Hot search keywords

Hot search keywords

Charlie Lee AMA:mining pools are trying to force the developers to make a hard fork

On 8th Feb, Charlie Lee, creator of Litecoin, host an AMA on 8btc. The event lasts 2 hours and attracts 148 participants and around 10k views. And Charlie Lee answer a total of 37 questions in detail. Find out more from the transcript below:

charlie lee ama 8btc

1.panda117:In your opinion, what is the role of the miners in the process of altering Litecoin’s protocol?
Charlie Lee:

The role of miners is to process transactions and secure the coin. Miners play a symbiotic relationship with users for a crypto currency. Miners provide security, which provides value to the coin. And users using the coin provides value, which helps the miners because what they mine is worth something.

I think there’s a general confusion that SegWit signaling is a vote. It’s more of a signal that Litecoin miners are ready to support new things added to the protocol. In the end it’s the users or the economic nodes that decides if Litecoin should upgrade it’s protocol.

That said, being a symbiotic relationship, you don’t want to do something that hurts the miners and cause them all to quit. For example, if we hardfork to reduce the block rewards to 0, miners are not going to go along with that. And the security of the coin suffers. That will likely kill the coin. On the flip side, if the miners decide to fork to give themsleves more coins, the users will not accept that fork and the miners will be mining a useless fork.
So we want to work with miners to achieve the best for Litecoin.
If the miners do not have the power to vote and effect changes in Litecoin’s protocol, then the miners should not even be asked to vote whether or not to activate SegWit.
Miners are not asked to vote. They are asked to signal for when they are ready to support a new feature. Signaling is a way to coordinate between the miners. The users decide whether or not to accept this new feature.

You can think of this similar to the Byzantine General’s problem. The commander wants the generals to attack. If the general is ready to attack, he raises his flag to signal that he’s ready. Once 75% of the generals have their flags up, they start the attack. And the other 25% will see that and quickly get ready to attack also. The generals (or miners in this case) are just signaling that they are ready. It’s the commander (or users of Litecoin) that really decides whether or not to attack. And in this example, each general can decide not to signal and effectively block the attack.

If miners have the power to vote and they happen to not support SegWit, then will the developers comply with the miners’ vote?

Using the same example as above, if the majority of the generals decide to not signal. The commander has a few options. He can get new generals or he can just tell the signaling generals to go ahead and attack. This makes the battle a bit more risky, but it may have to be done.

In this example, the developers are not the commander. The users are. So as developer, we need to see if the economic majority of Litecoin users want SegWit. From what I am seeing today, the support is overwhelmingly in favor. So if it comes to that, we will have to decide what drastic measures to take to add SegWit to the protocol. But we are not close to that point yet.

2.hellobitcoin:Hi Charlie, please give a brief overview on the direction of Litecoin in 2017? When will the voting results for SegWit be finalized?

Charlie Lee:

The most important goal of Litecoin is to get SegWit activated. Once SegWit is activated, there are a lot more things we can start adding to Litecoin. I really want to work with the Lightning team to get LN up and running on Litecoin. I have talked to Joseph Poon and he is extremely excited about this being possible on Litecoin.

The other thing I want to work on is Confidential Transactions. I think the one property that Bitcoin/Litecoin is missing from becoming the perfect form of money is fungibility. So I would want to explore making Litecoin more fungible.
Voting will end on January 28, 2018.

3.REP:I heard that if Litecoin adopts SegWit, 51% can attack Litecoin and steal all SegWit-activated Litecoin. Is this a possibility? Thanks.
Charlie Lee:

This is a misunderstanding of the SegWit softfork. First, let me clarify what this is talking about. SegWit transactions are anyone-can-spend transactions. The softfork is to change mining behavior to not let anyone spend these transactions, but to only let the rightful owner spend it using signatures in the witness data that is now segregated. So once SegWit activates, it is now safe to use SegWit transactions because no one can steal them. The miners will enforce it.

The question is what if 51% of the miners decide to no longer enforce SegWit after activation. Can they steal the SegWit anyone-can-spend coins?

The answer is no. After SegWit activates, the protocol rules are now locked in by all the nodes of the network. Any changes to undo those rules will be a hard fork. That means, if miners decide to try to spend those anyone-can-spend coins, it’s no longer the Litecoin chain that all the other nodes accept. So exchanges would not be on that chain and would not let you deposit those stolen coins. This is equivalent to miners 51% attacking Litecoin and giving themselves more block rewards. They can do that, but they are not mining Litecoin. They are mining a fork of Litecoin that’s not accepted by anyone else.

4.风起云飞扬:If SegWit is tested to be successful on Litecoin, then will it be adopted by Bitcoin?
Charlie Lee:

That’s up to the Bitcoin miners and users. But I think Litecoin will pave the way and show that SegWit is an amazing upgrade to the protocol.

5.touyou :Will there be a fork for Litecoin in the future? If so, what might be the reason to cause such a fork? Will adopting SegWit lead to forking?Do you think forking is a good thing or a bad thing for LTC and BTC?If a small fork (soft?) happens, can it be stopped with large hashpower?
What other measures can be taken to avoid a fork? Thanks.
Charlie Lee:

I assume this is about a hardfork. I think there’s a chance that we may hardfork. It depends on for what reason. It’s not very likely unless the vast majority of the users want it. Any controversial hardfork would lead to a split coin like ETH/ETC. That’s the last thing I want with Litecoin or Bitcoin
It’s a softfork, so it’s a lot safer than a hardfork. Is it possible that this will fork into 2 coins? Yes, but very very small chance.
I think softfork is a great thing. Hardforks are dangerous and should only be used if it’s non-controversial.
I explained it in a previous answer. Once a softfork activates, large hashpower cannot undo it.
Being careful and take time to plan things out. The Etheureum hardfork was rushed and didn’t have consensus. That’s why it lead to a split coin.

6.send :Is it safe to adopt SegWit? If severe problems occur, will it be possible to return to the pre-SegWit Litecoin? If it’s not possible to return and severe problems occur, will the existence of Litecoin be in peril? What measures can be taken to salvage such a situation?
Charlie Lee:
I believe it’s quite safe to adopt SegWit. If severe problems occur, miners can soft fork to block creation of new SegWit transactions and block spending of existing SegWit transactions. If that’s what we want. It will of course hurt Litecoin, but it’s not the end of the world. We will monitor adoption of SegWit and take quick measures if needed to.

7.大圣大圣:Some people say that Litecoin developers are not very active and do not market the currency very well, leading to a few big market makers hogging large amounts of Litecoin. How would you retaliate against these claims?
Charlie Lee:

We are not in the position to market Litecoin. A currency does not need to be marketed. We just need more people to use it to realize its true potential. Give it time. Even Bitcoin is mostly just used for speculation.
As for a lot of big whales trading it. We have no control over that if that’s true. The same applies to Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies.

8.fanfanfan:Will Litecoin also adopt Lightning Network in the future? Some people say that Lightning Network will lead to the centralization of Bitcoin — do you agree with this claim? Why?
Charlie Lee:

Yes, we would love to have LN run on Litecoin and will work closely with the LN devs on it
No, I don’t agree. LN can be very decentralized. It will actually improve fungibility and lower transaction fees.

9.baowj :For solving the problem of transaction malleability, FlexTrans is a better technology than SegWit, so why choose SegWit and not FlexTrans?
Bitcoin concensus is 95%, but Litecoin concensus is only 75%, why is that? If 75% concensus is enough for a soft fork, then why is it not enough for a hard fork to solve transaction and blocksize limitations?
Charlie Lee:

Since SegWit was announced for Litecoin, the support for it has appeared to be much less than when it was announced for Bitcoin, and some large LTC mining pools have expressed their opposition to SegWit. SegWit adoption is clearly no longer a technical argument, but more of a political argument, stemming off from Bitcoin. Whether or not Litecoin developers admit it, as soon as they have announced SegWit plans, they are already engaged in this political battle. Are Litecoin developers politically aligning with Bitcoin Core and forcefully activating SegWit?
Would it be possible to release the code for a hard fork to solve the problems of transaction and blocksize limitations, and let the community decide, rather than the developers forcing their preference on the community? Otherwise, your actions will lead to the same division between developers and the community, and between developers and the miners, just like with Bitcoin.
When Bitcoin Core announced the roadmap at the Hong Kong summit in 2015, you were one of the people to sign on the roadmap. On that roadmap, it was clearly stated that a hard fork will occur in the future. However, now the Core team simply seems to see it as an afterthought. Based on the active involvement of the Core team in different discussion forums and the lack of mention for a hard fork, it seems like a hard fork will never happen with the Core team.

Do you still support the Core team? Do you think it was right to sign on the roadmap back then? Is your support for Bitcoin Core related to you having a relative at BTCC? If, in the end, Bitcoin goes with BU’s scaling solutions and FlexTrans, what direction will Litecoin go?

