Topic: Hard Fork guide (if it will happen) - page 2. (Read 5218 times)

Here you can make good money without investing, but playing gambling, I understand your hobby, it's not a good thing. I would be afraid to spend money, because you can cross the line.

FYI: http://support.ledgerwallet.com/knowledge_base/topics/what-about-bitcoin-xt-what-would-happen-in-case-of-a-fork?from_search=true

I split a few coins on Kraken without problems.   I don't invest in crypto, but I play with a few coins for fun.

I agree that outsourcing the problem is *perhaps* the safest way to proceed. Which exchanges have a proven track record of doing this for ETC that you could recommend?

Do you think it would be better to use fiat to buy a small amount on an exchange, or is it better to have a miner running that can mine some dust in a more reliable and timely manner? If so, which miner would you recommend (e.g. 21co)?


Let's imagine I have a cold wallet with a stash of 3 XBT. I assume I can import these private keys into *both* BU and Core wallets at the same time. On each client, I should see a balance of 3 XBT.

Now I start to work with the BU CLI: I need to craft a raw transaction with 2 or more inputs, and 2 or more outputs that go back to my own BU wallet. Is that right?


So now I open up my Core wallet, get a new receiving address, and then use my BU wallet to send my entire BU balance to my Core wallet. After no less than 1 confirmation, I see my Core balance is now 6 XBT, and my BU wallet is 0 XBT. Correct?

 

Yes you are correct , Electrum can help me with that at that moment. I have the seed with 24 words. I can import the seed in Electrum. Thanks a lot, now I am not worried if the hard fork happens.

Okay, it was said that if a fork was to occur, it would be announced ahead of time.  But, isn't that a "planned" fork?  Doesn't that require a bit of speculation....and a consented protocol change?  I mean, if a majority of miners chose the same specific client in unison, wouldn't that result in an immediate fork?  How does this event relate: https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-11-chain-fork ?

From the website:
https://www.ledgerwallet.com/products/ledger-hw-1

It seems possible, do you have something like a passphrase?

If "yes", you should be able to retrieve the private keys from this:
https://github.com/iancoleman/bip39

(you should do this only in a complete clear/formatted computer and a secure live linux distribution)

It's the Ledger HW.1. I think it is secure as I am holding 5 bitcoins there since a long time (last August) and nothing bad happened.
Hopefully the company will give me access if such scenario happens.

hard is not "nodes vote".  Hard is: miners DECIDE to fork (to make two chains). 
But it is only when there is a permanent double coin on exchanges, that the USERS can vote in the market.

If miners decide to hard fork and are united in that aspect, they are just as well sole deciders as with a soft fork.
The only difference is that with a soft fork, there doesn't need to be unity amongst miners to fork: a MAJORITY of miners can impose their choice on the minority of miners that do not agree.

With a hard fork, the minority of miners that do not agree, can continue to build the old chain, making two coins, on which the USERS will vote in the end.

But as long as miners only make one block chain, nodes nor users can vote.  Well, users can only vote by leaving that crypto currency.

(nodes can never vote: it is not vote by node, but vote by proof of work).

The only thing that this "node" stuff does, is to try to fathom what will be the market response ; or as a means of propaganda. 

Most probably, the safest method is to use an exchange that lists both coins, and has provisions to do the split for you, that is, to send the "unified old coins" to an address attached to you on the exchange.  The exchange will then give you IOU of both types of coins.  You can trade those (for instance, selling off your bitcoinx and buy more bitcoin, or selling off bitcoin to get more bitcoinx).  When you will withdraw the coins, they will be 1 type only.

But be sure you use an exchange that knows how to handle this.  Most big exchanges learned this during the ETH/ETC split.  Some made big mistakes.  Some stole the ETC of their customers, pretending they didn't "list" ETC.

With ethereum, there was a smart contract that could do the split for you, but with bitcoin, that's not the case, and the only way to do so is to use "newly mined dust", which is hard to come by for a normal user.

Can you say which is your hardware wallet? How does it work?

If you hardware wallet is connecting to only a server of the company where you bought it, then I don't think that it is very secure.
Anyway, you will have the coins only on the chain chosen by the company. (or, they will have somehow to give you access to the token even on the other chain)

So now I have a natural question after reading the guide in the first post of this thread. I cannot export my private keys as I have them in my hardware wallet which doesn't allow such thing. What will happen with me, how can I be able to use both blockchains if this split happens? Thanks in advance for your answer.

There is a big difference between BTC and ETH.
BTC hasn't a so dynamic difficulty change, it changes only every 2016 blocks.
So, it will not be so easy to have two working chains as it happened on ETH.

