Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum • Hacker News Board

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#101

Post by vmception » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

capableweb wrote: post #31

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #28

Satoshi wrote in 2010: "I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint." https://bitcoint…

"In a different blockchain they go by different rules" yeah no shit, of course. Ethereum is not Bitcoin because Ethereum doesn't want to be Bitcoin, otherwise Ethereum wouldn't have existed in the first place. That's like complaining that GCP is not following the advice of AWS "leaders", of course they are not gonna do that, otherwise they would work together, not on two different projects... Also, no matter what Sat…

The market itself has shown resilience through all kinds of previously theoretical problems

51% attacked coins dont “crash to zero” because market participants decided it wants to buy them up and attempt double spending. In other cases the proactive disabling of only some off-ramps just creates greater scarcity, ensuring amplified value to the coin being acquired

A lot of what satoshi said can be ignored because the market can simply bear it

These are products which can attract value for reasons satoshi and enthusiasts did not predict, just like any economist fails to predict what actual individual humans will do

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#102

Post by baobabKoodaa » Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

throw4738 wrote: post #26

Ethereum is THE fork. Original is called Ethereum Classic.

Nope, Ethereum was forked multiple times BEFORE that fork. So Ethereum Classic is not the "original" chain either (if by "original" you mean a chain that can be validated by running software from a time before the first fork).

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#103

Post by etherael » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 12:12 AM UTC

swensel wrote: post #94

etherael wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They sound divisive on the matter because for over a decade now they've fruitlessly tried to explain the abject idiocy of backing a takeover attempt by a party whose business model is directly focused around constraining on chain capacity to a uselessly low rate, the lower the better, and the uselessly low rate this attack has managed to constrain it to is barely higher than the throughput of a fax machine. Let that…

What about the arguments that I've heard that Bitcoin Cash / big blocks allow miners to make more money, and that could be why this whole discussion started in the first place? I understand the argument that Blockstream has some bias, but it seems like there may be bias on the BCH side as well. If that's not the case, could you explain that in more detail?

Is that actually an argument against something though? If change x allowed devs on the apple store to make more money, why would that be an inherent reason to oppose it, for example? All the arguments that I've heard focused around that angle of attack fail to address this issue; there's nothing wrong with miners making money, and in fact it's the design of the system that they should make money, that's how security is paid for. Even the originator of the BTC permanently limited to 1mb meme admits this and constantly uses it to push his own position by claiming that an artificially constrained chain is necessary in order for a "fee market" to develop so that security is directly compensated by usage, whilst ignoring that the original design was indeed to have it directly compensated by usage, but in volume rather than artificial scarcity provoking a "fee market".

In terms of bias on the BCH side, you could argue that because of conditions after the split they've had to take some hits and make rough decisions in a rocky landscape, but even those I think you'd be hard pressed to really disagree with in light of what the options were at the time. When it comes to pre-fork though no; it's simply unequivocally the case that they were right all along. They were outright censored on the main forums from making the very simple points of both technical and historical fact in support of the position that the goal was always to scale on chain and the math works just fine for it, and even having actually executed that and pushed the BCH network to 256mb blocks on scalenet already, the cultists over on BTC just ignore this and pretend like their position has any more merit than it ever did, constructing progressively more idiotic justifications as time goes by and it becomes clear that their narrative of it being impossible to grow a chain faster than a fax machine is exactly what everybody who knew what the underlying numbers were knew it to be to begin with.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#104

Post by swensel » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

etherael wrote: post #103

swensel wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the arguments that I've heard that Bitcoin Cash / big blocks allow miners to make more money, and that could be why this whole discussion started in the first place? I understand the argument that Blockstream has some bias, but it seems like there may be bias on the BCH side as well. If that's not the case, could you explain that in more detail?