Charlie Lee:

There are many reasons. First, FlexTrans is not better technology. It’s a huge change to how things are stored. There’s a lot of risk involved with making such a big overhaul. And last I read, there were quite a few bugs in the implementation. I also don’t believe that tagging system is best used to store protocol-level data. A fixed structure is easier to manage because you know exactly how much data you have and what data is where. Lastly, FlexTrans requires a hardfork. There’s little reason to risk a hardfork for this.
I believe 95% is too conservative. A soft fork can be safely done with 75%. This is different than hardforking at 75%. For a hardfork, all nodes need to upgrade. For a softfork, only miners need to upgrade.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that SegWit on Litecoin became political too. One of the reasons I’m doing this AMA is to try to pull the politics out of SegWit on Litecoin. Let’s not let Bitcoin politics pollute Litecoin for no reason.
There’s absolutely no need for Litecoin to hardfork today. We are not adopting SegWit to solve the block size limit. So anyone that tells me why don’t we hard fork to 2mb on Litecoin, I know that they are bring Bitcoin politics to Litecoin. I’m not going to engage in that conversation. We are softforking SegWit into Litecoin so that we can fix transaction malleability and add future improvements like Lightning networks, Confidential Transactions, Schnorr signatures, MAST, etc. Period. If you don’t think adding these things to Litecoin is for the best, tell me why it’s not. And if you think hardforking to fix transaction malleability is better, I will explain to you why it’s not better. Don’t ask me to hardfork Litecoin to add 2mb block size. That’s just ridiculous.
A hard fork is always on the table. But SegWit first and then see if we still need it. I’m not sure Bitcoin will still need a hardfork after SegWit. If that’s the case, then great! I think the Bitcoin Core roadmap is good and I support it.
Not at all. I introduced Bitcoin to Bobby. Neither Bobby’s role at BTCC or my role at Coinbase have any influence on my views of how Bitcoin and Litecoin should improve. With a $17B marketcap, Bitcoin improvements need to be very conservative. The Bitcoin Core devs should not make reckless moves with so much money on the line. With Litecoin, we are doing things a bit less conservative like our 75% softfork activation for example. This is because Litecoin’s marketcap is only $200M. I think we are making the right tradeoffs.
With such a controversial topic, I can’t see how Bitcoin can possible go BU and FlexTrans. It will likely just not change, and that’s fine. It’s still the best store of value we have ever seen. Whatever happens, Litecoin is going the SegWit direction. And we welcome any Bitcoin Core devs to join us if Bitcoin for some reason goes in another direction.

10.bitcoiners :How is the scalability of Litecoin? Can Ethereum’s functions/advantages be applied to Litecoin?
Charlie Lee:

Litecoin has 4 times as much onchain scaling than Bitcoin. And if SegWit goes through, with LN, Litecoin can scale immensely. The rootstock team may be looking into adding ETH functionality as a sidechain to Litecoin after SegWit. So we will see about that. As far as adding ETH functionality straight to the Litecoin protocol, I don’t see that happening. But we will see!

11.MacBook :Do you support Bitcoin’s scaling of blocksize to be larger than 1M? What do you think is the best scaling solution? Why?
Charlie Lee:

I don’t know if Bitcoin needs to scale larger than 1M. SegWit will improve scaling and LN will help a lot to. We may figure out future technologies so that we may never need to increase the blocksize. I think that would be the best. But of course, if it comes time that we need to increase the blocksize with a hardfork, we may just have to do that. But we are not there yet today.

12.n1002n:

Internet rumours say that there is a master private key for Bitcoin, and it’s in the possession of Gavin Andresen, is this true or just a lie? As the founder of Litecoin, could you tell us if there is a master private key for Litecoin?
Charlie Lee:

There’s no master private key. There’s an alert key that Gavin and others have. That let’s them send an alert messages to all nodes. But that’s it and the alert system is now deactivated in 0.13.

For Litecoin, only I have the alert key. And the alert system is also deactivated in Litecoin 0.13.

13.悠悠然:How many people does the Litecoin developer team currently consist of? What are their roles?
Charlie Lee:

We have 9 people that contribute to Litecoin development. There’s no specific roles. We just contribute however we can.

14.爱财 :From an investing perspective, all I know is that Bitcoin has just come out of a rebound, while the price of Litecoin is still flatlining at the bottom. This shows that Bitcoin is worthy of investment, while Litecoin appears to be practically dead, with the same price for over 2 years. Litecoin no longer appears to have any value for investors, how do you plan to solve this?
Charlie Lee:

I don’t plan to solve this. We are focused in making Litecoin useful as money and keeping the network safe. The price is for investors and speculators to figure out for themselves. Litecoin value in fiat terms has been pretty stable, so that’s actually a good thing if people are using it as store of value or transactions.

15. IMJENNIM:What do you think of the politics around SegWit and how should we as a community deal with the politicization of technical issues?
Charlie Lee:

I think politics is bad. One thing Bitcoin is not good at is that it does not have a good way to deal with politics. Maybe that’s not a bad thing as you don’t want any one party to be able to change Bitcoin to benefit themselves. So Bitcoin resisting change may actually be a good feature.

Some altcoins are looking at ways to improve on Bitcoin’s governance model. For example, Decred has a way where stakeholders can vote on how the coin will hardfork and improve. I think that’s very innovate and may be a way to resolve these deadlocks.

16. 海贼王BTC:I heard there are rumours that mining pools are trying to force the developers to make a hard fork. Is there any truth to that?
Charlie Lee:

Yes, there’s truth to that. Some pools are bringing Bitcoin politics into Litecoin and wants to have Litecoin set an example for Bitcoin. I am not playing that game. Leave Bitcoin politicis out of Litecoin. If you don’t have Litecoin’s best interest in mind, I have no interest in talking to you.

17.nxttyisgood:Is Litecoin’s current position a little bit awkward? It’s falling off as one of the most prominent Altcoins. What is your view on that?
Charlie Lee:

I don’t view Ripple as competing in the same space as Bitcoin and Litecoin. So to me, Litecoin has been #2 for the longest time. It’s been challenged by others like Auroracoin, Dogecoin, etc, but it has always shown resiliency. Today, I have to admit the challengers are much stronger. Ethereum has industry support and is doing something really different than Bitcoin. And Monero is trying to be a true fungible coin. Both I think deserve to be there.

I’m not concerned about this at all. And I do believe that SegWit can help unlock the true potential of Litecoin, which is to work alongside Bitcoin and be used as a global store of value and means of transfer.

18.helloruli:Do you own large amounts of XMR and DCR?
Charlie Lee:

I own a decent amounts of XMR and DCR in relation to my BTC and LTC holdings. My crypto portfolio breakdown is here: https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/828480761619550209
BTC is orange. LTC is grey. ETH is purple. XMR is brown. DCR is blue.

19.korbit:Zcoin is implementing the MTP algorithm. I heard that this algorithm is very good, will Litecoin consider it?
Charlie Lee:

We don’t plan on changing the PoW algorithm in Litecoin. Doing so will require a hardfork. So we won’t do it at this late stage unless we need to do it because Scrypt is broken.

20.一颗芒果冻:Hello, what is the position of Litecoin as a cryptocurrency? Is it more for payments or something else?
Charlie Lee:

Litecoin is a store of value and means of transfer.

21.江卓尔(Jiang Zhuo’er):When voting is “1 choose 1” like in the case of the Great Leader of North Korea, even if Kim Jong Un receives 95% of the votes, it’s not a democratic decision.
When voting is “2 choose 1” like in the case of the presidential election in the US, then even if Trump only receives 51% of the votes, it’s still a democratic decision. Therefore, no matter who has the right to vote (1 CPU 1 vote, 1 IP 1 vote, 1 coin 1 vote, etc.), shouldn’t the developers offer more than one voting choice and then proceed according to the popular vote? Not like the way it is now, where the developers make a decision on their own first, and then only offer a “1 choose 1” vote. In the current case of “1 choose 1”, do mining pools have the power to decide whether a protocol applies or not?
Charlie Lee:

Being a decentralized currency, Litecoin developers cannot prevent another party from running. Just like Bitcoin Core cannot prevent Bitcoin Unlimited from putting out a competing client. So there’s no reason for us to put out a choice we don’t believe in. It’s like having the Republicans put out 2 candidates instead of the 1 they truly believe in.
Miners and mining pools have a say, but they do not have complete control of the vote.

I have a question for you Mr. Jiang. You are currently against SegWit for Litecoin for purely political reasons relating to scaling on Bitcoin. This is because you own a large amount of BTC and it has nothing to do with Litecoin. When is LTC1BTC going to do what’s best for Litecoin and signal support for SegWit?

22.lpbjt :As the biggest holder of Litecoin, why don’t you lead or manipulate Litecoin’s price a little bit?
Charlie Lee:

I am definitely not the biggest holder of Litecoin. Since Litecoin was not premined, every LTC I own is either mined or bought on an exchange. I know of a dozen people who have a lot more LTC than I do. And even if I did have a lot of LTC, manipulating the price seems like a really bad idea for moral, legal, and practical reasons.

23.kaka1986 :I would like to ask a blunt and low-level question: when will Litecoin’s price reach 1,000 CNY?
Charlie Lee:

Whenever all of you decide to buy a lot more LTC! I wish I do, but I have no control over the price. If I did, LTC will already be worth 1000 CNY!

24.510685947:I see that the distribution of Litecoin is quite concentrated to the top 100 addresses. Will Litecoin turn to POW and POS?
Charlie Lee:

The reason why 50% of LTC is in the top 100 addresses is because Litecoin is still mainly used for speculation. So holders hold most of their coins on exchanges, which keep their cold storage coins in a few addresses. This is not true for Bitcoin as BTC has much more uses than LTC right now.

I do not plan to change Litecoin to PoW/PoS anytime soon. At one point, I did consider using my PoA (Proof of Activity: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=102355.0) proposal on Litecoin, but changing it now is going to be quite controversial. But I am keen on seeing how it progress with Decred.

