Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal!
by
jonald_fyookball
on 09/02/2016, 04:24:45 UTC
Quote from: madjules007 on February 08, 2016, 05:51:55 PM
Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 08, 2016, 03:59:57 PM
Quote from: gmaxwell on February 07, 2016, 10:20:42 PM
Quote from: Lauda on February 07, 2016, 05:22:22 PM
there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.
Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

"Trick the miners"?

Oh you can't be serious.  Do you believe
miners aren't capable of making a rational
decision whether they want to support
2MB blocks or not?

As far as miners coercing users, I feel
this is a disingenuous argument.  Miners
can't meaningfully exist without users. 
If miners did something entirely unreasonable,
no one would use their coin.  Users are free
to support the network that they feel offers
the greatest overall value, not necessarily just
the highest hashing rate.

In regards to my own posts above (I'll let gmaxwell speak for himself), it wasn't about whether miners are capable of being rational Roll Eyes -- the implication was that a small group of highly centralized pool operators are easy to persuade to do what you want (in hopes that they will influence node operators). That's much easier than persuading thousands of node operators to do what you want. And that's the great danger of a contentious hard fork. Getting a majority of miners to temporarily point their hash power somewhere is much simpler than getting the majority of node operators to upgrade their software, particularly when the consensus rule changes it makes are controversial.

Maybe you should speak for gmax actually. Lol. Your point is very clear!

OK I get it and I agree that's a possibility.

However its not necessarily a high probability
that miners will get tricked in such a manner.

If it does unfold that way, well I guess
that would be the karma of not satisfying
the community's reasonable request for
2MB.