Is that actually an argument against something though? If change x allowed devs on the apple store to make more money, why would that be an inherent reason to oppose it, for example? All the arguments that I've heard focused around that angle of attack fail to address this issue; there's nothing wrong with miners making money, and in fact it's the design of the system that they should make money, that's how security…

Thank you for providing more details. I actually was in support of Bitcoin Cash around the time of the fork, but after some time, something about Bitcoin Cash and r/btc seemed off to me. Bitcoin Core and r/bitcoin seemed to be the more reasonable folks. Roger Ver's attitude in interviews did not help. If anything, his behavior made me think twice about holding Bitcoin Cash at all. I can see that some people feel this same thing about the Bitcoin Core devs though. Craig Scott Wright and the Bitcoin SV split also didn't inspire confidence in the Bitcoin Cash community for me. Anyway, at this point I'm trying to gather more information to see if it's worth buying back into Bitcoin Cash, so I appreciate this.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#105

Post by xiphias2 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

AgentME wrote: post #64

xiphias2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't at least a unit test be added before accepting a pull request? We're talking about 15% of a 300 billion dollar currency. I have written tests for smaller things than that.

If it's true that Ethereum blocks have any kind of checksum of the expected results, then if the patch has a mistake, I'd think the failure mode would just be that they continue to fail processing the failed block, or they get further but fail to process a more recent block. In that case, then I think it would make sense here to rush out a patch that's been manually checked, and then go back to add some tests.

The right way to fix this is to have an integration test that passes on all other implementations but fails on OpenEthereum, and push this fix afterwards.

People are storing and trading billions of dollars on Ethereum, so I think both automated and manual checking is important. Also an integration test for all branches should be able to find these errors.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#106

Post by noxer » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 11:11 AM UTC

uncletammy wrote: post #67

w4llstr33t wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this, are you a fan of Bitcoin Cash? I find it interesting how divisive the split in Bitcoin / SegWit / Lightning Network vs Bitcoin Cash has been.

I support any and every coin that aims to build Satoshi's version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Right now, the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash. Sadly all three have had to make some big concessions that make them look less like the original version. I also find the split interesting. I'm most interested in how effectively public perception was manipulated with regards to the split and…

>the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash.

How come the XRPLedger isn't on your radar? It was build before these other coins existed with the primary goal to be a better bitcoin so it can actually have the properties that p2p cash needs. Like low block time, low fees and high throughput. Its ofc not a fork because forking can not change the fundamental flaws that limits bitcoin. Unfortunately Satoshi was completely wrong on almost everything related to scaling the network.

"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling."

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#107

Post by dogman144 » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

nivexous wrote: post #90

dogman144 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear ya. The view is that by references to a large network, split bt SPV and miner nodes, the miner nodes can run expanding blocks and the Rec users just hold block headers, more or less. That implies bigger blocks can occur, will occur at scale, and the miner can roll with it, users are still able to verify, and SN saw nothing wrong with that. Similar evidence as yours exists elsewhere. I tend to think it’s too ea…

There's no problem - the word farm is being used differently in different contexts. In the quote you posted, farm is in reference to hashpower. You can have many smaller miners (zombie farms, in your quote) that know nothing about the transactions they are mining. That is how mining pools work today. All that is required is one big central node that can validate the transactions and build the block, which is what my…

I don’t think mining pools were what SN had in mind with that quote, although the solution you note fits smaller miners contributing hashpower, and not needing to store a big block.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#108

Post by noahatwi » Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 5:05 PM UTC

uncletammy wrote: post #67

w4llstr33t wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on this, are you a fan of Bitcoin Cash? I find it interesting how divisive the split in Bitcoin / SegWit / Lightning Network vs Bitcoin Cash has been.

I support any and every coin that aims to build Satoshi's version of peer-to-peer electronic cash. Right now, the coins that come closest are Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash. Sadly all three have had to make some big concessions that make them look less like the original version. I also find the split interesting. I'm most interested in how effectively public perception was manipulated with regards to the split and…

What about Nano?