25.火商:A direct question – how many LTC do you have? How do you feel about people’s view of Litecoin as an “Altcoin” (the Chinese term has a slight slandering feel about it)?
Charlie Lee:

I won’t reveal how many LTC I have. I don’t have a problem with the Chinese term for Altcoin. Everyone knows that Bitcoin is the king and that’s fine by me.

26.fanfanfan :Hello,
Do you believe that Litecoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency?
Is “decentralization” a unique attribute of blockchain?
Many countries and banks are now developing digital currencies.
Do you think these digital currencies will achieve decentralization?
If so, how? A blockchain that is not decentralized – will it work?
Charlie Lee:

Yes, Litecoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency.
Yes, blockchain’s main feature is decentralized consensus.
These digital currencies will never be decentralized as they will be controlled by the countries and the banks.
No, it’s no longer the same if it’s not decentralized.

27.fanfanfan:If national governments or banking consortiums such as R3 developed their own digital currencies that can achieve cross-border payments within seconds and with low transaction fees, then why would anyone still use Bitcoin or Litecoin? Thanks.
Charlie Lee:

One of the key features of decentralized currencies is uncensorable transactions. Governments cannot block you from using Bitcoin/Litecoin to pay anyone you want. But with a government-built digital currency, they will still have this power. So cryptocurrencies will still have its use. The second key feature is that cyrptocurrencies’ inflation schedule is set and cannot be changed without full consensus. So governments cannot inflate away your money.

28.fermi :Is it true that the upgraded Litecoin will offer anonymity? Currently there are many cryptocurrencies that offer anonymity, such as Dash, XMR, Zcoin, Zcash, etc. Is Litecoin using a totally new technology for anonymity or rather a similar algorithm as the above cryptocurrencies? If totally new, could you briefly describe it? Thanks.
Charlie Lee:

We are exploring adding Confidential Transactions to Litecoin. But we can only do that after SegWit is activated. So first things first.

29.maigj :How much Decred do you have? Will there be a collaboration in the future?
Charlie Lee:

I have some as I mentioned above. I do like Decred a lot. Don’t know if there will be a collaboration in the future. Maybe!

30.korbit:Could Litecoin take note of Dash’s masternode system? Many circulated cryptocurrencies are locked on the masternode network. Nodes can encourage the decentralization of the Litecoin network. Lower circulation can lead to a steady increase of the coin’s price. Can form a network of mutual support from 3 types of nodes: “mining, regular, masternode”.
Charlie Lee:

I think the masternode system of Dash is too centralized. It also benefits the rich. I would stick with fiat if I wanted a system like that. With cryptocurrency, decentralization is important. I would not sacrifice decentralization for these features of Dash.

31.kaka1986 :What plans do you have in place to increase the value of the Litecoin brand? How to make Litecoin “high end”, rather than a “low end” Altcoin?
Charlie Lee:

I really have no control over that. As the creator and developer, my focus is on improving the code and keeping the network safe. I will let others help with the Litecoin brand.

32.玛_雅 :Hello, two questions:
A concesus of 75% is too low, no? What if SegWit is activated but the remaining 25% are totally opposed, or even start a hard fork, then what? My suggestion would be to follow the example of Bitcoin and raise the concensus requirement to 95%.
What if miners form a consortium to oppose SegWit’s activation? For example, Bitcoin’s BitQt.com already has nearly half of its nodes running SegWit, but the combined hashpower is only around 23%. The level of decentralization of Litecoin’s hashpower is not as high as Bitcoin’s, so what will happen if a miners’ consortium refuse to signal for SegWit? Does Litecoin have some sort of emergency plan to alter PoW algorithms?
Charlie Lee:

75% is not too low for a softfork. If the remaining 25% opposes, as long as they don’t mine a block that steals from SegWit transactions, they won’t be on the wrong chain. And if they do mine a block that does, they will be mining the wrong chain. If the economic nodes, like exchanges and merchants, are running the new code, they will not accept that wrong chain. Those miners will quickly learn that they are mining coins that can’t be sold and will quickly switch to the right chain. This is why there’s a 2 week period between SegWit locked in and SegWit activation. It’s time for the miners to realize that SegWit will happen and to make sure they are mining the right chain. Lastly, SegWit adoption will be slow initially. So if you are concerned, just wait a few weeks when it’s clear that all miners are mining the correct chain before you send SegWit transactions.
If the economic nodes are all in favor of SegWit and a miners’ consortium is blocking it for Bitcoin political reasons, then we may do something drastic. But changing PoW is not something we take lightly and only will be done on a last resort. I don’t see why we would need to do that. We don’t like to think about that scenario and would prefer to work with the miners to do what’s best for Litecoin together.

33.比特吹 :Do you have a good relationship with your brother? Is Bobby Lee an American citizen? In that case will his Bitcoin exchange operations in China be limited by capital restrictions?

How is Coinbase’s development lately? I noticed that the exchange volume is quite low, how do you guys generate profit?
Charlie Lee:

Yes, I have a good relationship with Bobby. You need to ask him those questions.

Coinbase is doing extremely well. LTC volume is low as it’s a chicken and egg problem to get people to trade with us. But otherwise, the company is doing very well.

34.satoshi :Hi Charlie!
Before the founding of Ethereum, Litecoin was the decentralized cryptocurrency with the second largest market cap for a long time, but that has changed over the past year.
Do you think the relationship between Ethereum and Litecoin is one of competition? For investors, what are the main advantages of Litecoin?
Also, do you think the relationship between Ethereum and Bitcoin is one of competition? Their respective social concepts seem to differ quite significantly, could you please share your thoughts, thanks.
Charlie Lee:

I do not see Ethereum as a competitor to Bitcoin/Litecoin. Ethereum is trying to do something different and is not a store of value. Comparing Ethereum to oil makes sense to me. That said, it is competing with Bitcoin/Litecoin for investment dollars. So if you are looking at it solely from an investment perspective, they are competing.

35.辣条有毒:You have previously predicted Bitcoin at 8888 CNY and Litecoin at 88 CNY, do you still hold your prediction now? If you do, could you also give us a timeline for your prediction to come true? Will it happen in 2017?
Charlie Lee:

The prediction was sort of a joke. No one can predict the future. I just thought it was witty to predict an 88 price on Chinese New Year. Nothing more to that.

36.rmb :What do you think is the biggest misconception that foreigners have toward Chinese Bitcoin users, miners, and companies? How can we make them change these misconceptions?
What do you think about the POB’s inspections of Chinese exchanges?
Charlie Lee:

I think the biggest misconception is that the Chinese users/miners/companies are just in it for the money and don’t care about the future of cryptocurrencies. It’s probably more true in China than elsewhere as the Chinese are very smart. But I have no doubt that you care about Bitcoin, Litecoin, and cryptocurrencies and can see how that it’s a revolutionary idea. I’m not sure how you can change these misconceptions.
I think it’s a good thing for the PBoC to inspect the Chinese exchanges. Sometimes it’s better to have some regulation to prevent disasters like MtGox from happening again.

37.江卓尔:Since miners and pools only have a say (and not the power to vote), then why ask miners and pools to vote on SegWit?

Firstly, I also have a large amount of Litecoin (200,000). Secondly, it’s not only me that is opposed – all the LTC mining machine manufacturers and major LTC miners I know are against using a soft fork to achieve SegWit, no exceptions. Actually, I am in support of using a hard fork to implement SegWit.

There doesn’t exist such a thing as “what’s best for Litecoin”. In the world of Litecoin, nobody can play “god”, and nobody has the right to decide what is “the best” for Litecoin.
Whether or not this direction is “best” for Litecoin, it must be beneficial for the Litecoin community. You cannot choose a method that is harmful towards a certain portion of the community and then ask them to harm themselves in order to support this future direction.

Charlie Lee:

There’s a misundertsanding that we are asking miners to vote for SegWit. In reality, it’s just signaling for SegWit readiness. If 75% of miners are ready for SegWit, then it activates. And users can choose to use SegWit or not. It’s up to the users to use it. If majority of miners decide to never signal for SegWit, it is true that they can block SegWit from activating. But if users really want it, it will happen.

I will give an analogy to this. Miners are paid to protect the network and secure transactions in the blockchain by mining blocks. Compare this to a jewelry store paying guards to protect all the entrances and windows. There is value in the jewelry store, so the store is willing to pay a lot of money to the guards to protect it. In this example, miners are the guards. SegWit is like adding a second floor to the jewelry store. With a second floor, the store now need guards to also protect the second floor entrances and windows. But it can’t add a second floor before the guards are ready to do this little bit of extra work, because then it opens itself up for a thief to get in on the second floor. So it uses signaling. Once 75% of the guards say they are ready, the store will open up the second floor. That makes sense, right? But what if now the guards say, sorry, we are not interested in guarding your second floor and will not signal for it. Then what? Does the store give up on opening the second floor? No, because the store will make more money with two floors! So it now has a choice. It can fire all the guards and get new ones, that’s equivalent to changing proof of work. Or it can maybe open the second floor when only 50% of the guards signal that they are ready. And there are other options. The point is that if the store really wants to open a second floor, the existing guards can delay but not block it.

In terms of a hardfork SegWit, that is very silly. There is minimal difference in code between a hardfork SegWit and a softfork SegWit. The major difference is that hardfork is a lot more dangerous. It would be stupid for us to do a hardfork for SegWit instead of a softfork.

There is such thing as what’s best for Litecoin. If the majority of the economic Litecoin nodes want to do something, that’s what’s best. It’s of course hard to measure that. The only measurement we have is whether or not people upgrade to the new code. If the vast majority of the exchanges, merchants, payment processors, and users upgrade to 0.13.2, then we have a good idea that they do want SegWit and agree with the Litecoin devs’ plans to improve Litecoin. If that’s the case and yet the miners are refusing to support this improvement, it is then that we need to decide on what to do with the guards that are not willing to protect the second floor.

COMMENTS(141)

  • hl5460
    4 months ago hl5460

    Charlie is bored of the politics happening in bitcoin community and wants to stay out of it.Quote
    16. I heard there are rumours that mining pools are trying to force the developers to make a hard fork. Is there any truth to that?Charlie Lee:Yes, there’s truth to that. Some pools are bringing Bitcoin politics into Litecoin and wants to have Litecoin set an example for Bitcoin. I am not playing that game. Leave Bitcoin politicis out of Litecoin. If you don’t have Litecoin’s best interest in mind, I have no interest in talking to you.
    http://news.8btc.com/charlie-lee-amamining-pools-are-trying-to-force-the-developers-to-make-a-hard-fork

  • Xester
    4 months ago Xester

    That is the biggest issue why miners doesnt give out enough consensus due to this reasons. I dont thing hardfork is the best solution both for bitcoin and litecoin. If there are any possible ways to increase the blocksize in bitcoin rather than hardforking then it is good to go. As to litecoin, it is already a good coin without issues at all and thats why I agree to Charlie Lee that mining pools should just leave Litecoin alone.

  • kiklo
    4 months ago kiklo

    After reading the article, it certainly looks like the Group promoting Segwit has paid Charlie Lee off to support LN and the Counterfeiting that will go along with it. Shame , Shame Charlie.   Exactly how do you Counterfeit LTC on LN.Form a group of collusion between the Miners that control 51%,Send 5000 LTC to an address. Now follow the steps on LN to Lock up that 5000 LTC on the Blockchain.Whether LN requires 1 or 6 confirmations , as soon as LN confirms the representation of LN notes match your amount.You and your colluding friends, rewrite the blockchain and include a transaction moving that 5000 LTC to another address before the lock took place.You now still have your 5000 LTC Free & Clear Onchain, and a representation value of 5000 LTC Offchain on LN .(Which you can use for LN transactions forever.)LTC Onchain Transactions does not allow Counterfeiting , LN Offchain Transactions will bring Counterfeiting into Crypto  FYI:Odds are high the PoW Miners Block Segwit on LTC also.No one wants Segwit or the counterfeiting it will bring to crypto. FYI2:Combined the Chinese Mining Pools control more than 51% of BTC & LTC.

  • sportis
    4 months ago sportis

    I read carefully the answers and views of Lee had given and I would like to ask your opinion of the following,1. It seems to me that bitcoin miners keep a wait and see policy because they want to see what would be happened if LTC segwit is activated. 2. It seems strange to me that Lee said about some pools are forcing bitcoin devs for hardfork. If the profit is the main incentive for miners what is the meaning to do a hardfork with bigger blocksize? Of course every block will have more transactions but with lower fees so the sum after every block mining will be the same more or less but hardfork is more dangerous than soft one(speaking about the reputation and price of the coin). So, why Lee told something like that? In addition, why bitcoin miners want hardfork solution, given that anything told Lee is truth? Or he has any political or financial motivation?

  • zero_interest_rates
    4 months ago zero_interest_rates

    Make the hardfork and get over this; fuck; why is everyone so angry all the time?

  • QuentinZRC
    4 months ago QuentinZRC

    hashrate decides yeah, if devs don’t agree they should purchase more hashpower and vote with it

  • kretchino
    4 months ago kretchino

    Just what hard-fork are you suggesting, segwit or pow?
    Would you care being more explicit.

  • lagofjesus
    4 months ago lagofjesus

    Because Litecoin has 0 fundamentals at this point and the Chinese do not care. They control Litecoin and it’ll be like this until it is unprofitable to mine, then they will just close shop.

  • losh11
    4 months ago losh11

    I think it was said previously that if miners took control of Litecoin, the devs would change the Litecoin PoW.

  • koinster
    4 months ago koinster

    I’m not sure why I took this bait.

    My original argument you dismissed because you couldn’t see it on your phone.

    And apparently you don’t think ANY value will be lost if a hardfork occurs. I really hope it does hardfork, because it is only LTC after all.

    ^ My last sentiment agrees with you. Hardfork. May I have upvotes now?

  • Amichateur
    4 months ago Amichateur

    Make the hardfork and get over this; fuck; why is everyone so angry all the time?

    What is THE hardfork, please?

    (if you cannot define it clearly, you already have a part of the answer to your question)

  • hl5460
    4 months ago hl5460

    Quote from: sportis on February 09, 2017, 11:57:25 AM
    I read carefully the answers and views of Lee had given and I would like to ask your opinion of the following,1. It seems to me that bitcoin miners keep a wait and see policy because they want to see what would be happened if LTC segwit is activated. 2. It seems strange to me that Lee said about some pools are forcing bitcoin devs for hardfork. If the profit is the main incentive for miners what is the meaning to do a hardfork with bigger blocksize? Of course every block will have more transactions but with lower fees so the sum after every block mining will be the same more or less but hardfork is more dangerous than soft one(speaking about the reputation and price of the coin). So, why Lee told something like that? In addition, why bitcoin miners want hardfork solution, given that anything told Lee is truth? Or he has any political or financial motivation?

    Here is HSL’s take on the AMA.  Jiang Zhuo’er said that LTC devs had asked miners to accept 2% donation to LTC devs. The plan was hard-coded the receiving address into the client. But consensus was not reached. http://www.8btc.com/ltc_ama

  • franky1
    4 months ago franky1

    miners are not trying to force the devs to hard fork(the empty word people use to make people think its about splits)SMART PEOPLE of the community just want PROPER CONSENSUSplease dont assume hark fork = splitin both a hard and soft situation there are three subcategoriessoftfork: consensus – >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and deadsoftfork: controversial – >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and deadsoftfork: bilateral – intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chainshardfork: consensus – >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / deadhardfork: controversial – >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / deadhardfork: bilateral – intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chainswhen reading hard fork or soft fork. do not automatically assume best case for soft, worst case for hard.the truth is much simplersoft.. pool votes nodes dont.hard.. nodes vote then pools.and the smart community want CONSENSUS not bilateralreal funny part. is charlie lee. pretends to not want to get involved. yet is getting involved by following orders from his brother (bobby lee:BTCC) which is a strong advocate of blockstream due to the partnership and funding blockstream and btcc get from the same guy (barry silbert: DGC)

  • lagofjesus
    4 months ago lagofjesus

    Don’t have time for that. Litecoin will be dead by then.

  • losh11
    4 months ago losh11

    I’d rather LTC die than for miners to become our ‘overlords’.

  • greeneyedguru
    4 months ago greeneyedguru

    It honestly potentially saves a lot of time if it’s done as a HF with a long delay before activation.

  • 8btccom
    4 months ago 8btccom

    Here is HSL’s take on the AMA. Jiang Zhuo’er said that LTC devs had asked miners to accept 2% donation to LTC devs. The plan was hard-coded the receiving address into the client. But consensus was not reached.
    http://www.8btc.com/ltc_ama

  • RawDog
    4 months ago RawDog

    Quote from: franky1 on February 10, 2017, 04:28:14 AM
    real funny part. is charlie lee. pretends to not want to get involved. yet is getting involved by following orders from his brother (bobby lee:BTCC) which is a strong advocate of blockstream due to the partnership and funding blockstream and btcc get from the same guy (barry silbert: DGC)
    Just more Chinese corruption.  It’s in their blood. 

  • franky1
    4 months ago franky1

    Quote from: RawDog on February 10, 2017, 05:52:31 PM

    Quote from: franky1 on February 10, 2017, 04:28:14 AM
    real funny part. is charlie lee. pretends to not want to get involved. yet is getting involved by following orders from his brother (bobby lee:BTCC) which is a strong advocate of blockstream due to the partnership and funding blockstream and btcc get from the same guy (barry silbert: DGC)
    Just more Chinese corruption.  It’s in their blood.  

    your fooling yourself.its the yanks pointing in the direction of the chinese.behind BTCC is a yank (both of the lee’s are being paid by american investors)the yanks are pulling on the chinese strings.if things go wrong blame the chinese. if things go right the yanks take the glorywhile they have you distracted looking at bob and chuck. your not looking at the puppeteer in america pulling all the strings of blockstream AND the pools.all while the puppeteer is getting its grip on bitcoin to play out its little tale while the bankers grow hyperledger

  • kretchino
    4 months ago kretchino

    The whole point of Segwit is that it can be done in a safer soft-fork manner. Hard-forking still means the miners will have to upgrade and nothing points out that they’re more willing to do so in case of a hard-fork. Which means a hard-fork will be creating a new alt coin with no hashpower to secure it even if it has Segwit enabled.

  • shyliar
    4 months ago shyliar

    There is already a solution and it’s been coded into the latest version of Litecoin. I agree that it’s a choice which you prefer; but, either method works. So why not just move on and adopt? It shouldn’t come down to people just rejecting something because they didn’t get their way. Frankly that would be childish.

    For the record I don’t care if it’s done by a softfork or hardfork. Consensus is more important than individual egos. A decision needs to be made…..sometimes that means you don’t get your way.

