Pages:
Author

Topic: Why would a Core/XT Hard Fork be bad if both live on? - page 2. (Read 1325 times)

hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".
I am fully aware of this.  I was simply responding to an earlier poster who seems to imply that this is "The Problem" that will be caused.  That people will attempt to cross spend, and those transactions will fail, and that suddenly because of this chaos will reign in both Bitcoin Chains and the world will self destruct and it is a "Disaster."

I mean, this seems to be the primary actual thing on the list that is evidence of this Hard Fork resulting in 2 chains continuing on is going to be Horrible, Disastrous, etc etc.

There is the argument that it will divide an "already small community" - but honestly, after the fork, I think most everyone is aware that this goes mainstream pretty quickly then.  So not so little of a community anymore.

There is also the "doubling" argument I see - but I fail to see what is so horrible about the possibility (I still think this is a fantasy scenario) in which your Bitcoin is doubled and exists on both Chains ina  spendable fashion.... again, I double my bitcoin, what a disaster?

Still not getting it...... I still haven't seen any solid technical reason that would cause a DISASTROUS Bitcoin Killing Scenario of a Hardfork resulted in 2 separate forks moving along.  Under ALL the arguments really it just sounds like anger and bitterness that this whole XT thing is happening and out of people's control and they feel sold out.

Yeah, you're right, none of that is credible
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 101
Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".
I am fully aware of this.  I was simply responding to an earlier poster who seems to imply that this is "The Problem" that will be caused.  That people will attempt to cross spend, and those transactions will fail, and that suddenly because of this chaos will reign in both Bitcoin Chains and the world will self destruct and it is a "Disaster."

I mean, this seems to be the primary actual thing on the list that is evidence of this Hard Fork resulting in 2 chains continuing on is going to be Horrible, Disastrous, etc etc.

There is the argument that it will divide an "already small community" - but honestly, after the fork, I think most everyone is aware that this goes mainstream pretty quickly then.  So not so little of a community anymore.

There is also the "doubling" argument I see - but I fail to see what is so horrible about the possibility (I still think this is a fantasy scenario) in which your Bitcoin is doubled and exists on both Chains ina  spendable fashion.... again, I double my bitcoin, what a disaster?

Still not getting it...... I still haven't seen any solid technical reason that would cause a DISASTROUS Bitcoin Killing Scenario of a Hardfork resulted in 2 separate forks moving along.  Under ALL the arguments really it just sounds like anger and bitterness that this whole XT thing is happening and out of people's control and they feel sold out.

But this doesn't supply a single item to my requested list.  That's just sour grapes stuff.  Give a factual issue that would be disastrous.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 101
What if the XT fork exploded into the mainstream?    And as technology improved, speed of transaction verification increases etc... wouldn't it be rather easy to "Non-Verify" a Core Coin trying to be spent on the XT Chain.  And if it did go into hyper-acceptance then that sure won't be people buying via LocalBitcoin.  They'll be getting XT Coin via XT Exchanges.

And I'm thinking that if a hardcore group of "Core" Coin holders wanted to exist as an underground payment network - they could easily do so.  I think increases in technology will develop to quickly detect cross-chain transactions and alert buyer/seller to the fact it is occuring.  Thoughts?
legendary
Activity: 2464
Merit: 1145
In the case of two existing blockchains ppl could doublespend coins mined before the forking block on the other chain.

That would kill trust pretty fast.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
It's impossible for both to live on because one of the nodes is ultimately useless unless its having an impact on the blockchain. I just hope the XT thing is over soon so we can focus on making bitcoin better.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Never ending parties are what Im into.
Would be confusing and would divide a already small community. Would be a slow drip kind of like the online poker scene with the Countries slowly squeezing off players.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
A proportion of the chain with the larger hashrate could be employed to 51% the chain with the smaller hashrate. I'm not sure anything could be done to prevent that.

Exactly, not to mention the fact that two Bitcoins would be the worse outcome, confusing users and making people escape from Bitcoin because it would be confusing.

There would be two "Bitcoins" serving the same purpose which would be redundant and a complete chaos/mess/deorganization. People could end up paying others accepting the "Core" chain with "XT" coins.

Because of that, the probability of the smaller fork surviving is really low. It's like someone disconnecting their internet because they don't agree where the line was placed on the street.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
A proportion of the chain with the larger hashrate could be employed to 51% the chain with the smaller hashrate. I'm not sure anything could be done to prevent that.
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 101
Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHYList the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?
Pages:
Jump to: