<keepcalmandfork> hola new people
<keepcalmandfork> how are we doing tonight
<luke-jr> doing okay
<luke-jr> planning to post a status update on my HF code soon
<_FeltPen> excellent.
<keepcalmandfork>  nice; let us know and we can add it to the forks list on the btcforks site
<keepcalmandfork> we'll probably run a test version on our testing network to compare to other forks too, once that's ready in a few weeks
<luke-jr> I don't expect the code to be finished that soon, unfortunately. Still much to do.
<keepcalmandfork> fair enough, we will probably not have any code to run it against for several months anyway, but I'd like to prepare a wide area testing infrastructure so it's ready
<luke-jr> sounds like a good plan
* _FeltPen has quit (Quit: Page closed)
* Disconnected (Connection reset by peer).
* keepcalmandfork sets mode +i keepcalmandfork
-NickServ- This nickname is registered. Please choose a different nickname, or identify via /msg NickServ identify <password>.
* Now talking on #btcfork
* Topic for #btcfork is: We are forking Bitcoin || https://bitcoinforks.org/ || No illegal discussion or harrasment tolerated
* Topic for #btcfork set by keepcalmandfork at Thu Aug 04 16:54:46 2016
-NickServ- You are now identified for keepcalmandfork.
<spunky> Creating this new coin
<luke-jr> spunky: no
<spunky> Good
<luke-jr> I am working on hardfork research for Bitcoin only.
<spunky> Also good. It seems like you guys know there is a massive group of people who are silent/silenced and are happy
<keepcalmandfork> Bitcoin Core only*
<keepcalmandfork> spunky, silenced by whom?
<spunky> Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers
<keepcalmandfork> certainly stupid people in large numbers have no power to silence you on the Internet
<spunky> Hahah nice nick dude
<keepcalmandfork> thanks
<spunky> Just so you know where I stand, I am a fence sitter
<keepcalmandfork> it nicely mirrors my opinion that hard forks are the essential mechanism for cryptocurrency governance and evolution :)
<keepcalmandfork> welcome, this is a place for discussion and comparison of all forks (including the current chain)
<luke-jr> the current chain isn't a fork :p
<keepcalmandfork> I disagree.
<luke-jr> then you're wrong.
<keepcalmandfork> eloquent rebuttal
<spunky> It has forked in the past, being the "successful fork" makes it the handle technically
<keepcalmandfork> when a forking event occurs, there will be two forks
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: that's not how consensus systems work.
<keepcalmandfork> again, eloquent rebuttal
<keepcalmandfork> you are incorrect; it is exactly how consensus systems work
<spunky> Hey so... you know Ethereum has cancer right?
<keepcalmandfork> define cancer
<spunky> A cell in the body that doesn't want to die
<spunky> In this case, a fork
<keepcalmandfork> we don't know yet whether it will die or not
<keepcalmandfork> the market will decide
<keepcalmandfork> and markets only work in the long term
<keepcalmandfork> but let's assume for the sake of argument it does not
<keepcalmandfork> that is actually a good thing
<keepcalmandfork> because it means there are two disjoing market needs which cannot be reconciled through network effects
<keepcalmandfork> the users that felt strongly enough to fork would have left for alternatives on a t->infinity time scale
<spunky> It is my opinion that one must die, or the whole thing will
<keepcalmandfork> so better to serve all participants on a shared codebase between which changes can easily be ported
<keepcalmandfork> it is empirical fact that you are incorrect
<keepcalmandfork> we have a multitude of cryptocurrencies
<keepcalmandfork> some of which even bootstrap off each other
<keepcalmandfork> this does not mean cryptocurrency will die
<keepcalmandfork> there is no reason one of the two resulting forks cannot survive a forking event
<spunky> I think competition is not good among clones
<keepcalmandfork> if it does die out it will be due to market demand, and this has nothing to do with a fork
<keepcalmandfork> we have many Bitcoin clones
<keepcalmandfork> even Litecoin has clones
<keepcalmandfork> they compete every day
<keepcalmandfork> the only difference is they do not share a chain
<spunky> If I make a clone of you, and then make you race each other, it's not good
<spunky> It is a corrupt form of competition
<keepcalmandfork> there is no reason two coins that did share a chain could not do the same
<keepcalmandfork> if the clone has no technically meaningful changes it will be rejected by market/users/community
<spunky> Exactly
<spunky> You said it , not me =)
<keepcalmandfork> if it does have technically or politically  meaningful changes the race becomes quite significant
<keepcalmandfork> and the community's opinion essential to fair resolution of the differences between the clones
<spunky> End user doesn't care about internal differences, end user only sees two identical products. Given this choice, end user often chooses neither.
<spunky> It is in this project's best interest to rename, I think
<spunky> Bytecoin
<spunky> Heh
<keepcalmandfork> nope, there will not be renaming
<keepcalmandfork> remember these are forks
<keepcalmandfork> and your opinion that the end user is non discerning is very silly IMO
<keepcalmandfork> even if users do not understand the difference, they will defer to their network of trust towards people who do
<keepcalmandfork> in aggregate users very much do understand the difference between two similar products, much better than developers
<keepcalmandfork> the end users who care what Bitcoin *is* will research the differences, the ones who just want to use it as an ends to a means will just use whatever the parties they transact with recommend
<keepcalmandfork> this is how market consensus is formed, and there is academic research out there that suggests it is quite efficient given a large enough market size (though obviously imperfect, it's clearly superior to miner voting or other decision mechanisms currently in use)
<keepcalmandfork> ETH is a great case study for this
<keepcalmandfork> think about the alternatives to the fork
<keepcalmandfork> imagine the ETH foundation insisted on immutability, and did not fork.  the ecosystem would have knowledge that a large (10% of all in circulation) dump was coming in August, and many would have left the ecosystem as publicly stated
<keepcalmandfork> would the price of ETH (1 chain) in that point be greater than sum(ETH + ETHC) today?
<keepcalmandfork> doubtful
<keepcalmandfork> now imagine the ETH foundation forked, but their difficulty changes did not allow for minority dissent (as would have happened in Bitcoin), and Classic was unable to fork / was DoA
<keepcalmandfork> many users who valued immutability would be headed for the door.  would price of ETH be greater than sum(ETH+ETHC) today?
<keepcalmandfork> it's hard to say exactly, but intuition paints a pretty clear picture that market cap is preserved when the maximum of use cases are catered to
<keepcalmandfork> and network effects matter, but because users may have joined/left anyway because of the conflict that caused the fork (in this case, over DAO funds or not trusting that future bugs could be reverted), there is no evidence that network effects were diminished by the fork
<keepcalmandfork> same w. the blocksize - look how many businesses we are losing
<keepcalmandfork> nobody talks about merchant adoption anymore because it's gone
<keepcalmandfork> all we have are highly speculative and unproven apps, and even in that space we are getting the shit kicked out of us by competitors
<keepcalmandfork> all the major Bitcoin businesses that just two years ago people would insist would make coins be worth $10 or even $100k each today
<keepcalmandfork> the ones people looked at with starry wistful and hopeful eyes, are all pivoting away
<keepcalmandfork> and not to traditional systems, upper layer solutions, or side chains, but to competing crypto
<keepcalmandfork> the writing is on the wall here for anyone that's looking
<keepcalmandfork> and I say this as someone who literally holds 90% of his net worth in BTC and changed his career to be in the space
<spunky> So if there was a fork, would you sell all your Bitcoin for Bytecoin?