  • jungans
    3 months ago jungans

    Lol. I would love to see them fork themselves out while the real litecoin still doesn’t give a fuck about segwit.

  • yingsena
    3 months ago yingsena

    If the economic nodes are all in favor of SegWit

    If they all are in favor ! wtf if charlie says they are all in favor then they are all in favor, right ?

  • junseth2
    3 months ago junseth2

    while i don’t know anything about the litecoin ecosystem, i will say that there is an important check in the ecosystem of any cryptocurrency that if the miners do not act in the best interest of the ecosystem as a whole that the rest of the ecosystem can leave them behind. the miners shouldn’t be able to force the rest of the ecosystem to do or not do anything. that’s not to say that the miners aren’t important or that their vote doesn’t matter, but they are only 1 section of the ecosystem as a whole. the threat of changing proof of work, even if it isn’t used certainly keeps them honest and acting in the best interest of the ecosystem.

  • bitsko
    3 months ago bitsko

    Did they trademark LTC?

    Litebutts may be up shit creek with a turd for a paddle.

    Whats the futures market on powswitch seglite?

    And why the fuck doesnt everybody just use groestlecoin?

    Its got a stupid PoW, segdev, im sure other shit too. Its like the perfect threat embodied in an altcoin with a name that protects it from contention.

  • meowmeow26
    3 months ago meowmeow26

    And the price of Litecoin keeps going down. It’s almost like he’s trying to destroy Litecoin.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    if the miners do not act in the best interest of the ecosystem as a whole that the rest of the ecosystem can leave them behind.

    No, not quite.

    The miners of any cryptocurrency own and operate network, just like Coca-Cola owns and operates its factories. All the other players are their users.

    Like Coca-Cola, the Litecoin (or Bitcoin) miners will do with their network whathever is best for them. Like Coca-Cola, that usually means not making the customers too upset, or they will leave for other coins. But they will often choose to do things that the customers don’t like; and most of the customers will usually grumble but submit, rather than switching.

    So, in particular, the miners will implement SegWit if they think that it will mean more money for them than the alternative. Will it?

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    What is this?

    https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5uf679/charlie_lee_people_dont_realize_what_segwit_is/ddu2rmv/

    But because SegWit is a softfork, there’s another option to force this softfork even if we don’t get miner consensus. I will go into details later on if we need to go there.

    Any ideas on what he is talking about?

    I think we have a new term guys…FORCED SOFTFORK

  • H0dl
    3 months ago H0dl

    Charlie is throwing a fit right now. He thinks he sees an opportunity to bring litecoin to the forefront as a legitimate competitor to Bitcoin. But instead, he’s just killing litecoin by inappropriately throwing his weight around (hardly any at all). Their price keeps dropping and dropping. I was hoping they would adopt SWSF and kill themselves off but it appears Charlie will be able to do that all by himself.

  • H0dl
    3 months ago H0dl

    You may got it all wrong. Bitcoins miners , and litecoin apparently, are taking their cues from big blockists, the economic majority of the community. They have plenty of support. The losers here are core dev, small blockists, and now Charlie.

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    I think perhaps that exactly who is leaving who behind is somewhat a matter of perspective.

    Exactly why is it so desperate that segwit must be implemented urgently to the point of taking the PoW change nuclear option? That kind of action surely would not be good for the value of the coin. And none of the existing miners are going to adopt this new pow change so it is going to be a fork in the chain and in a hostile setting. The miners could easily attack the other branch as well – mining empty blocks if they have sufficient funds.

    Perhaps miners feel that segwit opens the door to layer 2 transactions that will suck up the majority of the fees and yet will rely on their hard work in securing the chain to anchor all those layer 2 transactions.

    Miners can’t force anyone to stay with or use a particular coin that they are mining – if the ecosystem feels strongly enough, people can trade their coins for something else. They could pick some coin that has already implemented segwit for example…

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    junseth2, for once, I agree with you. 😀

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    It’s a surprise. But if you think about it hard enough, you can figure it out.

  • thecstep
    3 months ago thecstep

    Wow is it me or has /r/btc turned into a place just as bad as /r/bitcoin.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    Enlighten me then. What is wrong in what I wrote?

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    yeah – I am interested to hear what you mean by saying that. Perhaps you can elaborate.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Miners don’t own the network. They are paid to validate transactions and add to the blockchain. They get paid very well in fact. If anything, they are the factory workers paid to do the job. The users own it. If the owners want the factory workers to make Sprite in addition to Coke, and the factory workers refuse, what’s going to happen? Just accept it and grumble?

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    I replied.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Also, what if miners want to pay themselves 26 LTC instead of 25 LTC. That shouldn’t make the customers too upset right? Tell me what happens then.

  • 0x48454C4C4F00
    3 months ago 0x48454C4C4F00

    I always held a small balance on ltc as hedge. so I always keep an eye on the ltc sub.

    it hurts me to see how a few people can damage a long standing coin so easy. the coin development is too centralized.

    but that’s the way it is.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    Miners don’t own the network.

    Of course they do. They own the mining equipment, the controlling computers, and rent the internet connections through which all transactions and blocks must go. That is the network.

    You may be thinking of the community of users. But they are jusy that, users of the network — not their owners.

    The users own it.

    No, the owners are those investors who put up the money that bought all that equipment (and get the rewards — as profit, not as salaries).

    If the owners want the factory workers to make Sprite in addition to Coke, and the factory workers refuse, what’s going to happen?

    If the Coca-Cola customers want Coca-Cola to make Sprite, but Coca-Cola refuses because it thinks that it will not be profitable, what will happen?

  • Jachoshi
    3 months ago Jachoshi

    I’m excited about Litecoin implementing SegWit, it seems like the perfect solution. If it works well with Litecoin then it can be started on Bitcoin. What’s the problem?

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    No point in arguing. Your understanding of how Bitcoin consensus works is different than mine. I take back my harsh criticism. Sorry about that.

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    Hang on there. Software that creates the coins protocol is released and miners start to invest in equipment to mine coins. They make the investment based on the properties of the coin which they believe will allow it to have utility and therefore value. If they feel like the properties of the coin are being changed in such a way that will reduce its value then they are within their rights, surely, as the whole basis for which they invested has changed.

    If the users get pissed off enough and start migrating away from the coin it will also impact the miners – so they would likely acquiesce eventually (but only if the reaction is strong enough – which is exactly stolfi’s point).

    Minimally, miners need a network among themselves to keep mining. They don’t need anyone’s permission to keep building on the chain and no one can stop them or ever physically force them to upgrade.

    If you can’t convince them that there is a benefit to both ecosystem and them then there has to be something seriously wrong with either the proposal or the communication (or both).

    Without miners there would be no coins in the first place – this seems to be a fact that many devs just cannot accept.

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    That is a judgment call that users would make and would depend on the context as to how people react. If there is a strong counter reaction possible miners would be foolish to do it – but they absolutely can do it if they united together and you absolutely cannot stop them either – they can buy their own nodes and carry on without you. If their customer desert them then they will lose their investment – but that is within their control, not yours.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    You jest, i find that both humorous and disgusting at the same time. So much for “consensus”. It’s obvious it only means what you want it to mean when it is most convenient for you. I think it’s quite a problem for one person to run around acting like they make the decisions.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Sorry, but I don’t understand what you are talking about.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    And that is exactly why you fail to understand Bitcoin/Litecoin consensus.

    If miners mined a 26LTC block, they are not mining Litecoin. It will immediately get rejected by everyone else. Sure, miners can create their own little world that accepts their own alternative Litecoin. You are right, no one can stop them. But they won’t be making money from their fake litecoins either.

  • junseth2
    3 months ago junseth2

    yes, but if the ecosystem changes the proof of work and leaves the miners behind, then they are stuck mining coins that don’t do anything useful. if it is true that the entirety of the ecosystem has left, then new miners will form around this new ecosystem.

    my point isn’t that they will change it. it’s that they can, and the fact that they can is important, because it forces the miners to consider the rest of the ecosystem when it makes decisions, because it is in their best interest to do so.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    EDIT: I criticized too harshly, so removed.

  • brg444
    3 months ago brg444

    You have got this backwards. Miners started investing in mining equipment because of users started to collect and value the coins which increased its price and the profitability of mining it.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    People can draw their own conclusions. Charlie running around threatening a hard fork or forced soft fork to force segwit onto litecoin is something to which people might object. Just pointing it out

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    You personally threatened a hard fork or forced soft fork. Read the OP. And you say “It’s a surprise”. Why would you joke about that?

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    It’s not a joke. I’m not going to go into details about what the plan is as that will ruin the surprise. Like I said, I will elaborate on it if we need to go there. But if you understand how softfork works, how Bitcoin/Litecoin consensus works, and the check and balances in this consensus, then you can figure it out for yourself what’s a safe way to move forward even when we can’t reach miner majority. That’s all I’m going to say for now.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Yes, it’s actually worst IMO.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    If you want to split the coin, go for it. That’s a judgement call the nodes can take. Market will decide. Good for you that you have come around to the same conclusion that BU has, but for litecoin. Why do you fail to see the same conclusion for the currently 20% of hashpower and whatever percentage of nodes for bitcoin? there are many pools and businesses that are willing to make a move. I think you should be careful what you ask for, OR demonstrate exactly what is possible.

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    And that is exactly why you fail to understand Bitcoin/Litecoin consensus.

