirement is innocuous at least since it will be met immediately