To make it happen more easily, Core team needs to release a new Core version with a hard fork (yes, a hard fork in Bitcoin Core) to change the POW or the difficulty.

There will be split for sure, one of the recent example is split of ETC and ETH. ETC is still alive and have some value but this is not good for bitcoin. I also hope we will not see hardfork.

Good guide, thank you.

Getting dust from the BU chain seems the best method to me.

I suppose we have quite a bit of time to worry about it, it isn't happening soon.

If UASF happens and BU hard-forks in response (a possibility) then using a SegWit transaction with all your coins in a core client would likely be invalid in BU allowing you to then use BU to create a TX that would be invalid in core because the coins are spent in core chain.

mempool bloat and fee increase (due to spam/congestion) is more about showing the network something needs to be done. and not about GREED

when you look at which team removed priority, removed reactive fee and replaced it with biasly increasing 'average' fee estimations you se its core that are pushing fee's up even if demand became low.

when you look at the stats of when mempools increase. you see there was a short rise and fall in june/july 2016 and a general rise after october.
this is normally done to sway miners into thinking something needs to change.

now taking into account that core CHOSE to avoid a node first pool second confidence building consensus event. and just do a give the vote to pools.
means you cannot blame the pools for having the vote and deciding one way or the other. its not their fault that nodes were bypassed.

also the timing of the mempool bloat events coincide with CORES bips wanting activation. shows who wants to sway pools into thinking something needs to be done sooner rather than later.

lastly.
BU can accept blocks from core, xt, classic and others no matter what their parameters change to.
xt can accept blocks from core, BU, classic and others no matter what their parameters change to.
classic can accept blocks from core, BU, xt and others no matter what their parameters change to.
BUT
core's current and near future releases wont accept blocks from BU, xt, classic and others if parameters of the longest chain change.

meaning if core is left as the minority they would then need to ban nodes to keep a minority chain alive
meaning if core becomes a majority they would then need to ban minority nodes and blocks to avoid orphan headaches

other implementations want to work on the same playing field using consensus.. only core are the ones that are offering to do uni/bilateral splits.

Thank you for your updates, it's really very helpful to us people that use bitcoin. Situations that are imminent are really unpredictable, which would be a big obstacle for bitcoins if made wrong choices. Bitcoin unlimit is an option so stay away, it will have a huge impact on bitcoin. It can even cause a bitcoin to crash. The miners are showing their greed, so ugly. I hope you keep the stance and refuse bitcoin unlimit

Thanks for the post it is very educational and I learned many new things about hardfork. I was just disappointed to see that blockchain.info wallets are no longer a recommended wallet after the fork. But I do hope they can upgrade so they adopt to the new blockchain. Blockchain.io system and features are very nice and so I really wanted to see them functioning well even after the fork.

for clarity

hard = node vote then pool
soft = pool only

the term fork does not mean automatic permanent altcoin maker. it just means change of rules leading to different blocks being created.
what happens after that defines different scenarios

consensus/orphaning mechanism would trash blocks it did not like(orphans). and unify the blockchain into something the majority can accept, leaving the minority stuck and unsynced to the network due to not liking blocks it did not agree with.

the only way to keep a minority alive is to actively and intentionally ban the opposition to avoid seeing or using the consensus mechanism and only connecting to peers with the same acceptable parameters as you. this is called a split. which is bilateral if both sides agree to the split or unilateral if only one side agreed to split.

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: uni/bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: uni/bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains


it requires intentionally banning the opposition to keep different blocks alive(ignoring consensus orphan mechanism). otherwise the orphaning mechanism causes some drama and one height is found the majority can agree on.

alot of people will try to tell you that bitcoin has not protective self regulating mechanism (the consensus orphaning mechanism) they will tell you you have to trust devs. you have to trust pools etc.. but you dont. the nodes will sort out a single unified chain if everyone puts up with some orphan drama, leaving the minority simply unsynced.

---

actively banning nodes to then build ontop a chain that the majority reject/minority accept may give you "double coins" but this is just temporary. once you spent those coins. thats it. gone.

a few minutes of greed to spend double the coins does not mean you will guarantee to profit because the market reaction of having 2 differing coins will cause the value of each side to change.

it can also cause peoples opinion of 'security' to diminish if it becomes easy to double coins. (EG like the fiat share market, regular share dilution devalues the shares when new A or B class shares are introduced and people lose trust in holding shares)
intentionally keeping 2 chains alive can be disastrous for a currency worth something . but profitable for a useless speculative coin.

think beyond the temporary greed of a double coin event and think about the long term result us such an action of splitting to a minority alt.