    No, i’m sorry, you fail to understand:

    Miners + nodes = a currency network.

    nodes without miners is just nodes.

    Miners + nodes without customers = $0 coin – but it is still a coin..(looks cheap I might buy some!)

    you are conflating some kind of economic consensus with network consensus. A majority of nodes, does not a coin network make. A majority of hash power communicating via at least some nodes does.

    I have never said it would be wise for miners to follow a course of action to increase the reward (far from it) – but they absolutely can do it.

  • core_negotiator
    3 months ago core_negotiator

    You are confusing miner transaction selection policy with consensus.

    Miners have absolute power to select which valid transactions they include in a block. Miners have the absolute power, by hashrate to extend the blockchain with valid blocks. And in the case of two valid chains, >51% of the hashrate have absolute power to decide which wins – by virtue that the full nodes are programmed to follow the whatever valid chain has the most work.

    Miners absolutely will do what is in their own financial interests and avoid doing things which harm their revenue (or the valid of Bitcoin overall). That’s the main assumption of Bitcoin, that miners will remain honest because it’s in their economic interest.

    At no point do miners have the ability to change the consensus rules because the moment they create an invalid block, they will get banned from the network. Some people suggest miners can force nodes to switch consensus rules somehow and that the economy will follow. Miners would immediately lose revenue from mining invalid blocks on a gamble that the entire ecosystem would suddenly switch. You tell me who is likely to switch first, the entire economy, or the miners as quickly as a cat falling into the bath when they realise they arent getting paid.

    What u/junseth2 is clearly stating is if the miners start working against the interests of the ecosystem, the response will be to ignore them by switching the PoW. The chances of that happening are pretty slim because miners are not going to commit suicide, risking billions in infrastructure and investment, based on a hope and a prayer.

    So, in particular, the miners will implement SegWit if they think that it will mean more money for them than the alternative. Will it?

    The big blockers say “bigger blocks means more fees” so if that is true, then yes, miners will select it. I think its not true initially, bigger blocks will reduce fees until blocks get fuller, at that point, they will absolutely make more revenue in fees.

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    How can a coin have any value before it has even been mined??? You are not making any sense at all to me. No miners – No Coins. Mining comes first, surely.

  • Demotruk
    3 months ago Demotruk

    I hope it happens with Bitcoin first, rather than learn a cautionary tale from Litecoin. The grandiosity of thinking they can change PoW and everyone will follow by default could cause them to finally relinquish control over the network.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    For ONE person to run around and make the claims you are making, and then patronize me how consensus works is…interesting

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Haha, ok. If you say so.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    if the ecosystem changes the proof of work and leaves the miners behind

    That is a conceited view of reality…

    Users cannot “change” the PoW, What can happen is some “rebel commando” creates an altcoin — NewBitcoin — that branches off the bitcoin blockchain at some point, but uses a different PoW from that point on.

    The new altcoin will start with a puny network of GPUs. The current network — even miners who would otherwise be sympathetic to the rebels — will of course continue to mine the old Bitcoin. Then the rebels must convince all users to burn their (old) Bitcoins and use only the NewBitcoins instead.

    The users must burn, not dump; because if the old bitcoins are sold, the buyers will continue to use them; and if there are users, there will be exchanges too. Thus, in order to “fire the miners”, most users must be convinced to throw away any value that their old coins might have.

    It is hard to imagine something that the miners could want to do, and users would hate so much that most of them would rather burn their old bitcoins than continue to use them. I don’t think that raising the 21 million cap would be enough. If the users can put up with this…

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Life is full of interesting things. 😀

    Trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for being patronizing. Just had a long day, week, and month.

  • aquahol
    3 months ago aquahol

    Hi Charlie, I am interested in hearing about this method. Not sure why it needs to be so secretive.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    No worries

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    You may find out soon enough. Sorry. 🙁

  • Shock_The_Stream
    3 months ago Shock_The_Stream

    LOL, yes, open subs are worse than censored ones, from the perspective of caricatures of cypherpunks.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    Of course miners would not simply start mining blocks that client software rejects as invalid.

    But a simple majority of the miners can impose any soft fork that they like, without the consent of users, developers, servces, or the minority miners. Such as a higher minimum fee, or a demurrage tax, or a lower max transaction size.

    And a supermajority (say, 60%) can even force a hard fork, such as an increase in the block reward. That would take a bit more work and time, because they must force all users to upgrade their software. They can do that by promising to “jam” any minority branch after the change is activated.

    Some “rebel” users may create an altcoin with an incompatible PoW that retains the old block reward; but that would not prevent the miners cartel from going forward with their change. The clients would have to upgrade anyway; and they will download both versions, because both coins will probably have some value, and it would be foolish to throw that value away.

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    It’s the sybil attacks that can fool people. Unfortunately, there’s no good solution for that for a forum.

  • brg444
    3 months ago brg444

    Bitcoin had no market value in the beginning.

    Users were mining because that was a feature of the original client and it was cheap to do so.

    Hobbyists and collectors started taking interest in accumulating because of speculation or curiosity. Eventually demand was such that a market for coins emerged which resulted in a price and therefore further incentives for people to invest in mining rather than do it as a by-product of running the software.

    It’s very obvious that the hashing power has followed the price all along, which tells you how the incentives are aligned.

  • aquahol
    3 months ago aquahol

    Ok, thanks.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    The big blockers say “bigger blocks means more fees” … I think its not true initially, bigger blocks will reduce fees until blocks get fuller, at that point, they will absolutely make more revenue in fees.

    Those may be the “not-so-big-blockers” perhaps. Real big blockers say that the network must never be allowed to become congested; that is, the block size limit must be big enough for it to be irrelevant.

    Fixing a low block size limit is a stupid (sorry but it is the right word) way to increase the miners revenue. The right way is what all businesses do: the supplier posts the price that maximizes its profit, taking into account the price x demand curve of the market and the expected reaction of other suppliers. And then he serves all the demand that is willing to pay that price — the more, the better.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Your implication is insulting. There are 27,000 subscribers to this sub.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    Miners absolutely will do what is in their own financial interests and avoid doing things which harm their revenue

    That is true…

    or the value of Bitcoin overall

    That is not necessarily true. For one thing, a miner whose equipment will be obsolete in 1 year will want to maximize his revenue in that 1 year, even if it causes the price to crash after that.

    Or, suppose the next halving of the reward is coming up, and the miners are considering a hard fork that will suppress it and keep the reward constant. If forcing that hard fork would cause the price to drop 30%, that would still be worh for the miners (maybe 100 M USD or more).

    Moreover, the interest of miners may depend on other factors besides the price of bitcoin. Suppose that the Chinese government calls the major Chinese pools and tells them to reverse a certain transaction that was confirmed yesterday, or else. Their interest will be to comply, even if that causes the price to crash and forces them to close afterwards…

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Nobody is really that interested in Blockstream approved definitions. Thanks though

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    This happens on both r/btc and r/bitcoin by both camps likely. So I’m not trying to be insulting.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Arguing over who owns the network is pointless. It’s like trying to describe which leg of a table holds it up.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    I apologize then, but I still disagree that sybils play any kind of major role in either sub.

  • Shock_The_Stream
    3 months ago Shock_The_Stream

    It seems that you and the litecoin devs (devaluators) are able to fool the majority of the litecoiners who’s coins are losing every day vs. Bitcoin. At Bitcoin, the miners fortunately emancipate from the core devaluators. They are not ready for a network suicide, as ViaBTC called that softfork attack.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    Are you guys talking about orphaning block that don’t signal segwit?

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    Then why set up a 75% threshold if you guy intended to force activation?

  • aquahol
    3 months ago aquahol

    Would you say that /r/bitcoin is Sybil attacked, since most users holding certain points-of-view are silenced?

    You are more than welcome to say whatever you like in this subreddit. If you get down voted, that doesn’t mean the subreddit is sybil attacked, maybe it just means your opinions are unpopular. I know this not how rediquette is supposed to work, but let’s be real and acknowledge that that’s how up and down votes are used in practice.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Might as well just put a flag day in at that point

  • Jachoshi
    3 months ago Jachoshi

    Demonstrating a contentious hard fork could be beneficial to Bitcoin too.

    On another note, I think it is interesting to see how the creator of Litecoin tries to influence the coin since I often wonder what Satoshi thinks about the current situation.

  • brg444
    3 months ago brg444

    I’m not interested in convincing those who don’t want to see things for what they are. You are free to remain in your bubble.

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Agreed, I warned him of that. He may end up having the opposite effect he wants.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    while i don’t know anything about the litecoin ecosystem, i will say that there is an important check in the ecosystem of any cryptocurrency that if the miners do not act in the best interest of the ecosystem as a whole that the rest of the ecosystem can leave them behind.

    You cannot.

    If you change the PoW you go an a separate ledger.
    Bitcoin/litecoin or whatever currency is concerned will work just fine.

    the threat of changing proof of work, even if it isn’t used certainly keeps them honest and acting in the best interest of the ecosystem.

    The are not kept honest because they are threatened by the community, they are kept honest because they are incentived to do so.

    Bitcoin 101.

  • LovelyDay
    3 months ago LovelyDay

    You’re saying we are all sockpuppets?

    Where have I heard that before?

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Well, I know I’m a sockpuppet.

  • core_negotiator
    3 months ago core_negotiator

    Some interesting points.

