Topic: Consequences of the hardfork? - page 2. (Read 1519 times)

In the long run, BU might vanished once BTC back to its original price.. BU miners might become centralize due to low numbers of miners who quit because of low fees.

you're assuming most users don't want bigger blocks, which i would say is a dubious assumption

A. thinking bitcoin belongs only to core is not a bitcoin ethos of decentralisation. its a mindset of centralists. there are over a dozen different implementations that keep bitcoin diverse and open. wanting only core to run the show is already a mindset of harming bitcoin, by thinking core have control and bitcoin would fail without core...

B. pools wont just produce different blocks only once a hashrate is met. the pools actually look at the node count and ensure the blocks they produce will be acceptable to the nodes(whoever has consensus). this is what true consensus is about NODES + pools.. thus if there is a majority to trigger a consensus activation the community (nodes and pools) will be BTC. and the minority become the altcoin.
hence why even with core trying to bypass consensus and intentionally give only pools voting power. the pools are smart enough to wait it out until unofficially they see good node count..

C. if core want to pretend they are independent then why are they avoiding independence. and instead clinging hard onto one implementation of bip9 pool ban hammer code and UASF node and pool ban hammer code. yep thats right. other implementations are not setup to ban off other implementations they want to remain open and decentralised. if an activation is triggered it will be core that then press the red button of splitting the chains to keep core alive as a minority altcoin, should core not be the majority.. not the other way round.

D. the whole DCG commercial announcement of their investors calling bu BTU also state that it would do so IF core split off in a "controversial fork( split)" which knowing logic of bitcoin consensus is that if bu or any non-core imp' activates due to consensus. there is no "controversial" thing about it thus no BTU... just BTC and some other alt(logically core) which will get the rename(probably SWCoin)

E. if you look at the whole investment. EG core->blockstream -> DCG... coinbase->DCG .. and then check out all the other DCG investments
you will see that core, by putting themselves into the centralist control. they are literally spelling it out to everyone that they are the take over attempt. after all bitcoin 2009-2013 was not even called "core".

F. this should make (E) clearer
if you look at the announcement by the corporat cartel. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor)
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then compare the names (yep blockstream is there and coindesk(the announcement publicist)
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt)
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

things become much clearer yep blockstream and coindesk and all the big names BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, bitso, shapeshift are all in DCG pocket, owing DCG millions that need to be repaid soon..

G. DCG getting edgy to get returns flowing from LN fee's so is trying to rock the boat. however the non-core implementations have set no deadlines set no activation threshold and set no agenda to ban nodes, pools or blocks.. they will only activate if they get consensus.

H. once you read passed the reddit scripts. and look at the details. its CORE causing the drama and forcing the issue. core even removed fee lowering code to push the fee's up and then is offering the community a 'discount' bribe if people vote in cores favour.. thats how desperate they are getting.

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.

I can imagine several scenarios.

1) 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.

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.

3) The 50%/50% scenario. BTC and BTU coexist for a long time. Both parties will try to dump and harm the other chain. That's most likely the most negative scenario for Bitcoin, and I think both chains will end at prices well below $500. BTU mining pools will probably try to continue to block Segwit and so Bitcoin's progress would be retarded. Maybe ETH or another altcoin could in this case challenge Bitcoin's leadership and we'll end with a much more fragmented cryptocurrency market.

4) The 75%/25% scenario (a bit similar to the "ETC scenario"): BTC and BTU coexist, but BTU is marginalized a bit respect to Bitcoin. But it resists, conserves a lot of hashrate, and even if its market cap is significantly smaller than BTC's, gets some traction and usage. This scenario is, for me, the most likely. My price estimation would then be: BTC 500$, BTU 100-200$. There would be constantly danger that BTU came near BTC in terms of market cap. That could lead to a positive event: To conserve its advantage, BTC perhaps would be able to approve Segwit and enable 2nd layer solutions. But the market would be more fragmented than today and it would take a long time back to $1000.

Will be created BTC and BU.
When BTC will get segwit activated and price rise, BU miners will back to BTC to get $$$ because BTC price will rise.
BTC miners who want BU will act like paid "bitches" that goes where they pay more.
Really i want that HF happend because we will sooner get rid of BU miner blocking segwit.
After Segwit activated and LN enabled BTC will back to its price.

Today alts like ETH are used like LN but on that alt chain.

After few years we will have to proposal of increasing block-size because mining fees will go to 0 at some point and miners have to have some reward.
Alone blockincrease is nonse you will have to increase blocksize with price of BTC to cap fee at lest say 0.01$

So:
1MB = 1 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
10MB = 10 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
100MB = 100 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
 
I hope you see that only increasing block-size is something WRONG ,
blocksize have to be proportional to price like you see to maintain low fees.

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.

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?