Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

The amount of very talented programmers, scientists etc. willing to spend their effort without scrutinizing the aims of their employers has always been high enough to sustain various oppressive uses of technology.

A benchmark figure taken from statements of a Blockstream subcontractor puts that level at around $0.5M / yr for an expert programmer.

To put that in perspective, the back taxes by the EU on Apple over the past 24 years are roughly around $0.5B / yr (this will of course be fought), but that would pay for 1000 such expert salaries per annum. And that's just the back taxes of a single multinational.

Co-opting (corrupting) developers is easy as pie.
[doublepost=1472563803][/doublepost]@satoshis_sockpuppet : I just put it to you that by making a fork depend on SegWit activation, we would introduce a dependency on Blockstream. How long would we be willing to wait to trigger the fork? We're forking primarly because blocks are full and Bitcoin is unable to grow, not because Blockstream loves overengineered soft forks which, if unchallenged, would guarantee their continued dominance (although that's a huge part of the problem).

I just think that by binding ourselves to a soft-fork which is not in sight of main-net release, we are hamstringing ourselves unnecessarily. Plus, we'd be stringing along their damn SegWit code for basically no good reason, or taking loads of effort and risk on ourselves to remove it safely.

I would support a "SegWit activation OR block-X" condition, since at least that's not open ended.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

You have a point there. But I'm sure we will see Segwit activated pretty soon, sooner than we'd like.

Plus, we'd be stringing along their damn SegWit code

We would just have to carry the activation logic until the fork happens, that's not much dead weight.

I would support a "SegWit activation OR block-X" condition, since at least that's not open ended.

That's an option.

Until the fork code is ready, reviewed and safe, it will take a lot of time. I doubt, that SW won't be close to activation by then. If it isn't, you could say we fork for example around the 1st January 2017 (blockheight X) without waiting for SW.

Honestly, I'm sure SW will be forced into Bitcoin very fast, I don't see the danger of forking to late because SW didn't activate as much as I see the danger of forking to late, because SW activated and you have to deal with a contaminated blockchain.

 

[theZerg]

is anyone listening to the onchain presentations?

 

[Richy_T]

I think we should just fork as soon as reasonably possible. It's way past time.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Maybe, just maybe, if Bitcoin survives this attack everyone involved will remember the enormity of the malice which the attackers are willing to apply to their task.

Remember that a year ago we were being fed stories about how changing the sacred 1 MB limit would lead to the monopolization of mining into a few hands, which is basically the end of Bitcoin.

That argument was used because it was convenient at the time.

Now, the opposite argument is convenient and monopoly control over the protocol is "how Bitcoin works."

 

[albin]

The goalposts have shifted so much.

About a year ago, before the massive censorship initiative and before toxic troll eragmus was made a moderator, I threw out there on an /r/bitcoin comment, "What about say 4MB and doubling every 3 years?", and he responds in standard troll fashion something along the lines of "I'm shocked you're saying something so reasonable".

Look how far the grasping at straws has advanced since then!

It's only a matter of time before we get mainstream dev advocacy of 750kb softcapping, because you give them an inch and they'll take a mile just to win.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Nothing terribly new here but I think these comments provide a nice distillation of some of my thoughts on the problems with soft forks as a governance mechanism.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

A soft fork is an attack for which there is no technical solution.

The solution for a soft fork attack is social and economic, the affected users separate from the attackers via a hard fork.

There's also no technical solution for preventing hard forks, which is why the attackers have to rely on social means to discourage the defenders from considering it to be a solution to the attack.

 

[adamstgbit]

I think we should just fork as soon as reasonably possible. It's way past time.

when will it be "reasonably possible." , i'm getting anxious!

 

[Roger_Murdock]

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer re: the whole /r/btcfork effort... but I have to say I'm pretty skeptical of its chances at this time. As I've said before:

The easy part of forking is releasing the code for a fork. The tricky part is getting people to use and value it. A PoW-changing fork is more likely to be successful in that regard if it's a clear Schelling point, i.e. if it lends itself to being viewed as "the official" fork attempt around which the pro-scaling forces should rally.
​

Now some people have taken the position, "well, hey, who cares if a particular fork attempt fails to gain traction because it's too early and/or poorly coordinated? We can always try again. Eventually there will be a fork attempt that is successful (assuming we're right that this is what the market actually wants.)"

And I think that's certainly true from a big-picture perspective. But I also think that an early failed attempt will probably have the effect of delaying our ultimate success. What happens when a lot of ideologically-motivated big-blockers rush to sell their "stupid Core coins" for coins on a forked chain that ultimately fizzles? Well, they no longer have those coins as "ammunition" to support a subsequent (and perhaps better timed / organized) fork attempt. Again, from a big-picture view that's fine and is just the nature of investing. But it would still be unfortunate from my perspective.

 

[Richy_T]

when will it be "reasonably possible." , i'm getting anxious!

Me too. It seems like every time progress is getting made, things go quiet and a different attempt pops up. Unless it's the same attempt and I'm just misunderstanding.
[doublepost=1472593416][/doublepost]Roger, many of us want the fork because we believe that being stuck at 1MB is ultimately very bad for Bitcoin. In such a scenario, it's not likely that a fork fizzles (other than if an alt coin is ultimately the successor). If the Core version of Bitcoin prospers then it means that ultimately, they were correct (which I don't believe).

I have a decent chunk of fiat waiting for a fork and as soon as it looks like it is succeeding, I'll be divesting a good chunk of my Corecoins.

 

[freetrader]

What happens when a lot of ideologically-motivated big-blockers rush to sell their "stupid Core coins" for coins on a forked chain that ultimately fizzles? Well, they no longer have those coins as "ammunition" to support a subsequent (and perhaps better timed / organized) fork attempt. Again, from a big-picture view that's fine and is just the nature of investing. But it would still be unfortunate from my perspective.

I think it's good that you raise this point early on. I certainly don't think it would be prudent to sell one's coins early on unless one had almost supernatural faith in the success of a particular fork. Initially it would probably make more sense to support the fork of your choice by buying cheap new coins from its miners, and using those to transact whenever possible (stimulate the real economy). Supporting miners will lead to more hashpower being attracted as determined by profitability, all things being equal.

However, there is no reason to assume things are equal, certainly not the amounts held by supporters or adversaries, so I can only predict it will be a wild ride as various strategies play out, with increased volatility on all chains for some time. Being naturally cautious I will probably hold my coins on the fork chains until I have the feeling a fork is safe and established. I don't think I'll try aggressive fork arbitrage, or only with a very small fraction of my holdings, similar to what I might hedge in other coins.

 

[priestc]

@freetrader, the way to do it is to have exchange set it up so that there is three markets instead of two when the fork happens. One market for pre-fork coins, one market for post-fork 2MB, and another for post-fork 1MB. Also, the 2MB fork client should be modified to force replay attacks so that both chains have the same balance for all pre-fork coins. The idea that somebody would "dump all their core coins for 2MB-fork coins" makes no sense, and no one would do it for the reasons you mention in your post. "Fork arbitrage" makes more sense if it's only happening with post-fork coins, when pre-fork coins enters into the equation it all becomes more complicated. Unfortunately the ETH/ETC community did not do this, and as a result both ETH and ETC have roughly the same price. If exchanges separated out pre-fork coins, the price would not be so similar. Unfortunately the exchanges that will support the BTC fork (if it even happens) will likely do it the same way ETH exchanges did it with only two exchanges...

 

[freetrader]

@priestc : I honestly wonder if users will accept a 3-market scenario for each fork instead of just an old-chain / new-chain market setup. I always mentally do a double-take and say to myself "wait, what were the options again?" This has me wondering if ordinary users won't be confused as heck.

Also, the 2MB fork client should be modified to force replay attacks so that both chains have the same balance for all pre-fork coins.

I hit a bit of a philosophical stumbling block here. I don't like forcing some kind of attacks or removing user freedom in how to spend their coins separately on each fork if they wish, including (and especially) the pre-fork coins. No matter if you or I think it's unlikely that someone will want to do risky arbitrage with a huge stack of pre-fork coins - I don't see valid grounds for denying them that opportunity, effectively excluding this option for all pre-fork holders (what - 80% of bitcoins that will ever exist or thereabouts?) Only making this arbitrage available to post-fork coins seems impossible to me as well, but perhaps I just don't know how one might go about it. It seems to me that if your fork client inherently supports replay protection for some set of coins (e.g. the post-fork coins), any locks effected in the client to bypass this for pre-fork coins could be disabled quite easily in some custom rebuild of such a fork client. But I haven't thought this through - perhaps it is possible somehow to bring about a joint market specifically for pre-fork coins.