    Suppose that the Chinese government calls the major Chinese pools and tells them to reverse a certain transaction that was confirmed yesterday, or else. Their interest will be to comply, even if that causes the price to crash and forces them to close afterwards…

    Would be pretty difficult since miners would have to create a 144 block reorg by outmining the current chain, ok so 80% of the hashrate stop mining the tip, goes back to the block before the tx they want to censor and starts mining again, that would take a day + 25% to do. I dont see how that would work in the incentives of miners to do given the disruption, effect on price and general WTF that would illicit from the community. It’s an interesting thought experiment for sure, but a bit OTT at the same time 🙂

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    yes, but if the ecosystem changes the proof of work and le>aves the miners behind, then they are stuck mining coins that don’t do anything useful.

    You are wrong.

    They are not left behind, they will keep mining the currency, the whole ecosystem is still compatible with (supporting the new currency will require updates), many economics participants will not even be aware of event and the security of the PoW of the new currency will be many order of magnitude smaller for a long time.

    The currency being forked off will not be I affected, I wouldn’t be surprised if the exchange rate barely move, it is the new currency (wilth the PoW) that will have everything to prove.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    The users own it.

    Well I don’t think anybody own the network.

    It is the point of cryptocurrency, it has not center.

  • pholm
    3 months ago pholm

    Love your prose.

  • Matthew-Davey
    3 months ago Matthew-Davey

    “They have now latched onto…”

    “obviously they think that forcing…”

    “They keep claiming…”

    You keep using the word they. Who exactly are you referring to?

  • dontcensormebro2
    3 months ago dontcensormebro2

    Segwitians

  • reddaxx
    3 months ago reddaxx

    And the truth is that this exactly how blockchains are supposed to work on the development end.

    If a disagreement is significant enough they are free to do a software fork and go do their own thing, and this is encouraged.

    Like this whole mess, they want to do something that the bulk of both Bitcoin and Litecoin communities do not want. SegWit is poorly implemented garbage on both sides as a soft fork. We know it. Miners know it. SegWit adoption is floundering hard, and numbers don’t lie.

    Charlie, Adam, Greg, you are all free to split off and leave the rest of us alone if you want SegWit so damn bad, and please do. Use what is left of your pathetic little VC backed war chest and build new ASICs for a new algo and call it something else. If you are all so confident in your own visions, you should have no problem branching off and actually competing with Bitcoin instead of trying to steal it and mutilate it like cowards.

  • freedombit
    3 months ago freedombit

    sounds like a test – let those who want to do it, do it.

  • Matthew-Davey
    3 months ago Matthew-Davey

    https://imgflip.com/i/1jtilk

  • reddaxx
    3 months ago reddaxx

    I don’t understand how they don’t understand that if they change the algo, they created a new coin that is no longer Bitcoin/Litecoin. This is exactly what Litecoin is to Bitcoin, which is Bitcoin with Scrypt instead of SHA256. It is truly mind boggling. Are these people actually insane?

    They also don’t get apparently don’t understand how open source software and forks work either.

  • reddaxx
    3 months ago reddaxx

    Without mining nodes there is no network. Are you losing your mind?

  • H0dl
    3 months ago H0dl

    Charlie is a nutcase. He’s flailing all over trying to take advantage of the situation to make litecoin relevant

  • dagurval
    3 months ago dagurval

    Does it involve orphaning block votes you don’t like?

  • H0dl
    3 months ago H0dl

    Well said

  • Dekker3D
    3 months ago Dekker3D

    One thing I noticed: he fully expects the whole node network to accept SegWit. His argument against the potential for a 51% attack using anyone-can-spend is that the nodes will still not recognize this as valid, but the whole point of a softfork is that older nodes don’t need to change. Anyone using an older node might still accept the blocks where SegWit transactions are simply spent by miners or anyone else, and if a significant portion of nodes and a majority of miners use a non-SegWit client.. well, which network is the true Litecoin/Bitcoin? Probably the non-SegWit one.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    A soft fork activation can be forced on the network.

    As long as 51% support the soft fork, miner just need to orphaned block that doesn’t support segwit.

    By doing so they are guaranteed to reach any threshold.

    But look very much like an attack on the network.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    Yes It would be a extremely agressive way to force an upgrade..

    Whatever cryptocurrency going trough such event would loose all credibility to me..

    Not to mention people will loose money (block being orphaned).. it is unethical to say the least.

  • reddaxx
    3 months ago reddaxx

    The point of a blockchain is that it has internal business logic and operating constitution of it’s own.

    Bitcoin owns itself, miners and developers are effectively contractors that work for it based on a set of rules, and users/holders of the coin are essentially shareholders. Those coins, or shares, are backed by the utility, service, and infrastructure of the whole network. Imagine if you could spend your Google stock on coffee with no middleman. It is the first working example of an autonomous self-propelled business, in this case a financial and banking service.

    To truly embrace this technology you really must let go of any preconceived notions of traditional business structures, because this is a whole new arena, which is grossly misunderstood by most.

  • aquahol
    3 months ago aquahol

    Charlie, why do you have harsh words to say about /r/btc but do not do the same for /r/bitcoin? I think it would be interesting to hear your take on the pros and cons of each of the two subreddits.

  • Taidiji
    3 months ago Taidiji

    stick to computer science, you don’t understand markets AT ALL

  • coblee
    3 months ago coblee

    Anyone can be a miner

  • papabitcoin
    3 months ago papabitcoin

    The whole point of this particular portion of the thread I am in where it was mentioned that a POW change could keep the miners in check seems to be that the ecosystem can just fire the miners by a POW change. And I am here to tell you that the coins are worthless without miners mining them and without miners continuing to mine blocks so that transactions can take place (albeit increasingly slowly on the stagnating bitcoin blockchain) – ultimately what gives coins their value is the fact that the blockchain is secured by a majority of “honest” hash. When people start pulling out the big guns of POW change threats they don’t realize just how much of a nuclear option that is – you think existing miners are going to play ball with that? You think that the new rules are going to be secured with an equivalent amount of hash – not very likely. It might suit some people’s agenda to see miners as merely filling blocks and crunching a few numbers and slavishly following their dev masters or whatever – but like it or not, when a coin network is in full flight, much like Dr Frankenstein discovered, the original creator is no longer in control of the creation.

    It is a bootstrapping situation, people started mining out of interest and fascination, the tiniest value became attributed to the coins, the mining network gathers more interest, value kept increasing and then more serious investment occurred. You cannot have a valuable coin without people wanting to hold it or use it, and you cannot use it if it is not secured and operated by the miners. Devs on the other hand should regard both coin consumer and miners as their clients whose interest they seek to serve by offering a range of potential improvements and seeking to explain the benefits – without trying to threaten, bully, cajole, deride or dismiss concerns of the respective parties.

    Ultimately the miners need consumers to use the coins (holding is a use case) which is why it is in their self interest to have a flourishing ecosystem – such as might be able to continue to grow were the blocksize limit raised in a more open ended fashion and self adjusting fashion.

  • 1s44c
    3 months ago 1s44c

    I remember when litecoin started. The whole thing was a troll on bitcoin and a get rich quick scheme. Sadly the get rich quick trolls also joined up and lite has been trolling ever since.

  • yingsena
    3 months ago yingsena

    sybil attacks

    You’re not shy to use a forum to attack reputations are you Charlie?. What was it you said about those 7 alt coins that came before Litecoin again…

    Charlie says … ‘they were not launched fairly basically launched by people who are greedy that wanted to strike it rich..

    https://youtu.be/P7jBwrvN-uA?list=PL0q5EDt0zwYpu4LVuWP0M1BwfeMqdc6DF&t=106

    What’s the real reason you created Litecoin Charlie ?

  • blackmarble
    3 months ago blackmarble

    Do you have a rough ETA? Days? Weeks?

  • blockstreamcoin
    3 months ago blockstreamcoin

    Sounds like he will hide an update to segwit, miners will upgrade without knowing.

    If he changes the PoW nobody will care, miners will keep mining litecoin with the old PoW and the altcoin of the altcoin generated by a PoW change will be completely ignored.

  • WiseAsshole
    3 months ago WiseAsshole

    One thing is to create a new blockchain (anyone can do it), and another thing is to create the whole idea. You can’t compare this clown to Satoshi.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    dont see how that would work in the incentives of miners to do given the disruption

    Not going to jail is an incentive that trumps any monetary profits.

    If 60% of the miners announce that they are doing it because they have no choice, and can convince the world of their commitment, the other 40% will join them; because any work spent on the minority chain would be wasted.

    By the way, in that case the 1 MB limit will cause a huge backlog, since those 144 MB of transactions will be added to the normal incoming traffic; and there will be some wasted hashpower until the minority gets smart and joins the reorg. That would happen at any multi-block reorg, in fact. The backlog means that several days might pass between a transaction being un-confirmed by the reorg and being reconfirmed again in the new chain. If the limit were removed, there would be no backlog, and reconfirmation of confirmed transactions would be “instantaneous”.

  • cryptonaut420
    3 months ago cryptonaut420

    RIP litecoin then..

  • losh11
    3 months ago losh11

    No. Just no.

    That would actually be devs taking control over the entire network. The solution is a lot more decentralised, and doesn’t include orphaning non-segwit blocks. That would be censoring.

  • losh11
    3 months ago losh11

    the miners shouldn’t be able to force the rest of the ecosystem to do or not do anything.

    Agreed. Anything otherwise would be giving up total control to miners, who as a syndicate would be able to overwhelmingly control the network, by censoring transactions and new features.

