Topic: Consequences of the hardfork? (Read 1519 times)
The one that i afraid if fork happened is the trust, if no more people believe in that coin after forking then it will be the end of that coin, and forking also can hurt the coin stability and the coin will be lost its value
For an idea of what will happen, look no further than ethereum.
Both ETH and ETC survived, the exchanges decided to list them both. Both are heavily traded, but ETH has the higher price. That in a nutshell is what will happen when BTC forks
Both ETH and ETC survived, the exchanges decided to list them both. Both are heavily traded, but ETH has the higher price. That in a nutshell is what will happen when BTC forks
There's more important question to ask and answer
That is, is it wise to switch to something else other than Bitcoin for the time being (fiat or another cryptocurrency) so as not to get hit by possible Bitcoin dramatic devaluation or it might in fact be more profitable to keep bitcoins (or even buy more) since after the
For an idea of what will happen, look no further than ethereum.
Both ETH and ETC survived, the exchanges decided to list them both. Both are heavily traded, but ETH has the higher price. That in a nutshell is what will happen when BTC forks.
The other thing to note is that there will be a lot of volatility after the fork - both ETH and ETC plummetted just after their fork - it takes about a year to stabalise and for the price to return to it's pre-fork levels, and then people just carry on.
Both ETH and ETC survived, the exchanges decided to list them both. Both are heavily traded, but ETH has the higher price. That in a nutshell is what will happen when BTC forks.
The other thing to note is that there will be a lot of volatility after the fork - both ETH and ETC plummetted just after their fork - it takes about a year to stabalise and for the price to return to it's pre-fork levels, and then people just carry on.
I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
core plan on doing something before mid november 2017
non-core implementations are ignoring the bear pokes of 'fork off' and will continually and happily plod along and leave it up to bitcoins natural consensus to decide if non-core implementations activate. no deadlines, no threats. just leave it to consensus to decide. so far non-core implementations have been running for 2 years and not rocked the boat.
it has been core that have tried rocking the boat and pointing the finger at everyone apart from themselves. first it was other implementations who just laughed. now core have bypassed node vote. core are pointing the finger at pools (hypocritically after only giving the pools the vote in the first place)
So making someone reveal his inner self you call hypocritical?
At max, I would call it a cynical and deliberate approach, but, as the saying goes (it should be carved in stone), you cannot lie down with dogs without rising with fleas. Giving the vote right might have been necessary to reveal to the public eye the corruptness of the mining pools which are only claiming to be pro-Bitcoin while in reality they are exclusively pro-profit only. But since their days are numbered already (the days of mining as we know it today, more specifically), hiding their real self is no longer profitable for them (if not outright causing financial losses). You should understand that on this side there are no fools either. This is no kindergarten, this is no disneyland
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves
I dont blame them with the other group trying to fork it all away from them. You have to admit that both sides have their own dirty tricks. One group wants to retain control while the other longs for it.
It's just a section of power and resources. I'm very sorry that bitcoin suffered this. It seems to me that because of these confusions, simple bitcoin holders may suffer.
Its just a natural order of things in BTC I think. Who said decentralization was not going to be ugly? If an ordinary Bitcoin holder wants everything quiet and not chaotic them a centralized cryptocurrency might be for them.
The most positive for BTC: BTU gets dumped hard and is progressively abandoned or acquires the status of a standard altcoin, miners change back to BTC. That's what some are hoping in the Core group. If it comes true, then we can expect a continuation of the Bitcoin rally (>1000$ prices) and maybe Segwit will be relatively fastly approved.
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves
I dont blame them with the other group trying to fork it all away from them. You have to admit that both sides have their own dirty tricks. One group wants to retain control while the other longs for it.
It's just a section of power and resources. I'm very sorry that bitcoin suffered this. It seems to me that because of these confusions, simple bitcoin holders may suffer.
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves
I dont blame them with the other group trying to fork it all away from them. You have to admit that both sides have their own dirty tricks. One group wants to retain control while the other longs for it.
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
to avoid replay attack,
one side would need to change the TX mechanism where TX version bits are something the other side wont understand and wont validate.
core wont do it themselves. even if they were the minority or majority.. instead they want to play the victim card and beg others to change so that if attacked they can blame someone else.. rather than take a defensive stance and change it themselves if they win or lose.
kind of funny though.
for segwit to even achieve some of its promises, users need to move funds over to segwit keypairs
so it makes logical sense win or lose for core to just defend and chang their tx versions. or force funds to only be spendable if the output is recognised as a segwit address.. thus it would not be acceptable to any non-core implementation. and also forceably help core get people to use segwit keys. and at the same time reduce the risk of native key attacks by transitioning everyone over to segwit keys.
but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves
What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?
In my opinion , because of this hardfork and confusion among bitcoin developers, surely one currency is going to take the whole advantage of this scenario. Its the ethereum. See how its price is rising . Most of the investers started to invest in ethereum now because of this hardfork and I am very sure, that its price will rise again and very soon its going to rise above 100 dollars.
What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?
In weeks things will probably be pretty much the same
in months we will have to hope that some sort os sanity can return to the debate
and in years i think we can get past this problem and look to a bright future.
If you have bitcoin and a hardfork happens then you will have bitcoin on both chains, my advise is to wait awhile before moving it as it could be vunerable to interacting on both chains. which is bad if you want to keep one and sell the other.
