Topic: Coinbase: We are going to call the chain w/ most accumulated difficulty Bitcoin (Read 242 times)
October 25, 2017, 03:36:20 AM
Is it time we tried to encourage users to run pruned nodes? That way actual users could vote, rather than vested interests in the online wallets and exchange services.
October 25, 2017, 03:26:06 AM
I'm confused because for as long(2014) as I have been in cryptocurrency space there has always been an understanding that in case of a fork, the longest chain retains the name. Why does that have to change now?
The difference is that the type of "fork" you're referring to probably meant a temporary split within the same consensus rules, where one branch would eventually be orphaned off. This situation is different because the "fork" breaks the consensus rules -- it removes the block size/weight limit and replaces it with a higher one.
In the first scenario, we would expect that once one branch was longer, that miners would converge on that branch (because all nodes on the network would follow the chain with the most cumulative work). In the second scenario, the fork is incompatible with most network nodes (Core), so it will permanently split from them. It is a totally different network with a new 21 million coin supply. In this case, both chains could survive, and we could have two "Bitcoins" (or rather, one Bitcoin and one shitcoin), each with a 21 million coin supply.
October 25, 2017, 03:03:20 AM
That is how it should be, I was surprised to read," "If the #Segwit2x change is accepted by most users, we may choose to rename these blockchains at a later date" from the previous blog because how were they going to determine what most users wanted? And who users are? They have made the right choice.
Not sure I can agree. There is no efficient way to determine what most users want. The markets can determine that with time (e.g. the price of one coin or the other could crash) but it can be a slow, inefficient process. And it could be quite painful for holders.
What Coinbase is doing -- and what Gemini, Xapo and Blockchain.info are doing -- is blindly following the miners and assigning "Bitcoin" and "BTC" to that chain. They aren't following users at all. I believe that the majority of users don't even understand how Bitcoin works, and I surely don't think they understand the block size debate or have a strong, informed opinion one way or the other. Loud minorities on both sides is all I see. Under those circumstances, the status quo should prevail. I think the NYA signatories are playing with fire, legally -- at least those with custodial duties.
I agree with this, I sincerely don't think most users understand what is going on or even care for that matter. They will start caring once all this mess hits their pockets. Tell me, doesn't the white paper have some sort of guide lines? Didn't Ethereum follow a similar process? Personally I am just baffled by the hypocrisy. Yesterday when Coinbase said in their blog that they will keep legacy Bitcoin as btc and rename Segwit2X there was jubilation in the NO2X camp because obviously that position favoured their stand. Now that Coinbase has done a turn around, there's foul cries. I'm confused because for as long(2014) as I have been in cryptocurrency space there has always been an understanding that in case of a fork, the longest chain retains the name. Why does that have to change now?
October 25, 2017, 02:42:55 AM
That is how it should be, I was surprised to read," "If the #Segwit2x change is accepted by most users, we may choose to rename these blockchains at a later date" from the previous blog because how were they going to determine what most users wanted? And who users are? They have made the right choice.
Not sure I can agree. There is no efficient way to determine what most users want. The markets can determine that with time (e.g. the price of one coin or the other could crash) but it can be a slow, inefficient process. And it could be quite painful for holders.
What Coinbase is doing -- and what Gemini, Xapo and Blockchain.info are doing -- is blindly following the miners and assigning "Bitcoin" and "BTC" to that chain. They aren't following users at all. I believe that the majority of users don't even understand how Bitcoin works, and I surely don't think they understand the block size debate or have a strong, informed opinion one way or the other. Loud minorities on both sides is all I see. Under those circumstances, the status quo should prevail. I think the NYA signatories are playing with fire, legally -- at least those with custodial duties.
October 25, 2017, 12:59:15 AM
That is how it should be, I was surprised to read," "If the #Segwit2x change is accepted by most users, we may choose to rename these blockchains at a later date" from the previous blog because how were they going to determine what most users wanted? And who users are? They have made the right choice.
October 24, 2017, 09:26:44 PM
Coinbase just made a reversal from their earlier blog post, which had indicated that the existing legacy chain would retain the "Bitcoin" name and "BTC" ticker. Now they are saying that miners will decide which chain they call "Bitcoin":
They are leaving the time window to decide which chain has the most accumulated work up to their discretion ("once we believe the forks are in a stable state"). Presumably during that time window, the legacy chain will retain the BTC ticker. But if a majority of the hash rate leaves the legacy network and mines 2X, they will eventually assign "Bitcoin" and "BTC" to the new network.
Quote
In our prior blog post we indicated that at the time of the fork, the existing chain will be called Bitcoin and the Segwit2x fork will be called Bitcoin2x.
However, some customers asked us to clarify what will happen after the fork. We are going to call the chain with the most accumulated difficulty Bitcoin.
However, some customers asked us to clarify what will happen after the fork. We are going to call the chain with the most accumulated difficulty Bitcoin.
They are leaving the time window to decide which chain has the most accumulated work up to their discretion ("once we believe the forks are in a stable state"). Presumably during that time window, the legacy chain will retain the BTC ticker. But if a majority of the hash rate leaves the legacy network and mines 2X, they will eventually assign "Bitcoin" and "BTC" to the new network.
Jump to: