Topic: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) - page 10. (Read 8430 times)

My idea is that nothing will change.  Or that bitcoin will hard fork in two coins, but I don't think that will happen before it loses its first mover advantage.

Its not yet time to panic since the Segwit and Block unlimited is having a tie and there is no consensus yet. But i still bet on the 8mb increased on blocksize and hoping that there will be a miracle during the last hour. But if another choice will be approved then it is still okay for me since what we need today are solutions to the long confirmation and higher fees on transactions.

Yes.  Because a signature of a transaction of valid pre-fork UTXO is valid in both chains.  It can even be picked up from one chain (not network) and incorporated in the other one by a miner wanting your fee on his branch.


There are two ways.  The first way is to make the signatures incompatible.  That would be a serious protocol change.  It would be the best solution, but it would be a deep modification of bitcoin's protocol, much more than simply the block size.  The simplest trick I can suggest is to flip somewhere a little-endian in a big-endian convention.  That would make the signatures, hashes, and everything different, avoid backwards compatibility and be a full, clean hard fork.  You make a signature according to one, or the other branch, and the signature is invalid (and cannot even be computed without your secret key) on the other chain.  Because, be careful.  If you only WANT to transact on one chain, it is important that not only your transaction is incompatible with the other chain protocol, but mostly, that it is cryptographically NOT POSSIBLE to have others make a transaction in your name on the other chain with the information you provide on the first.  So just superficially changing some aspects that don't change the cryptographic signature, won't do.  One can still DEDUCE your (unwanted) transaction on the other chain, and produce it - to get the fee.  So you need to modify the cryptographic signature for both.

But I think that BU will not dare to do that.  So we stay with a very messy, dangerous and backward compatible hard fork.  
Bitcoin not being able to make smart contracts, the ONLY way to separate transactions is to include some dust of a coinbase transaction with a coin mined AFTER the fork.  This UTXO not existing on the other chain, you also have a non-valid transaction on the other chain.
But it is difficult to get to these new coins.  Only exchanges can probably do so, but how are you going to get your pre-fork coins to the exchange ?  If exchanges are friendly, they let you have a "joint wallet", and they do the mixing and split for you.

I agree with that. We have to make sure that problem is resolved quickly and ease the network congestion.

If the inputs are valid on both chains then the transaction may end up being relayed to both chains, is what I'm thinking.

I suspect they will have measures to prevent that though, it looks like Jihan Wu offered a bounty for someone to write a guide for exchanges on how to avoid that happening in case of a UASF prompting the need for the fork to happen early.

Yes, I even have heard some ideas of Chinese monopoly for bitcoin mining. I hope it will never happen, cause it's just not fair.
And if to talk about this results that there are in the head of the topic - the difference is just 0.3% and we can't count it as something serious.

Not unless you buy a pre-fork UTXO I wouldn't have thought.

There is one area that makes me wonder though in a hard-fork scenario what happens to the unconfirmed transactions.
Unless you delete the unconfirmed transactions and put the balance back into the forked wallets balance they would be stuck but that pretty seems complex if your not running your own client and using a service instead unless they keep rebroadcasting it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35214.20

And if after I sell I buy again - its possible that the value I buy will show up on both chains. That would be cool.

Well what I'll probably do if there is a fork is move all my BTC to a cold address on the BU chain, and once it confirms, fire up core where that same value hasn't moved and immediately sell them.

I bet a lot of people will.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

That is another client.

You could just as well change the hash of the genesis block.  That's how you make a bitcoin clone.  You have another coin.

Same port, and non BU blocks are valid on BU so no - you don't need a new client, just remove the 1 MB restriction from existing clients and they will work.

Well, of course, but they have to pick a chain to spend their hashrate on.  Merge mining doesn't mean that you mine *at the same time* on both chains.  It only means that you can switch easily BETWEEN chains.   But you have to chose for each block.

Isn't it like both coins can be merged mined, so miners simply would not  care and mine both?

It is pretty evident that if you want to use an alt coin, that you need a wallet talking the protocol of that alt coin...
You can't transact litecoins with a monero wallet either...

Or rebuild any of the other clients changing probably just one line of code so they accept 8 MB blocks.

People here are definitely not learning anything... Unlimited is like the Communist Party of nowadays, this is some kind of dreams. SegWit threshold is too low, and should be increased to 95% like Unlimited. This way we would be sure none will ever get activated ...

Exchanges list it if they think that there will be transaction volume, which is their source of income.  ETC/ETH has been very lucrative to exchanges.  Why wouldn't they list it ?   The first exchange that lists the split, will take the lion's share of the initial volume.  Can you imagine the gains ?  Other exchanges will be eager to do so too, or leave the volume to their competitor.

Moreover, there is all chance to have a huge initial volume, because everybody owning "old bitcoin" will have "free money" on the chain that he doesn't like, and will try to cash it out for the coin he likes.  What exchange wouldn't want that volume ?

And concerning "the original protocol", that's easy: for bitcoin, it is the current one.  All the previous ones are dead, and their chains stopped.  For ethereum, it is the one that was continued by ETC.  Simple.

"not listing" to "protect the unity of bitcoin" is suffering from the tragedy of the commons.  You are foregoing a huge reward in the form of transaction fees while those not adhering to it, reap in the part you could have taken.

Well, almost everything in your post is just speculations, imo. That's because you wouldn't be able to define what is "the original protocol" in Bitcoin, and no one in this world will ever be able to judge which one is original Ethereum. Also, no one is able to predict what's gonna happen in case of split. ETC exists because exchanges listed it, so if no exchanges will list any of the forked Bitcoin branch, then how are you going to perform a valuation? There're so many factors that the post-split reality is unpredictable.

Strictly speaking, no.  The original protocol is the original coin.  But with ethereum too, they "stole the name".  The original ethereum is now ETC, and the new altcoin with the modified protocol kept the name, ETH.

Note that the original splitting in mining power doesn't mean much, as two coins will emerge, and it is the MARKET CAP that will determine the mining ratio, and not the other way around.  Even a "minority miner" coin, that gets a higher market cap, will be very lucrative to mine, so will attract more miners.  And a "majority miner coin" that plummets in the market, will not be interesting to mine with high difficulty and low market value.  So miners will leave it, until miner ratio will equal market cap ratio.