Topic: Hardfork, the best thing that happened to Bitcoin since scaling debate started (Read 1432 times)

In the context of a fork, there are additional dangers. You always have to be careful of 3rd party risk, but the rush to extract BCC from bitcoin private keys also led to people rushing to download questionable desktop wallets like Electron Cash, Bitcoin ABC and others. Even if the top BCC wallets are technically safe, others may be fake wallets that extract your keys.

Naturally, the vast majority of people do not inspect the code, and the binaries are signed by unknown developers. I'm sure some people got their bitcoins stolen over this.

Absolutely! In order to rule crypto market continuously, bitcoins do need changes and improvements with time. The increase in block size is definitely going to make the survival of Bitcoins easier. There are already so many competitors who are burning midnight oil just to bring down Bitcoins. I hope we will keep experiencing such updates in Bitcoins.

I also think that without the constant upgrading of bitcoin will be difficult to maintain its competitiveness in the market. The increase in unit this is a good solution. I believe in bitcoin, and all of the theory of catastrophes is designed only to create panic and cheaper to buy coins.

At the end of the day, all the arguing we can ever do has been done to death.  This seems to be yet another thread where we all post about what we think should happen, as if it were down to any single one of us to decide.  Anyone who has been around for longer than a year has probably made up their minds already.  Now it all boils down to what full node software you freely choose to run.  

If your chosen software is an SPV or lightweight client, you're effectively allowing others to decide for you, leaving the decision primarily to the miners, but note that other peoples' choice of full node will also have a bearing.  Full nodes relay transactions and allow the chain to propagate, so miners can't make the decision alone.  There have to be sufficient full nodes for the chain to survive.  It isn't all bad, though, since running an SPV client means you don't have to worry about finding yourself on the wrong side of the argument that way.  Plus, you still have the option of changing your mind later if you don't like the chain you're following.  

• If you feel strongly about a 1MB base and 3MB witness space and primarily using off-chain scaling, run a client enforcing that code.
• If you feel strongly about a 2MB base and 6MB witness space and primarily using on-chain scaling, run a client enforcing that code once it becomes available.
• If you're unsure, if you don't know what either of those two mean, or if you don't care either way, use an SPV client and know that you'll be following the longest chain whatever happens.

While it might be tempting during a fork if they offer coins on both chains, be exceedingly cautious about using webwallets or exchanges to store large sums.  You are not in control of your funds that way.  Leaving your coins in the control of someone else is not how Bitcoin is designed to work and you could potentially lose your bitcoins as a result.
  

Is it profitable yet to mine? I thought the emergency difficulty readjustment code would have encouraged mining profitability from Day 1. I'm not sure where else to gauge hash rate except ViaBTC, and the Bcash hash rate has been falling for days there. It's sitting at 17P now. Network difficulty has definitely dropped considerably, but I can't figure the math right now.

The Bitcoin Cash saga adds a new twist to the narrative as we head towards the November hard fork. The fact that it wasn't a significant split off the back makes me wonder whether we will have a real split in November either. Maybe the ecosystem will turn its back on Segwit2x...

The only thing that i like for the fork for bitcoin is the increase on the block size and i don't care for the new bitcoin because i always believe in the original bitcoin that it will continue to prosper even there will be a lot of problems that we will face in the future. The increase on block size is the best as of now because it will make more room for transaction and it means a faster network for bitcoin.

Doing another hard fork again will be very risky because it might bring us another split in the blockchain. What does give us now? Another coin claiming that it is the real BTC? We do not need that. If there are interest groups that want bigger blocks then go to Bitcoin Cash.

I think it is very good as well . but the best thing is that people finally realized that they feared that for no reason and now they are coming back big time ..

One day people will wake up about the new economy and crypto will rize !! !




I think it will be before 10years from now

Because those with substantial hodlings in BTC don't want to risk a sudden transfer to a relatively new asset class.

Well either scenario is perfectly possible.  To me the difference is that in the case of offchain transactions people can still decide to use an onchain transaction when necessary.  In the case of nodes, you're just fucked.

That said, I don't think that the "nodes taking up datacenters" scenario is at all likely.
There are far more than 5,000 full nodes.  There are 8,751 listening nodes, of which 5,570 are Core nodes, but the total node count including non-listening nodes is well into the tens of thousands (we can't know an exact number).

What people don't understand about larger block sizes is that right now, a rich person could set up 50,000 nodes and own the majority of them.  Of course they could.  When there is a larger block size and nodes take up more space and bandwidth, a rich person could own the majority of nodes for a similar cost - people would run less nodes, and each node would cost more to run.  So if there's a malicious person, they could just go ahead and do it regardless of the block size.

The government regulation problem only comes into play when it's literally impossible for people to run nodes from their homes and almost no one does.

You just accused him of FUD and then countered with at least twice the FUD? Lol k.

You can't try to argue logic with big blockers. They always bring how AXA funds this or that in blockstream, but they don't see how 8MB blocks is a death sentence for the decentralization of the network, but they will come up with excuses about it not being a big deal. They have really lost their mind or they are getting paid to spread that bullshit.

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard!
i am against off-chain probably more than anyone, and i'd rather use an altcoin instead but i fail to see how people using off chain transactions would benefit US gov and their evil plans.

and at the same time, what makes sense is the US gov wanting to increase  the block size to an absurd amount (8MB for example) to centralize the nodes and can easily monitor things. and by taking over the development even inject backdoors in the nodes and wallets people use.

Shit happens when techies gets to much power and consensus is the victim.

2mb still isn't nearly enough and segwit adds way too many new uncertainties. Bitcoin Cash still to me looks like the winner over the other 2-3 chains we will have by November. It could become more profitable to mine already any day and with the ability to rapidly scale it is dangerous to not be hedged with Bitcoin Cash as a holder.

I ain't selling anything. I'm keeping hold of both. The value of both is higher than ever... it would be madness to sell. (unless for short-term trading opportunities)

None seggy software.

And the argument goes on and on again. I think the point of argument is over and people will still not aligned with each other because they have decided to stick to their individual guns but what I know that is common to both group is the goodness of bitcoin but the approach is where the disagreements comes in. Either way, we are one step ahead from where we were last month and the future and posterity will be the judge of which faction has the right way to go about things.

       


I bet governments have some underground agencies into Cryptocurrency.

                       

So have you sold your BTC seggy weggy enabled for Bitcoin Crash or what have you planned?

The NYC agreement, in principle.. has 80% hashrate. This will be a problem, at least to use as an argument to put a lot of FUD in the market. I hope these idiots don't dare to crash the price again, now that we are going to shoot up to $4000 in the next months.

What software are you using to transact if you think segwit is not safe?

I doubt if decentralization will ever be compromised fully with this fork. Yes, you might have less full nodes, but Bitcoin will still be

decentralized. In my opinion if we have 1000 full nodes instead of 5000 full nodes, we are still having decentralized. We need all

5000 full nodes, but it is not the end of the network, if we only have 1000. It will still be decentralized.