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
core plan on doing something before mid november 2017
non-core implementations are ignoring the bear pokes of 'fork off' and will continually and happily plod along and leave it up to bitcoins natural consensus to decide if non-core implementations activate. no deadlines, no threats. just leave it to consensus to decide. so far non-core implementations have been running for 2 years and not rocked the boat.
it has been core that have tried rocking the boat and pointing the finger at everyone apart from themselves. first it was other implementations who just laughed. now core have bypassed node vote. core are pointing the finger at pools (hypocritically after only giving the pools the vote in the first place).
I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.
Do you have any proof of this?
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
spike in june/july
then general constant spiking after october..
then
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-50k.png
CSV june july
segwit after october
P.S the CSV /sgwit data is from sipa (blockstreamer) so yea, not some anti-blockstream propaganda image
The way I see it, most miners on both sides profit from this whole mempool spam.
pools dont care much for tx fee.. to them its treated as a bonus not a main income. this is why pools still do the spv/empty block mining because they care more about getting a solution and thus a blockreward. rather than waste time hand picking expnsive tx's wasting he valuable time of solving a block.after all if they cant be first to solve a block then it doesnt matter what tx's they cherry pick.. the block they sbsequently built wont make it as a new blockheight because they took too long being picky.
they would rather be efficient and just get a block solved and be happy with the blockreward, where by any tx they can add in without wasting time is a bonus.
They even contribute to this problem, by selectively mining around this problem. So blaming Core for this, does not even make sense. BU wants a Block size increase and has more to benefit from a mempool spam to proof their point and to be fair I would say both BU and Core has something to gain, if a perception could be created that a Block size upgrade is very critical. < faked congestion >
true.. but BU have been on the mainnet for 2 years as have other non-core imps that want more than 1mb blocks.. however the non-core imps are not in a rush.. they set no deadlines. they made no threats. they dont have any overseaous (bip9 and UASF) ban hammers to force the issue. they are just plodding along waiting for natural consensus..but what is very clear is that the mempool bloat dates co-inside with core deadlines and activities.
Until we know for certain, we can just speculate on who is doing this. Luke Jr even wanted to go to court to stop a company from running a "stress test" for a new voting system, so we know how they are feeling about this.
Luke Jr has funny opinions. he dislikes women having orgasms unless its in active duty of creating a baby.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/60cfep/is_sex_for_pleasure_inherently_morallydisordered/df5p4n0/
Quote
Is sex for pleasure inherently morally-disordered?
It's okay, so long as the couple 1) doesn't act to prevent conception, and 2) fulfils their positive duty to cooperate in procreation.
and let us not forget how he wanted to change bitcoins unit of measure away from decimal counts down to satoshi. to instead be 'tonal' countsIt's okay, so long as the couple 1) doesn't act to prevent conception, and 2) fulfils their positive duty to cooperate in procreation.
If hardfork happens, then bitcoin will lose its position as the top cryptocurrency. It can be over run by an altcoin or even btu can kill it if roger ver dumps all his bitcoins. If it happens, btc prize fall and others may follow and dump their coins too.
it's all depend on the exchange, if they really see and listen it as an altcoin, there nothing to worry about, you will get the same situation as ETH and ETC, each with its price and its hashrate, but if the chain split it can have a bad impact on the value
i'm more curious about merchants, what they would do if accepting yes or not the new BU, they said nothing regard this, if they see this as an alt, would be the first alt to be accepted by merchants
i'm more curious about merchants, what they would do if accepting yes or not the new BU, they said nothing regard this, if they see this as an alt, would be the first alt to be accepted by merchants
It seems people believed that hardfork seems inevitable, even if it eventual happen, there can only be a winner here and the loser will lose the fight for life, so when you want to take a fight think twice, in my country I've seen politicians paying money to mobilise support but when election comes they lose gallantly.
2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.
i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.
Do you have any proof of this? The way I see it, most miners on both sides profit from this whole mempool spam. They even contribute to this problem, by selectively mining around this problem. So blaming Core for this, does not even make sense. BU wants a Block size increase and has more to benefit from a mempool spam to proof their point and to be fair I would say both BU and Core has something to gain, if a perception could be created that a Block size upgrade is very critical. < faked congestion >
Until we know for certain, we can just speculate on who is doing this. Luke Jr even wanted to go to court to stop a company from running a "stress test" for a new voting system, so we know how they are feeling about this.
you're assuming most users don't want bigger blocks, which i would say is a dubious assumption
Bigger blocks != BU.
I think that Unlimited is a minority position, yes. That's why I consider that BU only can "win instantly" if it attacks the minority blockchain, OR in a case like the 50/50 scenario when everything plays out well for BU. All "bigger blocks" options together (BU, 2 MB, BIP 100 ...) could have the support of 50% or more of the users.
BIP 100 should _really_ be reconsidered by the "bigger blocks" community, and maybe modified to include a "security limit" to prevent extremely large blocks. Combined with Segwit I think it would be possible to achieve >80% or even >95% approval for this kind of solution.
What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?
It means Bitcoin can be easily attacked by vectors if care is not taken. It can collapse as a result of theft of the coins or people will loose their enthusiasm in it.
Jump to: