On May 7, 2015 3:08 PM, Roy Badami r...@gnomon.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.
Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
While being in the Bitcoin community for a long time, I haven't been
so directly involved in the development. However I wish to suggest a
different pre-hard-fork soft-fork approach:
Set a 'block size cap' in the similar same way as we set
Well this is all very extreme circumstances, and you'd have to assume no
rational player with an interest in bitcoin would go there, but to play
your analysis forward: users are also not powerless at the extreme: they
could change the hash function rendering current deployed ASICs useless in
I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.
A hardfork is safe when 100% of (economically relevant) users upgrade. If
miners don't upgrade at that point, they just lose money.
This is why a
I'd love to have more discussion of exactly how a hard fork should be
implemented. I think it might actually be of some value to have rough
consensus on that before we get too bogged down with exactly what the
proposed hard fork should do. After all, how can we debate whether a
particular hard
In terms of miners, a strong supermajority is arguably sufficient, even 75%
would be enough.
The near total consensus required is merchants and users. If (almost) all
merchants and users updated and only 75% of the miners updated, then that
would give a successful hard-fork.
On the other hand,
On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of
merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of
the network.
But is that a plausible scenario? Certainly *if* the concensus rules
required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead,
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 11:49:28PM +0200, Pieter Wuille wrote:
I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.
Surely, in that scenario Bitcoin is dead. If the fork you prefer has
only 1% of the hash power it
8 matches
Mail list logo
