Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 09, 2015, 11:41:25 AM

Quote from: canth on July 09, 2015, 03:33:29 AM

I think most people are liars when it comes down to this topic, but if you really are brave enough to stay on the short side of a PoW fork- you've got bigger balls than me.

Yes, the fact that "most people are liars when it comes down to this topic" is why I asked you to account for the vast, empirically problematically significant discrepancy between self-reported trigger thresholds and actual compliance.

All you did, by hedging with your weaselly "subject to change" squishiness, was admit "75%" is a terrible idea.

I think we both know that BIP66's example of "95%" theoretical translating into 64% actual, in a non-contentious soft-fork no less, indicates GavinCoin will be a complete shit show whether it uses an ostensible 75%, 90%, or 95%.

To me, BIP66 shows that SPV wallets and SPV mining is a terrible way to secure any sort of meaningful transactions and requires running non-ancient versions of software. I'll agree, there is no way of knowing the difference between self-reporting thresholds and actual compliance except for when it comes down to maintaining consensus. Consensus is a very broad term, but for kicks lets say a supermajority of PoW hashing power, a supermajority of economic power including large holders, exchanges and wallet providers.

Since there's no way of knowing, the only way to find out is to offer software forks and let users choose to run what they will.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 09, 2015, 11:41:25 AM

Did you read the qntra and trilema links in my post?

They explain why saying on the short side is the safest strategy.

I've read them both in the past and I'm not terribly impressed. People talk a lot, MPEX/trilema more so. So he's got some coins - he speaks for the community no more than Gavin/Hearn do. I respect others opinions and they're welcome to do what they will with their coins.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 09, 2015, 11:41:25 AM

My coins are perfectly safe sitting out the Grand Schism.

OTOH, coins moved to the bloat-fork are at risk of being lost or becoming worthless:

Quote

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

Bitcoin is not a democracy nor a popularity contest. Blocksize will not be determined by Gavin's Redditard Army.

The fork will be decided by economic power. Do you have more coins than MPEX and the #bitcoin-assets crowd, and the core devs, and btcdrak, etc.? Do Gavin and Hearn? No, I didn't think so either. Cheesy

My coins will be perfectly safe as well - like I say, I'll be on the longer fork and won't care what's going on with the shorter one.

Bitcoin is a democratic popularity contest, but I agree - not one with equal representation. It's determined by economic power indeed and that can't be measured by strong shouting on #bitcoin-assets or by MPEX or reddit. It'll be determined on the nodes. Run what software you like, sit on the fence, I don't care.

When the dust has settled, I'll be on the longer chain - whether that's 1MB, 100MB or if luke-jr gets his way, 100KB blocks.