From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqTyW-0005dN-Jy for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 22:09:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk; helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk; Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqTyU-0000fe-Mo for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 22:09:00 +0000 Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t47M8mH0066731 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 May 2015 23:08:53 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk) Received: (from roy@localhost) by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id t47M8mVY066730; Thu, 7 May 2015 23:08:48 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:08:48 +0100 From: Roy Badami To: Pieter Wuille Message-ID: <20150507220848.GK63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20150507214200.GJ63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YqTyU-0000fe-Mo Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 22:09:00 -0000 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 is trivially vulnerably not just to a 51% attack but to a 501% attack, not to mention the fact that you'd only be getting one block every 16 hours. > > 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 hashrate-triggered hardfork does not make sense. Either you > believe everyone will upgrade anyway, and the hashrate doesn't matter. Or > you are not certain, and the fork is risky, independent of what hashrate > upgrades. Beliefs are all very well, but they can be wrong. Of course we should not go ahead with a fork that we believe to be dangerous, but requiring a supermajority of miners is surely a wise precaution. I fail to see any realistic scenario where 99% of miners vote for the hard fork to go ahead, and the econonomic majority votes to stay on the blockchain whose hashrate has just dropped two orders of magnitude - so low that the mean time between blocks is now over 16 hours. > > And the march 2013 fork showed that miners upgrade at a different schedule > than the rest of the network. > On May 7, 2015 5:44 PM, "Roy Badami" wrote: > > > > > > 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, > > then there would be absoltely no rational reason for merchants and > > users to refuse to upgrade, even if they don't support the changes > > introduces by the hard fork. Their only choice, if the fork succeeds, > > is between the active chain and the one that is effectively stalled - > > and, of course, they can make that choice ahead of time. > > > > roy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > > _______________________________________________ > > Bitcoin-development mailing list > > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > >