Topic: Hard Fork - August 2 (Read 1391 times)

Obvious shill, why is it so obvious? because you have nothing to say other than cursing Core and their upgrade. I think Core should also change their name like BU did and now is EC.

I will also not vote for this blockchain splitting and not sure this is going to happen or not. One thing is sure that if it split, then people will get confused, and it takes some time to attract new people to use bitcoins in real life. This segwit intention is to attract more new users and Bitcoin will use by all over the world without any issues. I think after this August 1st many issues of bitcoin will be solved.

And what does it change in the end?

Cloning an existing blockchain with all its transactions as well as balances and making this new blockchain somewhat incompatible with the original one is the way to go when some group doesn't agree to proposed changes. Would that count as a hard fork? And does soft fork pose these dangers if there is no second blockchain and thus no potential for such issues arising? That's the reason why major exchanges require any hard fork resulting in what is essentially an altcoin to implement means to avoid the replay attack before they are going to list this fork (altcoin)

I don't think bitcoin will actually split. It's just important for us to implement the segwit so we can go forward. Segwit can be a big step in preparing bitcoin to go mainstream.

Soft fork please 

I'm not sure whether blockchain will split or not but I think we're really need scaling solution to increase adopters and merchants to adopt and use bitcoin as an alternative currency which could be used all over the world (as long as there is internet connection) just like people use PayPal to purchase goods right now. The spam attack could be prevented by increase blocksize, so miners could process more transactions every 10 minutes.

worst idea, which is not helping bitcoin to solve the scaling problem anyway, so why bother with hard forking, which will split anyway the chain?

segwit without the hard fork is the way to go for now, until better solution come up, it's not about finding the best solution but just the best we have

even if BTU were to become the future bitcoin and gain all the support you shouldn't have bought it! because it is not yet anything! you bought a virtual promise at best. and the only person making a profit is the exchange themselves who get the fees from you.

to OP, i disagree with saying there is an urgency for a scaling solution. the spam attack is the problem that is pretending there is an urgency.

This is why I have been abundantly clear everywhere that I perfectly support Hard Forks in these cases. I think this soft fork represents much more danger. Because until users get to vote safely (no replay, reorg), you are stuck in a limbo game of chicken while everyone else is watching from the sidelines wondering what will happen with our money.

If you made it a hard fork, this could be immediately be solved in the market.

In fact, the only way I understand the UASF adoption procedure as a soft fork, is that game theory wise, it diminishes the hashrate need for it to go through. Instead of 51%, you now only need 51% - x where X is the market share of the biggest mining pool. Also the fact that whoever splits the chain definetively, altcoins themselves. This is the game of chicken preparing for the game of blame that will come after and the rights to Bitcoin brandname.

It creates increasing and exponential pressure for miner adoption rather than a real vote. As a user, until there is a Hard Fork, you are just participating in a peaceful sit in. Or a vigil. Or a meetup. It has its merits, but no practical utility.

You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions

The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too

Aren't Jihan/Roger Ver for the solution that speeds up the bitcoin network by allowing greater transaction sizes through?

The sabotagers, as you call them, would be the people that refuse to let Bitcoin grow with the increased demand and adoption we've all witnessed and want to continue. There are so many alternatives available. If bitcoin does not keep up with speed and cost it will be abandoned.

A Chain split is never a good thing, because it creates confusion and fear and that is never a good thing for investors. On the other hand, if we can get rid of the group of people who are sabotaging and slowing down Bitcoin, then we have to cut off the limb that is causing all this cancer in our community. I would rather go forward without a arm and/or a leg, than dragging a sick limb behind me that is causing discomfort. < The Jihan/Roger Ver group is the Cancer of this community >   ^grrrrrrrr^

Forgive me here, LN? What's LN? EDIT: Lightning Network, yea?

A well known online wallet, a lessor known online wallet, and a hardware wallet.

Are you also saying that the reason increased block sizes isn't enough is due to the growing size of blockchain history? Valid point, but then we should all agree that one doesn't need to have the entire blockchain downloaded, as long as it always can be downloaded from bitcoin.org.

When people say side options I always think of alt coins but I realize that's not it. You don't have any concerns about Segwit? What's the implication of removing the witness?

And yeah, fork it, give it a good rogering!

Yeah, a major portion of bitcoin mining would get restricted to a particular country or an organization, as far as they are mining, no problem, but when they start using their mining majority to enforce their propaganda on the community, it is a problem.

LN would make transactions instant with the lowest fee. With bigger blocks, you order a coffee, drink, wait for the transaction to get confirmed, pay. With LN, you order a coffee, confirmed, pay, and drink. Just an example of not online, but how offline merchant payments would become a lot more feasible.

Which wallet do you use? Around 145 GB to synchronize blockchain. Obviously if bitcoin gets adopted on a large scale, the above figure wouldn't be limited to three digits. Increased block size, on chain transactions would get confirmed quickly with less congestion, but the network is always growing. The purpose of bitcoin is instant worldwide transaction with lowest fee, a side solution needs to be integrated into the network for this, that's what I meant by bigger block size isn't enough.

Segwit 2 MB, Segwit2x 4-8 MB. Right now remove spam dust transactions and 2 MB is more than enough for transactions to get confirmed, implement side options, bitcoin users would have the freedom to choose what method of transaction they want to use. Fork the network, users don't have a choice. It's as simple as that.

My answer is simply NO and I want Segwit to be activated the BIP 141 way. If it reaches the deadline and it is still not activated then we have to accept that. It is not the end of the world for Bitcoin.

Come on, the consolidation of mining operations, and therefore a handful of "people" controlling the blockchain will happen regardless of transaction throughput size. It's an economies of scale fact. As it becomes harder to mine the independent miners will wash out leaving only the biggest of operations conducting the work at a profitable pace. The only thing slowing down this eventuality is the price appreciation of bitcoin.


Can you please explain to us why this is a temporary solution? If extension blocks are ultimately needed then we should just make the transfer to that end.

I am not against bigger blocks, but not at the cost of bitcoin network being controlled by a single entity or a couple of individuals.

1. Manufacturer of mining equipments want to control the network. Can it be more centralized?

2. There was ghash pool that hit 51%, and there is Chinese mining cartel with more than 51% combined.

3. Chinese government isn't in favour of bitcoin, a centralized decision to ban bitcoin in China would end up in taking down half of the decentralized bitcoin network.

Spam attacks, threatening the community because you own half of the network, is this the way to find a scalable solution?

Increasing block size is just a temporary solution. LN, sidechain/drivechain, extension blocks is a necessity if bitcoin needs to be used as an appropriate medium of exchange.


Let the economic majority decide.

It really misleads people on reading it specially on newbies. Its not indeed a hardfork and talking about bitfinex exchange i have completely lost my trust to them since on what happened to them back in the past. They do show off their flaw regarding security and as an exchange this is should be the primary concern.

This!

The entire crypto community will get scammed by Chinese fuckers once more. After that, in a few weeks, months, everything will be back to normal and poor unsuspecting weak hands will be asking themselves where did their money go?

Edit your first post, you will see title of the thread than just edit it.

Segwit2x is not a hard fork however there is some possibility of network split after activation of segwit on august.

Their activity is quite suspicious and they don't have enough security layers so they are vulnerable to hacks. Its better to not use them at any cost.