If Bitcoin was Linux - let's talk about forking

[Christoph Bergmann]

It has become clear, that the design of Bitcoin can't fit every needs and wishes and fears. Nothing can satisfy everyone and this is why we have pluralilty .

Imagine Bitcoin was Open Source like Linux and so on. We wouldn't have this kind of fight, this "everything or nothing". If visions of different developers diverge, they build different software. If people like it, they use it, and it grows an ecosystem of colorful, but mostly compatible systems and programms.

Can Bitcoin fork?

If you have the private key, you have the coins. indifferently of the sequences the blockchains processes transactions. Why can't there be two or more chains?

 

[freetrader]

Of course Bitcoin can fork.

It forked in 2011, and there was Litecoin.
Litecoin wanted to be a different element though, not an isotope.
So it created its own genesis block and the rest is history.

2016 - Bitcoin can fork again, this time retaining the blockchain data.

This thread is all about that:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/

 

[adamstgbit]

which bitcoin would bitpay use?
which bitcoin would neweggs use?
which bitcoin is bitcoin?

this would create a mess!
the value of both will drop dramatically.

we are strongest as one.

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit :

Get ready for a multi-cryptocurrency future.

Forking Bitcoin is no-one's preference. The best outcome would be if one of the forks wins the markets favor, and after a short "messy" time, we'd be back to one Bitcoin (with slightly different properties, such as bigger blocks and better scaling outlook).

Which bitcoin would bitpay use? a choice if possible.
e.g. Bitcoin (Core), Bitcoin (Satoshi's), Bitcoin (TBA)
also: a whole bunch of other cryptos, please.

Which bitcoin would neweggs use? ditto.

Which bitcoin is bitcoin? those which the market accepts. The theory says the market might decide rather quickly, but it's never been done, so who knows.
We know it isn't anyone first option, many other things have been tried.

Blockstream / Core's refusal to scale Bitcoin is bringing Bitcoin directly to this point.
Sooner or later, when options run out, they will face the voice of the market.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

which bitcoin would bitpay use?
which bitcoin would neweggs use?
which bitcoin is bitcoin?

this would create a mess!
the value of both will drop dramatically.

we are strongest as one.

This is the question: does it matter?

If you have an adress, and I have private keys to sign inputs, is it important if you get the bitcoins in a Core-block or in a classic-block? Maybe you might wait some time. untill it is confirmed in both blocks ...

It's not that we'd have two bitcoins. If miners can mine both the hash for core and classic block and release it with the same header - or something like this - even the newly minted coins are on the same keys (not adresses). Only the additional fees for unlimited or classic would be on separeted chains.

But I'm really not sure what to think. Is this an option, or is it none?

 

[adamstgbit]

if classic and core blocks end up on the same blockchain ( what we are seeing right now ) then bitcoin hasn't forked. and thats fine, once bitcoin forks however, there can only be one, or they both die.

"separated chains." whoa thats one hell of a thought.
you seem to want to mix the two forks in some way.

no this is not an option.

 

[VeritasSapere]

It is an option, That is exactly what we are doing here. We are intentionally hard forking as a minority in order to split the chain. We think that this is part of Bitcoins design.

In regards to what is Bitcoin, I think it was quite simply defined in the whitepaper. It is the longest SHA256 chain which contains the genesis block. So if one of the alternative chains gains the majority of hashpower again and becomes the longest proof of work chain then that chain can be defined as Bitcoin.

That is just semantics however, what matters is that we are providing the market with alternative solutions that people are free to choose from. Think of them as altcoins which have the same distribution of Bitcoin itself. A world with multiple genesis forks of Bitcoin is not that hard to imagine in that way.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

if classic and core blocks end up on the same blockchain ( what we are seeing right now ) then bitcoin hasn't forked. and thats fine, once bitcoin forks however, there can only be one, or they both die.

"separated chains." whoa thats one hell of a thought.
you seem to want to mix the two forks in some way.

no this is not an option.

It would be still one ... maybe, if constantly two chains are used, then the fees will be inflation ... Yes, it's a hell of a thought, it's crazy ...

read this:

It is absolutely no problem to have multiple versions of Wine installed at the same time, for example regular system Wine located in /usr/bin/wine and Wine Staging in /opt/wine-staging/bin/wine. Nevertheless it can be confusing for beginners, so when you plan to use Wine Staging as a replacement for system-Wine it might be ...

Different programs to run the same file. Different blockchains to use the same coin? Or a bridge to use the same coin with one wallet?

 

[adamstgbit]

if bitcoin has 2 different protocols and they both run on the same blockchain my head will explode.

 

[freetrader]

Once the chain forks, the two forks will be using different block versions, and their P2P networks will slowly separate, which will also separate the miners from the new chain.
The nodes on the new chain will no longer accept blocks from the old miners.

The situation that @Christoph Bergmann described, where one miner can simultaneously mine both chains, will not exist once the fork has arrived. The hashing effort for two chains is double, no getting around it.

Also, since the P2P networks diverge, the transactions in both chains will soon be different. Mining the same block will become an impossibility due to that as well.

So, no need for heads to explode.

This is all much safer than you imagine

In fact, you all probably didn't notice when Satoshi's Bitcoin did a public fork test last week or so, which was > 800 blocks ahead of the de facto Bitcoin main chain.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@freetrader

Once the chain forks, the two forks will be using different block versions, and their P2P networks will slowly separate, which will also separate the miners from the new chain.
The nodes on the new chain will no longer accept blocks from the old miners.

It's natural that nodes on the one chain will not accept blocks for the other chain.

The situation that @Christoph Bergmann described, where one miner can simultaneously mine both chains, will not exist once the fork has arrived. The hashing effort for two chains is double, no getting around it.

That is a point I'm very interested in. Why can't one miner simultaneously mine both chains? I'm really confused what happens in mining in detail, but miner's do something like mining a block-header, right? If I mine a block-header and than build two blocks with the same header, one small and one big, is this possible?

For this to work every block has to be double-mined. If one miner mines just one version of the block, the hash for the other version has to be hashed separately ...but I'm nearly sure I got something wrong
[doublepost=1459455480][/doublepost]

if bitcoin has 2 different protocols and they both run on the same blockchain my head will explode.

The idea is that you have two different chains but the same bitcoin --

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann

That is a point I'm very interested in. Why can't one miner simultaneously mine both chains? I'm really confused what happens in mining in detail, but miner's do something like mining a block-header, right? If I mine a block-header and than build two blocks with the same header, one small and one big, is this possible?

For this to work every block has to be double-mined. If one miner mines just one version of the block, the hash for the other version has to be hashed separately ...but I'm nearly sure I got something wrong

I think we're saying the same thing.
Where you say "every block has to be double-mined", I said "the hashing effort is ... double"

You will not be able to "mine a block header and then build two blocks with the same header" for long, because the tip of the chains (on which you have to build the new blocks) will be different - almost immediately (*).

And the previous block needs to be hashed in. So you cannot save the work, like you said, you have to mine two separate blocks.

Once again, the universe is cruel and there will be no free lunch ;-)

(*) the new chain will start out with very low difficulty, meaning the miners will produce blocks much faster for a short time. Also, the likelihood of the miners on the new chain picking the same transactions as are being hashed into blocks on the old chain is practically zero. Remember - there is a lot of hashing power on the old chain - your miner will NOT be able to compete with it, unless you have more than 50% of the Bitcoin hashing power
In which case you don't need to make such a complicated plan, Bitcoin will make you free money now

 

[VeritasSapere]

@Christoph Bergmann It is possible, but extremely unlikely, since the separate chains would diverge, the timing is extremely unlikely to happen in such a way.

I think that what people might not understand, is that this will be a split. Creating two separate currencies. On separate blockchains, with no direct interoperability between the chains, just like the altcoins.

The difference being is that these new "genesis" forks will have the same distribution as Bitcoin itself at the point of the fork, and it will be able to scale beyond the one megabyte blocksize limit.

