BitcoinZH Introduction: Disappointment with Gavin's failure to support the Chinese 90%/2MB proposal, and offense caused by his concerns around miner centralization mark a lukewarm response to Bitcoin Classic on 8btc.com
###Gavin today released his 2MB block upgrade BIP, 75% consensus required
2 main points of interest:
Upgrade block size to 2MB
75% support, that is to say if 75% of most recent 1000 blocks are mined on the new chain, the new block size will be triggered, with a 28-day cooling period.
The fork remains valid until 1/1/2018.
I don’t understand at all. Can someone explain like I’m 5?
It’s the block size expansion everyone was talking about before, today Classic have an official proposal.
|###woaibitebi||I Love Bitcoin:|
Oh, it’s like that then
Why is the bitcoin price still falling then?
“Why is the bitcoin price still falling then?”
Because the weekend’s here!
It’s useless, just pushing the bitcoin price down to make space for a block increase.
If it falls quickly then get out quickly!
“Why is the bitcoin price still falling then?”
Because the consensus requirement isn’t 90%.
It shows a lack of support for the 90%/2MB proposal. Should the hard fork occur, valid big blocks may belong to a forked currency, with both failing.
There’s nothing to do but call on everyone to oppose this 75% edition and its divisive intent.
“Because the consensus requirement isn’t 90%. It shows the lack of support for the 90% 2MB. Should the hard fork occur, valid big blocks may belong a forked currency with both failing.”
Gavin’s reasoning for 75% consensus is, to avoid any mining pool coming to dominate the entire network, along with a few others but I don’t know if he’ll still have the support of Chinese miners with reasons like that.
“Gavin’s reasoning for 75% consensus is, to avoid any mining pool coming to dominate the entire network, along with a few others…”
What kind of thing do you think drives 26% of users to leave the old chain?
After a hard fork, continuing to abandon the old client and mining will cost a fortune, revenue will drop by three quarters.
It’s not easy to just return the mining hardware you’ve bought. Do you think those 26% are just idiots who’d rather jump off a cliff to a hard fork with three quarters less network power, so also less secure, and when the price inevitably will fall? Then why do you think they’re insisting?
The reason they buy the hardware is to make money mining. If it wasn’t for the money, they wouldn’t do it.
So this 26% wouldn’t have any reason to act in such a way.
There’s only one possibility: only if they’ve all been corrupted, but corrupting 26% is much more expensive than 11%. That’s what Gavin is thinking.
(This was also Satoshi’s bright idea: he was very clearly that money is the great motivator, so he could let people all over the world defend a single network.)
response to 8doge.com above:
- You said this coin will have three quarters less network power, so also less secure.
Actually, that’s not true. Even if 1/4 of the new network were equivalent to all the power of the current network, the chances of them exercising hashing power outside the network are small. Even 3/4 of the network were supporting Classic, there’s not much chance 1/3 would attack Core.
Under 90% consensus and a 2MB rule, you’d only need 1/9th of the hashing power for a 51% attack on the old network. This is a relatively likely outcome, meaning the old network’s security would fall under a 90% consensus/2MB system.
- You said revenue will drop by three quarters.
In the short-term this is true, but if you wait until the next difficulty adjustment, it will decrease a lot because of the decreased hashing power. And then you can just mine more coins. 14 days between difficulty level rises becomes 56 days, that’s also worth holding out for. Core supporters have their own beliefs, and based on those beliefs may well hold out for 2 months.
Under 90MB/2MB the difficulty would fall by 1/10th. If you were unlucky it could take 140 days for difficulty to be adjusted. So it’s only under this form of consensus that miners on the old chain are likely to give up.
- You said corrupting 26% is much more expensive than 11%.
You might have this upside down. Wouldn’t it be much more difficult for Gavin, either openly or in secret, to get 91% consensus rather than 76%. If Classic had absolute consensus, wouldn’t he have supported the 90%/2MB proposal?
- On the bitcoin price
Regarding price fluctuations in the case of rival Core and Classic forks, it’s not hard to predict. If there’s uncertainty around how much one’s network power is, then they’ll upgrade. If one has low network power, it’s price will definitely fall.
Hashing power isn’t the source of value.
A loyal user base and applications may be the source of value.
But the total value of two rival coins will be less than the value of the single coin before, due to the uncertainty. This explains the actions of those who bitterly oppose a hard fork. Either we have 90% consensus for a 2MB hard fork, or else we adopt a soft fork proposal. We reject splitting the network.
Gavin’s a complete f***ker. He doesn’t understand politics, just acts like a bully. What a pity to have someone like this in charge of the Bitcoin code.
Word of the Day
政治 | Zheng Zhi | Politics
See something inaccurate? Let us know.
BitcoinZH was last updated at 16:11:03 on Feb 18, 20163QLvZUHuWDpq84tXaij2FAcgsm3ZjSccYkAds: 0 Donations: 0.2875BTC | Thanks! 感谢您！