<keepcalmandfork> likely not
<keepcalmandfork> the other 10% of my net worth is in ETH, and I still hold both full ETH and ETC
<keepcalmandfork> even though I do not believe in the ETH project nearly as strongly
<keepcalmandfork> the beauty is if you're holding you can always hedge
* Concerns (9185b4a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.133.180.162) has joined #btcfork
<keepcalmandfork> and if you're entering the ecosystem you get a fair choice
<spunky> That is the sentiment I'm getting too, some people want to continue the experiment, others want to bunker down and be more conservative
<keepcalmandfork> and the beauty is we can have both
<keepcalmandfork> almost brings a tear to my eye
* Concerns has quit (Client Quit)
* SN (9185b4a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.145.133.180.162) has joined #btcfork
<keepcalmandfork> what is not OK is when those on one side of the debate attempt to aggressively deride all other approaches
<spunky> It would be good to see the ETH/ETC scenario play out, I think one of them will die. I would be very surprised if it was ETH that did. Is that the endgame for this Bytecoin? To see Bitcoin die?
* SN is now known as Guest22502
<keepcalmandfork> the end game is to allow the market to decide
<spunky> Rationally it seems like it, since a name change is not on the table
<keepcalmandfork> also it will not be called Bytecoin
<keepcalmandfork> and there will not be one fork
<keepcalmandfork> we will investigate many forks
<keepcalmandfork> and provide the resources for market choice
* Guest22502 is now known as bitcoin
* bitcoin is now known as Satoshi
<spunky> Yeah, it's tricky. As a business man, I can't work with that
<spunky> Can't build a business on sand, yannow
<keepcalmandfork> you can call the current chain btc-c (bitcoin-core)
<keepcalmandfork> your business can be fork aware
<keepcalmandfork> we will investigate the tools for this as well
<keepcalmandfork> in fact, if your business is not fork aware right now it is massively vulnerable to attack
<keepcalmandfork> because a fork can happen at any time
<spunky> I want to focus on my business, not the politics of my chosen technology
<luke-jr> not changing the name is just dishonest and likely illegal, unless you have consensus for the fork.
<keepcalmandfork> whether accidentally, intentionally, maliciously, in response to a bug, etc.
<keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, there is no trademark on Bitcoin
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: there is.
<keepcalmandfork> then I look forward to challenging it in court
<luke-jr> you will lose.
<keepcalmandfork> doubtful
<luke-jr> not because of the trademark itself, but because you are false advertising
<spunky> End users will lose, the longer this dispute continues
<keepcalmandfork> that is a separate law and a separate issue
<luke-jr> your fork is not Bitcoin, and you are advertising it as such
<keepcalmandfork> your argument is very dynamic
<keepcalmandfork> choose one
<keepcalmandfork> are we being sued for false advertising
<keepcalmandfork> or breach of trademark
<spunky> Why is the name so important?
<luke-jr> you brought up trademark, not I
<keepcalmandfork> we will not lose a false advertising case either, I am confident in this
<Satoshi> what are your thoughts on replay attacks?
<keepcalmandfork> we are using the Bitcoin blockchain, Bitcoin token distribution, Bitcoin genesis, etc.
<luke-jr> you will if you advertise a forkcoin as "Bitcoin"
<luke-jr> no, you're not.
<keepcalmandfork> Satoshi, any fork should change TX format to prevent replay attacks
<luke-jr> you're breaking off the Bitcoin blockchain
<keepcalmandfork> ETH screwed up there
<keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, the Bitcoin blockchain is breaking off us
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: changing tx format breaks nlocktime txs
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: wrong
<keepcalmandfork> we have clear indication that this is the original project vision
<luke-jr> that's a lie, and any competent court will see through it
<keepcalmandfork> so nonconformance is itself a fork
<luke-jr> no, you don't
<Satoshi> then your time line is too ambitious
<keepcalmandfork> saying "any competent fork will see through it" is hand waving
<spunky> My point is, 2x bitcoins = bitcoin has cancer. So I think a name change should seriously be considered
<keepcalmandfork> spunky, there will be 2 bitcoins at some point anyway
<keepcalmandfork> let's accept it and move forward productively
<keepcalmandfork> a hard fork is inevitable
<spunky> Will there?
<keepcalmandfork> there is no other way to loosen rules
<spunky> Most hard forks have a super majority condition
<keepcalmandfork> if you believe the rules must never be loosened, you do not understand software evolution
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: if you don't change the name, other people will de facto pick one for you
<spunky> Meaning the cancer is removed almost immeidately
<luke-jr> probably "btcfork"
<keepcalmandfork> that's fine
<spunky> luke-jr: Very good point
<keepcalmandfork> people can call the tokens whatever they want
<luke-jr> lol
<keepcalmandfork> that is how this works
<luke-jr> "btcfork" sounds stupid
<spunky> You might as well be the one who chooses a nice name
<luke-jr> ^
<keepcalmandfork> spunky, no.  we are talking about a fork of Bitcoin.  We will designate the fork
<luke-jr> not to mention the name "Bitcoin" has a bad reputation
<luke-jr> it almost makes sense to rename whether forking or not
<keepcalmandfork> concern trolling
<keepcalmandfork> we love bitcoin, and so do many people
<keepcalmandfork> we proudly wear the name
<luke-jr> if you want to change Bitcoin without consensus, you do not love Bitcoin, but rather what you imagine Bitcoin ought to be.
<keepcalmandfork> what consensus
<keepcalmandfork> we are operating on network consensus only
<keepcalmandfork> of which hard forks are an essential mechanism
<keepcalmandfork> this idea of community consensus you have is all in your head
<keepcalmandfork> it does not exist, it is an impossibility
<Satoshi> Luke, you're being bullying
<keepcalmandfork> Satoshi, let him show his true colors, I'm doing just fine :)
<keepcalmandfork> you cannot bootstrap a consensus protocol with social consensus
<spunky> I think the problem is you didn't earn the name
<keepcalmandfork> or you can use that social consensus to bootstrap something much more efficient than the blockchain
<keepcalmandfork> who is "you"?
<keepcalmandfork> this project is everyone who uses it
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: there is no such thing as "network consensus" for a hardfork
<keepcalmandfork> and by investing in Bitcoin, they have earned the name
<spunky> Pick any open source product, you can't just fork it and steal the original creators name
<keepcalmandfork> luke-jr, hard forks are an essential mechanism for network consensus
<keepcalmandfork> have you read our website per chance?
<luke-jr> all consensus protocols are established by social consensus
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: hardforks define network consensus.
<keepcalmandfork> potentially correct depending on how broad your definition of "social consensus"
<Satoshi> Satoshi favors a hardfork for inclusion of ecosystem
<keepcalmandfork> if you consider code social consensus then sure
<keepcalmandfork> I will however make that distinction
<spunky> I think if you want this project to be successful, if you want people behind it, do the right thing and pick a different name. Just my opinion.
<keepcalmandfork> spunky, you can call it whatever you want
<keepcalmandfork> right now we are just establishing infrastructure to explore forks of BITCOIN
<spunky> I don't mind Bytecoin
<keepcalmandfork> what you call those forks are up to you
<keepcalmandfork> we are not releasing a single coin
<keepcalmandfork> or a new token
<keepcalmandfork> just to be clear
<keepcalmandfork> so choosing a name like that would be nonsensical
<keepcalmandfork> we are looking at forks of the current highest-weight Bitcoin blockchain
<spunky> Well like it or not luke-jr  makes a pretty good point
<keepcalmandfork> therefore we are "Bitcoin Forks"
<spunky> People are just gonna call it btcforkcoin or some rubbish
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: a fork without consensus *is* a new coin
<keepcalmandfork> it creates two new coins
<keepcalmandfork> both of which are an evolution of the original coin
<luke-jr> no
<keepcalmandfork> yes
<luke-jr> the original remains as it was already
<keepcalmandfork> no it does not
<Satoshi> There will be consensus over the field, just organise the wallets around it good
<keepcalmandfork> by definition if the fork is significant the ecosystem has been altered
<luke-jr> keepcalmandfork: if you cannot understand this, you're too incompetent to fork
<keepcalmandfork> and the operation of the code as well (through network effects)
<keepcalmandfork> and if you don't understand this, you're too incompetent to develop for a billion dollar+ financial project