  • losh11
    3 months ago losh11

    That analogy isn’t the best to describe the situation.

    I think you could say that miners will always strive to make maximum profit, and through that mechanism, it allows miners to make bad decisions which can be good for them in the short term, but bad in the long term.

    Your understanding of the market isn’t the best though.

  • losh11
    3 months ago losh11

    They own the mining equipment, the controlling computers, and rent the internet connections through which all transactions and blocks must go. That is the network.

    That is not the network. The network is the entire ecosystem, and miners play a part in verifying transactions + some other things.

    Miners shouldn’t be able to censor transactions, to censor features, to censor rules. It is the users who should be able to do that. Litecoin is a decentralised currency, and consensus is meant to be reached by the majority of its users. Not a small group of miners.

    As a decentralised network, the users of the network represent the owners. And to say that either developers or miners are the owners of the network is fundamentally wrong.

  • losh11
    3 months ago losh11

    That’s a judgement call the nodes can take. Market will decide.

    This is meant to be a last resort, so hopefully the PoW change doesn’t happen. I think it’s fair to say that Litecoin deserves to die if either miners or developers manage to get complete control of the network. As we would be breaking one of the biggest fundamentals of LTC, it’s decentralisation nature.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    Well what is that mysterious solutions?

  • DaSpawn
    3 months ago DaSpawn

    anyone that gains more than 51% hash power of the network can force anything they want on the network

    that is why core set the bar so unrealistically high for SW, they hoped more people would not notice 95% is BullShit to begin with

    This is why having multiple compatible client versions on the network is significantly more important than this block size misdirection, it is a direct supplement to the security of the miners and multiple pool distribution and we should be driving for MORE compatible clients and MORE collaborative development groups

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    That is not the network. The network is the entire ecosystem,

    You may call things anyway you want, but it is the miners who own and operate the equipment that keeps the system working.

    That is what is usually called the “network” in other industries. The “phone network”, the “electric power network”, the “sewage network” etc. do not include the users, or the companies that work around it.

    Miners shouldn’t be able to censor transactions, to censor features, to censor rules. It is the users who should be able to do that.

    By “shouldn’t” you mean “we the users don’t want them to”. But that is not what the protocol says. By design, a majority of miners has the power to censor transactions (and even reverse them). That gives them the power to block or impose changes to the protocol — either by “stealth deployment”, in the case of soft forks, or by jamming minority branches, in the case of hard forks.

    And “majority of hashpower rules” is an essential feature of bitcoin; it is Satoshi’s invention that made decentralized consensus possible, thus solving the double-spend problem that had been open for 25 years. Replacing “majority of hashpower” by any other criterion — such as “majority or users” or “majority of holders” — will completely break the system.

    Bitcoin was designed to be a network of miners, run by the miners, for the miners’ benefit. That has not changed, and the altcoins based on bitcoin have inherited that basic design.

  • wutsittooya
    3 months ago wutsittooya

    Power hungry developers? There’s a strong consensus among the community to upgrade to segwit the only people stopping the softfork would be the miners. The only way he would force it is after the 1 year time frame as well.

  • caveden
    3 months ago caveden

    The users must burn, not dump; because if the old bitcoins are sold, the buyers will continue to use them;

    You can’t really be that incapable of understanding basic price mechanisms. If a large part of holders sell their coins, the price will obviously go down, making it much less worthy. The few buyers will end up buying lots of coins for a dime, and in the end there will be less users, and thus there will be less demand for infrastructure.

    That’s obvious even for a socialist. So why do you claim they’d need to burn the coins instead?

  • PotatoBadger
    3 months ago PotatoBadger

    Two WeeksTM

  • enqueued
    3 months ago enqueued

    He’s not hiding anything. He’s announcing his intentions openly and clearly. I respect him for that. It’s up to people to support him and move in the direction he leads or to dissent. But I don’t think we’re going to see any such machinations.

  • enqueued
    3 months ago enqueued

    That’s not fair. It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that has everything to do speculation about the upcoming bitcoin ETF and nothing to do with litecoin specifically.

  • enqueued
    3 months ago enqueued

    The are not kept honest because they are threatened by the community, they are kept honest because they are incentived to do so.

    The two aren’t entirely unrelated. It’s misleading to imply that they are. Empty threats incentivize no one. But informing people what you’re about to do and letting them respond how they like is ideal in any functional economy.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    I never say they are related.

  • enqueued
    3 months ago enqueued

    I used a double negative which might have been confusing. You’re implying they’re not related. I’m directly saying they are.

  • Ant-n
    3 months ago Ant-n

    So you are saying there is incentive without threat?

  • enqueued
    3 months ago enqueued

    Kind of. I’m saying that miner’s are motivated by incentives. Threats are just communicating intentions. If they’re sincere they are a vaild form of incentive. A distasteful form, but a valid form–if they’re sincere/credible.

    So threats and incentives are not mutually exclusive sets. That’s all I meant.

    EDIT: To be more clear Yes. But also all the other things I said.

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    The few buyers

    How do you know that they will be “few”?

    Check the ETH/ETC fork. Many fans of each coin rushed to dump their holdings of the other coin. But neither succeeded in driving the other to the ground.

    Suppose the miners impose a change in the halving schedule that doubles the cap to 42 million. Those hodlers who “grew up” believing that 21 M is the magic untouchable number may dump, horrified. But for those who buy their coins at $200, an issuance cap of 42 M would still mean 5x the potential “moonfall” that one could hope for when buying at $1000 with a 21 M cap.

    For them, 42 M will be the magic untouchable number. Like the 21 M cap, it will not be “guaranteed by math”, but only by the solemn promises of human beings…

  • chinawat
    3 months ago chinawat

    Umm, if you’re going to hard fork for PoW anyway, why would you want to carry all the unneeded complexity of “soft” fork SegWit? Paging Captain Logic.

    e: Also, Scrypt is hardly as ASIC intensive as SHA256, so a change to even the most CPU-intenstive PoW may bring only a marginal changing in voting results.

  • caveden
    3 months ago caveden

    Don’t divert from the point of my message, please.

    You wrote that only if the supporters of a particular fork burn their holdings they would stand a chance of winning. Selling, you claimed, would not be work.

    That’s obviously false and you know it. Burning your holdings would eliminate your share of demand, but it would as well decrease the supply. Selling would increase the supply. It’s the most effective action to bring down that asset price. I’m pretty sure Jorge Stolfi, despite being a socialist, can understand that. Then why did you say that?

  • jstolfi
    3 months ago jstolfi

    Burning your holdings would eliminate your share of demand, but it would as well decrease the supply. Selling would increase the supply.

    We are discussing which of two impossible scenarios is more likely to work.

    Suppose that, as you say, the bitcoin holders who prefer X-bitcoin to Y-bitcoin decide to sell all their Y-bitcoins as quickly as possible, For that, there must be an exchange that provides trading of Y-bitcoin (as Poloniex smartly did after the Ethereum split).

    The price would surely crash, but not to zero. Every trade has a seller and a buyer, so there will be people buying those bargain coins.

    Then Y-Bitcoin would have Hodlers (people who hold coins hoping for a large price rise in the indefinite future): namely, those buyers. It will have an exchange, and hence it will have Traders (people who buy and sell on the short term, trying to exploit variations in price). And it can have Users (people who use the coins as paymentfor goods or services).

    The new Hodlers will obviously be people who believe that Y-bitcoin is the good one, and, rightly or wrongly, trust that Y-bitcoin will go to the moon one day. The Traders will not care about the technicals, the ideologies, or even the price: all they care is that they can buy and sell the coin, and that the price varies. The Users too won’t care about ideologies or the price, but care about having their payments delivered promptly. If X-bitcoin has backlogs, and Y-bitcoin doesn’t have…

    So, Y-bitcoin will not die, even of most current holders dump their hoards. For its price to go to zero, all people who currently have bitcoin, for any purpose, would have to dump them; and those coins must find no buyers. Call this the “Dump Death”.

    Now about burning. Indeed, if only some of the people who own bitcoins burn their Y-coins and leave, the price should not be significantly affected, because they take away both potential supply and future demand. To kill Y-bitcoin, all people who currently own bitcoin would have to burn them. Call this the “Burn Death”.

    A variant on the Burn Death is the “Drop Death”, where all owners of bitcoin simply leave their Y-bitcoins where they are and never try to move them.

    Note that the three death modes are equivalent, in the sense that the bitcoin holders get no value out of their Y-coins. The main difference is that in the Dump Death an Y-bitcoin exchange gets created, and all holders put their coin for sale there — but no trades get executed.

    All three scenarios — Dump Death, Burn Death, and Drop Death — are impossible, except in one case: when the Y-bitcoin is not functional — either because it has too few miners to sustain a usable block rate, or because the majority of them miners is mining the X branch and is actively jamming the Y branch.

    In that case, however, no exchange will offer trading on Y-coins. So the Y-coin will actually die of a Drop Death.

    And this is the natural outcome of any hard-fork that gets a 75% miner vote; which will very likely become 100% miner adoption during the grace period. Then the Y-coin will be the unforked version, and it will die of Drop Death. Note that, if 75% of the miners want a hard-fork change in the rules, it is because they expect that their revenue (from fees and rewards) will increase as a result, in spite of an eventual effect on the price.

    On the other hand, if some of the miners try a hard fork for other reasons (as was the case with Ethereum), the unforked version is likely to retain the support of enough miners to make it viable, thus avoiding death (of any kind).

Please sign in first