 

[freetrader]

@Christoph Bergmann :

maybe, if constantly two chains are used, then the fees will be inflation

No. Fees still go to the miners of their chain.
As long as the fork code does not change the emission properties of Bitcoin (i.e. it doesn't change the 21M coin limit, halving etc.), it will not introduce inflation.

You might even see a more healthy competition in fees among such forks, because what we have in Bitcoin right now is a kind of monopoly on the mining front, which results in the kinds of shenanigans that Blockstream and the mining cartel is trying (pump fee market for mutual benefit and to detriment of ordinary users).

But I agree with @adamstgbit : I don't expect a protracted side-by-side battle between such forks. In my view one of them will win the mindshare and replace what is now Bitcoin.
If we do it all wrong this will be BlockstreamCoin.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose I see it a bit differently, I always thought that genesis forks would play a more significant role in the governance of Bitcoin. If one of these genesis forks does become one of the dominant cryptocurrencies I would think that BlockstreamCoin would still be around. The way I see it is that they can have their centrally controlled, limited and obscure Bitcoin if they want to and that is their right and freedom. In the same way that it is within our right to preserve the origanol vision of Satoshi by splitting the chain allowing Bitcoin to scale as was always intended.

 

[Domrada]

this would create a mess!
the value of both will drop dramatically.

How can you possibly know this? Why must they both drop in value? I have heard this argument over and over but never any evidence to support it.

I am ready to support any fork that breaks us out of the 1MB prison. I cannot sit idly by for one minute longer while my bitcoins whither on the vine.

 

[adamstgbit]

@Domrada

1) everyone would have coins on both chains, sorta doubling the money supply
2) it creates Confusion, which BTC fork will bitpay use? which one will MtGox use?
3) everyone will sell the dupped coins of the fork they dont like...
4) investors will be scared to pick sides, so they won't be buying.
5) speculators will short the living crap out of the fork then think will inevitably lose

there's no way two bitcoin forks can coexist for more than a few days. its possible one of the forks will hold its value and the other die quickly, but the longer the fight goes on the lower both will drop in value. I think speculators get the final say as to which fork wins and which dies.

Personally i will sell my dupped coins from any fork that has less than 51% hashing power backing it without question.

wait a few weeks core will delay segwit
wait a few more weeks core will release segwit but it wont gain much adoption by miners
meanwhile we will see support for 2MB HF grow and grow.
we will have our 75% hashing power and we will fork bitcoin legitimately!
OR
Core will deliver more capacity and 2MB HF will be delayed about a year.
forking with less than 51% hashing power is just silly... might as well just create an altcoin...

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit

the longer the fight goes on the lower both will drop in value

Look at the fight between Core and Classic right now - that's been going on for quite a while and is still nowhere near the end. And yet there are news reports of how Bitcoin price is now more stable than some major fiat currencies.

It looks like the market *wants* bigger blocks on chain, and is able to sustain efforts to get them.

Personally i will sell my dupped coins from any fork that has less than 51% hashing power backing it without question.

It's your right of course, but it's foolish. If such a fork wins, you've just lost all your coins (by selling them for pennies on the minority fork). For what?

I'd like to re-iterate the common saying: Either Bitcoin will become worth a lot (if massive adoption is allowed to kick in), or it's value will go to zero.

Any struggle between hard forks in Bitcoin will just be a temporary blip on the radar either way.

Ask yourself though - if you can't hold this in Bitcoin, what cryptocurrency can you support through tough times?

No risk, no reward.

 

[Domrada]

@Domrada

wait a few weeks core will delay segwit
wait a few more weeks core will release segwit but it wont gain much adoption by miners

I'm just not satisfied with waiting anymore. We've been waiting, what, 2 years? Suppose we concede all your points. Suppose it ends up being a silly altcoin. I don't see any harm in trying.

 

[VeritasSapere]

It might just be another silly altcoin, though the altcoins do survive. And they do provide alternatives to Bitcoin. Many of us do not like the direction of where Bitcoin is heading, creating "altcoins" with the same distribution of Bitcoin at least does benefit Bitcoin holders, who would have otherwise had to sell and buy into the altcoins directly.