Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#51

Post by rfd4sgmk8u »

nivexous wrote: post #47
dogman144 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there some central aggregation point of ~everything (or in that spirit) that SN wrote, across all the various forums and such? I feel like I finally need to dig in and read all of that.

Bitcoin.com has the Satoshi Archive ( https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/ ) with all his emails and forum posts. Satoshi wanted big blocks, and so BTC largely ignores him or says "We are all satoshi", but there is a ton of wisdom if you go back and read. This was put together by Derek Magill, who is also a good person to follow on Twitter.

Warning, bitcoin.com is non-authoritative on bitcoin. They went a little mad a few years ago with the big block agenda. They do not speak for bitcoin, and want to push their big block bcash fork.

Satoshi proposed 1MB blocks in 2010 as an anti-spam mechanism. He was not against raising it, but it had to be done sensibly. RV and Bitcoin.com forced a non-sensible fork and fell off a cliff.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#52

Post by zucker42 »

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…

Why are you treating Satoshi like an enlightened prophet?

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#53

Post by nivexous »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #51
nivexous wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin.com has the Satoshi Archive ( https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/ ) with all his emails and forum posts. Satoshi wanted big blocks, and so BTC largely ignores him or says "We are all satoshi", but there is a ton of wisdom if you go back and read. This was put together by Derek Magill, who is also a good person to follow on Twitter.

Warning, bitcoin.com is non-authoritative on bitcoin. They went a little mad a few years ago with the big block agenda. They do not speak for bitcoin, and want to push their big block bcash fork. Satoshi proposed 1MB blocks in 2010 as an anti-spam mechanism. He was not against raising it, but it had to be done sensibly. RV and Bitcoin.com forced a non-sensible fork and fell off a cliff.

"Non-authoritative" ... this is why BTC people just suck to talk to.

Everyone DYOR. It is indisputable that Satoshi wanted big blocks. Here are a couple quotes:

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.

https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/mike-hearn/1/

At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/emails/cryptography/...

I find it interesting that these are missing in the Nakamoto Institute's quotes on scaling.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#54

Post by chrisco255 »

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…

Ethereum is NOT a second, nor compatible implementation of Bitcoin. That would be BCH, LiteCoin, DogeCoin, etc. which are literally forks of BTC. Although those are not exactly compatible either.

Ethereum started with its own code base, its own core. It's a completely different concept altogether and its a true 10x innovation on blockchain as a concept. Ethereum has many client implementations built on several different programming languages. The whole reason they have multiple clients is to make the network more resilient for moments like this.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#55

Post by w4llstr33t »

uncletammy wrote: post #49
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 BTC, the wise guidance of Satoshi is also regularly ignored. Here are a few examples Satoshi's Guidance: Bitcoin should function as cash Source: https://bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf ( See the title ) Satoshi's Guidance: We shouldn't be limiting transaction capacity to accommodate low performance client hardware Source: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306 Satoshi's Guidance: The blocksize limit s…

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.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#56

Post by keiferski »

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…

Ethereum is a distributed blockchain focusing on smart contracts. ETH is just the cryptocurrency built to power it. The vision is much, much bigger than a mere currency (Bitcoin), even if the roll-out is proving complex.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#57

Post by toomim »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #51
nivexous wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin.com has the Satoshi Archive ( https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/ ) with all his emails and forum posts. Satoshi wanted big blocks, and so BTC largely ignores him or says "We are all satoshi", but there is a ton of wisdom if you go back and read. This was put together by Derek Magill, who is also a good person to follow on Twitter.

Warning, bitcoin.com is non-authoritative on bitcoin. They went a little mad a few years ago with the big block agenda. They do not speak for bitcoin, and want to push their big block bcash fork. Satoshi proposed 1MB blocks in 2010 as an anti-spam mechanism. He was not against raising it, but it had to be done sensibly. RV and Bitcoin.com forced a non-sensible fork and fell off a cliff.

Warning: nobody is authoritative on bitcoin.

You do not speak for the bitcoin community on who is and is not speaking for bitcoin.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#58

Post by joosters »

capableweb wrote: post #36
joosters wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it doesn't matter what the specification says? If the majority of the hashpower is using an implementation which deviates from the spec, then the blockchain will follow that code and not the 'correct' version. By the time the devs have fixed the bugs, it will be too late and too costly to roll back the chain and reverse all the subsequent transactions.

In theory you're right, yes. If the majority of the hashpower runs a specific version with specific consensus rules, then that version of the chain would "win". But in reality, developers and others write the specification, which gets implemented in the clients and when a new version is available, the miners usually upgrade to the new version without any qualms what so ever. So in practice, the specification is what…

I mean in terms of bugs, rather than a 'rogue' client, i.e. not a deliberate attempt to cause a chain divergence.

If a 'broken' transaction gets accepted by a buggy client, and that buggy client has a majority of hash power, then that transaction is, by definition, not actually broken at all and everyone will be forced to accept it (because it will take too long to write a bug fix and re-write the blockchain history)

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#59

Post by uncletammy »

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…

> Ethereum is not Bitcoin because Ethereum doesn't want to be Bitcoin, otherwise Ethereum wouldn't have existed in the first place

This isn't exactly true. Vitalik only created Ethereum because the new core devs ( Blockstream ) were actively limiting what types of things could be done with Bitcoin. They were moving away from programmable money in favor of "digital gold".

Source: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/929805462052229120...

Here's a more detailed telling of the events by one of the Decred developers: https://old.reddit.com/r/decred/comments/6wxueo/your_best_pi...

TLDR: Ethereum actually does want to be Bitcoin but that's only because Bitcoin doesn't really want to be Bitcoin anymore. They've dumbed down their protocol. They've dumbed down their infrastructure. Hell, they've even managed to dumb down their users. Ethereum will make a fine Bitcoin.

Re: Ethereum Fork Fails on OpenEthereum

#60

Post by splix »

capableweb wrote: post #36
joosters wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it doesn't matter what the specification says? If the majority of the hashpower is using an implementation which deviates from the spec, then the blockchain will follow that code and not the 'correct' version. By the time the devs have fixed the bugs, it will be too late and too costly to roll back the chain and reverse all the subsequent transactions.

In theory you're right, yes. If the majority of the hashpower runs a specific version with specific consensus rules, then that version of the chain would "win". But in reality, developers and others write the specification, which gets implemented in the clients and when a new version is available, the miners usually upgrade to the new version without any qualms what so ever. So in practice, the specification is what…

In practice if an "official" client has a different interpretation of the spec it must be accepted by other clients.

Like with mentioned OpenEthereum (ex. Parity) here: https://github.com/openethereum/openethereum/blob/582bca385f...

Post reply on HN