Topic: Should You be Concerned About a Bitcoin Chain Split on August 1st? (Read 2199 times)

I really care about the bitcointalk chain to be better and run smoothly but if someone else I do not know, care or not.

A necrothread got raised


I agree that you can't change a lot in this regard

Unless you are in fact Roger Ver or oven the wicked Jihan Wu himself who is pretending to be a generic Bitcointalk member. If you are not, while you won't be able to influence anything in the grand scheme of things in Bitcoin world, you can still fully determine your own success or failure, and this is what ultimately matters. How you are going to deal with the coming split and what you are going to do regarding it is entirely up to you, but anyway your fate is in your hands

Well, i only afraid on the price of bitcoin itself. Because i'm sure that thing on August 1st will affect the price of bitcoin for sure, i'm still confuse is this thing will be good for the bitcoins price or not. Some people said it will makes the bitcoin price go down. My concern is only at the price.

Ok, so you don't answer the question - should we be concerned? You provide all the other details but don't offer your own opinion.

I don't think we need to be worried about our balance, as long as our coins are secure. What we should worry more about is this incessant in-fighting between the miners and the developers. Hell, if we want bitcoin to remain as a currency why would we not evolve things to increase transaction throughput and lower fees? Fees will be the biggest reason that people flee to another coin.

As for the increase in transaction throughput, it's happened to bitcoin several times in the past to get to this 1mb level. There's not real reason why it should not be done again.

if that would be the case of the chain split there's a possibility that there will be two bitcoins in the market just like what did happen to ethereum, they have an ehtereum and ehereum classic. and for the btc it would be like btc and btc classic or btc legacy ?

Everybody should be concerned though the majority has agreed then the minority would surely take consideration with the idea of splitting. It would not be good if these will happen which will affect the bitcoin world entirely itself.

The risk after Aug 1 depends how fast the BIP148 chain dies. The longer there going to be uncertainity the BIP148 chain might one day become Bitcoin (and huge reorg to happen), the worse for Bitcoin. Fortunatelly the longer Bitcoin chain gets much more hashpower (which is estimated at Aug 1), the smaller chance Bitcoin miners swich to BIP148 chain (thus losing their mined rewards, and crashing the Bitcoin price due to a lot of people losing coins merged with the new coins mined after Aug 1).

So it is responsible for any rational miner to continue mining on top of Bitcoin and ignore the contentious BIP148 chain. I hope after few days it become crystal clear the huge Bitcoin reorg has no chance to happen, so any uncertainity ends (and the people behind BIP148 loose all credit and become irrelevant in Bitcoin ecosystem).

I would rather not want to be concerned about what I cannot change or influence because whether I like it or not, August 1 will come and go and nothing will happen and I am not going to be the only one affected by the outcome of events of that day whether positive or negative. So, I just wait and let events unfolds itself. As simple as that.

Also miners are there to profit. Where ever there is a promise of more profits they will go for that. Especially if they would be the first ones there to profit and prices of one of the fork does increase then they will definitely support the ones they believe will go up.

As Karl Marx put it, the last capitalist (miner) we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope (chain)

So you could and should expect anything from anyone (especially miners) in this field if this allows them to earn more profits, even if that could potentially hurt their financial future. It would all depend on how far the miners are planning. If they are going to call it a day soon rather than late, they would go as far as to sell Bitcoin itself for a few million (dozen) dollars, though they may not find enough buyers (or just one big time buyer)

Miners are no one's friend. No one is anyone's friend in this space. The only thing keeping everyone in line is fear of reducing the value to nil.

How does this scenario sound to folks here.

Let's say UASF has 15% hash rate.

Now miners have not exactly been known for their reverence of bitcoin, and would probably do whatever they can to increase their personal stash.

So, after chain split, a group of rogue Legacy miners with more than 35% hashrate (to add to the already 15%UASF  hashrate) decide to game the hell out of the situation.

They sell their Legacy coins, short the hell out of more Legacy coins, leverage the crap out of BIP148 coins...and then on D-day, H-Hour, switch over to BIP 148 chain. With UASF now having more than 51% hasrate, Legacy coin value heads down south, BIP 148 goes to the moon, and we have some new, very wealthy, very elite miners.

Imagine using the Legacy chain, and going to sleep each night with that sword of Damocles hanging over your head, (and wealth).