Unfortunately the ETH/ETC community did not do this, and as a result both ETH and ETC have roughly the same price.

I'm not well-versed in the price developments, but it sounds like you're saying the lack of clear separation between ETH and ETC resulted in some drag that slows down price differentiation. I can't see how it would ultimately tie the prices together though, since I assume some sort of tainting is easily done to separate the coins rather permanently, allowing separate markets to function.

Besides, from the perspective of a Bitcoin hard fork, having roughly similar equal prices on split chains doesn't sound all that bad for a start!

 

[adamstgbit]

you dont need a market....
the market will come to us...

look at ETC, coinbase added it shortly after they forked

exchanges will not be able to ignore the MASSIVE trading demand a fork would produce

we'll have poeple wanting to inject fresh fait into the fork, others looking to sell all the forked coins, others looking to speculate with the forked coins.

the fork will see BILLIONS in trading volume in the first week.....
[doublepost=1472603197][/doublepost]the icing on the cake will be when satoshi starts trading his BTC for BTC>1MB on the Dex ( omni's decentralized exchange ) anonymously, all hell will break lose and death will come swiftly to those who oppose us.

Muahahahahahahaha!

 

[theZerg]

You can't always force replay on the other chain. For example for a txn that includes pre and post fork coins in its txin list

 

[jonny1000]

What's it going to take to get rid of you? Garlic? Silver bullet? Holy water?

It will take a lot to get rid of the people who do not want a hardfork, unless there is consensus across the entire community. I think a mistake the "large blocker" side has made is underestimating the determination of the "small blocker" side. Many small block people figured the large blockers would eventually lose patience and stop the attacks, after this we can increase the blocksize limit with consensus. "Small blockers" are patient and happy to wait it out (remember everyone wants larger blocks, there is just a different philosophy with respect on how to hardfork). This is gradually starting to happen.

In contrast, despite some large block people "giving up" or moving to altcoins and saying the small blockers have won, I think us small blockers need to remain diligent in defending the existing rules. The last thing we should do it claim "victory" or get complacent, too early. I think it is vital not to make the same mistake as the "large blockers", we must not underestimate our opponents or their determination.

I hope this illustrates how important it is too many people to have consensus before hardforks and that it will take a lot to get rid of us.

 

[albin]

If releasing open source software for the consideration of the community is considered an attack by these disingenuous degenerates, then I'm afraid there's probably no situation onto which they will be unable to project their desire for bad faith conflict.

 

[priestc]

@priestc : I honestly wonder if users will accept a 3-market scenario for each fork instead of just an old-chain / new-chain market setup. I always mentally do a double-take and say to myself "wait, what were the options again?" This has me wondering if ordinary users won't be confused as heck.

Normal users will all be holding pre-fork bitcoin. That coin can be traded on exchanges as "Bitcoin". The price should stay stable throughout the forking process because pre-fork coins are valid no mater which side wins. The price wars should only be between miners who mine on either side. On the day of the fork, people like myself and many other "pro forkers" will be willing to purchase post-fork-2MB bitcoin at a premium. Maybe some small blockers will be willing to purchase post-fork 1MB coins at a premium. If the price wars occur between only post-fork coins, the price has more of a chance to be volatile. Only 3600 coins per day are made, so that little volume will have to be enough for all those people eager to express their preference for each side of the fork. With ETH, the price of either coin never swayed much from each other, so there wasn't much price discovery.

Besides, from the perspective of a Bitcoin hard fork, having roughly similar equal prices on split chains doesn't sound all that bad for a start!

Yes it's good that both coins start out at the same price, but you want one coins to be the clear winner. If both coins stay at the same price for too long, no clear winner exists, and both chains remain forever. If the trading only exist between post-fork coins, it is more likely that one coins will come out as more valuable, hence putting an end to the split.

 

[priestc]

You can't always force replay on the other chain. For example for a txn that includes pre and post fork coins in its txin list

You can add a consensus rule that disallows any transaction that spends both post- and pre-fork coins. Of course this would require another (non-contentious) hard fork after the first hard fork is finished to remove this restriction. Exchanges should only allow trading between pure-pre-fork coins and pure-post-fork coins. If you taint your pre-fork coins with post-fork coins, those coins will not be accepted by exchanges.