Could a group of miners actually be so....selfish?

The funny thing with this "plan" is that by the time the users have something to say (that is, can vote with their money), the miners will already have decided to split, and the exchanges will already have decided to list two bitcoin flavours.  So I don't know why this is called a USER activated soft fork.  It is a kind of chicken game, that hopes to somehow scare the majority of miners (2/3 are not even signalling NON-contentious segwit) and that hopes that the 1/3 of the miners that are in favour of a NON-contentious segwit, into adopting a contentious MINER decided soft fork with majority hash rate, because "if ever they don't, but some do, bitcoin is broken in two pieces and the users might have their say".

Note, again, that in this business, "full nodes" have nothing to do.  The *miners* split, the *exchanges* list two coins, and the *users* dump one coin (on the exchanges) and buy the other coin.  With 10 full nodes or with 10 000 full nodes: both chains will need to get listed on exchanges before users can do something.

So the two arguments put forward to absolutely want a SOFT fork with a SMALL block size, to:
- soft fork because a hard fork could lead to a contentious splitting of the chain
- we need many full nodes with small hard disks to keep bitcoin "secure" and "decentralized"

are entirely baffled by this "UASF", demonstrating, if successful, the falsehood of the exact arguments why one needed it !


I think it was not a bad proposition.  Finally we get a hard fork, so the fear of hardforking is gone then, we get larger blocks (although modestly larger ones, but at least, once you do it once, you can do it again), segwit can be done in a cleaner (HF) way because it contains good stuff and the spectrum of forcing everyone onto segwit transactions, and later onto the LN by lack of block chain room to save Joe's node in his basement who cannot afford a 1 TB disk per year, is gone.

But it is most probably going to fail for game-theoretical reasons.

Bitcoin decomposition is not a good thing, however, it is also not a bad thing. Looking at the situation of the current bitcoin, it can be a good remedy to the troubles that we all face.

Hmm.. This does seem like a 'Kamikazee-Do-or-Die' move by the Users.. but if you're as tired of the bullshit as everyone else.. I say go for it. (We've lost market dominance over this issue, and the 'Bin' is just around the corner..)

What I don't understand is what happens to Silbert's plan..

If UASF works, can Silbert's work (I think they use different chains.. but it is getting awfully complicated..) ?

soft bilateral split does not = safe upgrade. uasf's soft bilateral split is even worse than a hard consensus..
soft bilateral split it just means its all about messing with the pools blocks to fake the vote to reach 95%+.

starting at under 35% and trying to burn out the opposition is much like trump having 35% of election ballot papers and burning 65% to fake a 100% election win.

thats not safe, not consensus and not even legit.
what core should be doing is accepting no/abstain as the answer and start a new manifesto. not fake the election by destroying valid votes simply because they say no/abstain to keep the same manifesto in play

UASF = election rigging

and dont rebut with the failed reddit scripts of 'china jihan ver'   the 65% is not due to a country nor due to 2 people.

bitcoin has hundreds of thousands of merchants. the DCG BS cartel can only get 60-70 signatures and even those have a few double signed by the same guys

Wow didn't even think about it this way.

At some BIP 148 hashrate (25%, 30% 35%?), the game of chicken will really ramp up for legacy chain users, and at some point should avalanche.

32.5% are already signaling BIP 141 Segwit fork, so it shouldn't be too hard to get them to switch to BIP 148 ..... but it hasn't happened yet, of course.


Very succinct summary of the situation. The soft fork nature of BIP148 causing re-orgs in the legacy chain really puts the BIP 148 chain in a very strong position, providing it edges closer and closer to 50% of the overall Bitcoin hashrate. And the hashrate could be very prone to moving in that direction as a result.

No way, I dump fuckin Rogercoin the moment it splits and may be substantially increase my Bitcoin. In 2-3 days Rogercoin costs 1% of Bitcoin at best

If Core officially supported UASF then it would pretty much be game over. As far as I can remember, Bitfury said they would mine UASF if Core gave official support for the UASF chain.

If we got like 20, maybe 30%, miners on the legacy chain would start getting really nervous. Remember that UASF chain is not only better technologically, but it is safe against reorg, whereas legacy is the inferior technologically and with the constant fear of it reorging FOREVER...