Topic: You have a choice if you control pre-fork bitcoins! (Read 1636 times)

If hash rate was 10%, then difficulty adjustment will be similarly affected. It will not happen in 2 weeks.
The first difficulty adjustment could take months to reach (4 months+? if difficulty had changed just before hard fork)

Or, if hard fork happened just before difficulty adjustment, it would then be sooner.
However, then the next difficulty will not decrease as much as it would have if it had taken the 4 months of 10% hashing power.
So then the next difficulty period will stay more difficult and will take longer to complete.

It would be nothing like ETH.
It would clearly be the losing chain.

There are a lot of Bitcoin long term holders. They dont need to pick side and move the coin, they just can keep the coin sitting in cold wallet and let the worse fork die out. No risk whatsoever for long term holders. But in short term there might be some problems/price changes, but after a while things return to normal. Not much different from times when Bitcoin dropped 1/4 of value in one day - things stabilize itselves after a while.

ethereum forks are only surviving due to lack of utility to pressurize users to pick one. for bitcoin that choice is simple,
speed of confirmations
tx fee war
merchant acceptance
hash power security

those 4 reasons in that order, are what will drive bitcoins choice to happen much faster.

^^^I agree with Franky1
I would be very surprised to see any coin fork and have both sides still exist.
I feel like 99% of the time one will die out slowly over a couple months.
I guess we will have to watch and see what happens with Etherium.

sorry but thats not quite right..
on a fork. the coins are meaningless..
it doesnt matter if coins never move or have moved to different addresses thousands of times.. it changes nothing.

but if there is 90% of hash power on one fork.. then those blocks are created at similar speeds as normal, yet the 10% hash is only making one block every couple hours for 2 weeks
now with one block every 2 hours.. that will ofcourse cause a fee war due to thousands of tx's every 10 minutes being added to the mempool but only one block being made every couple hours. making that minority chain a fee and time costly headache for confirmations, that wont end for months (if the chain even lasted that long(i dont think it will))

if you think that it will speed up and be reasonably fast quite quickly. you would be wrong. following the 2 weeks of 1 block every couples hours it would  then be 1 block every hour and xx minutes for 2 weeks, and slowly get shorter each fortnight. after about 6 months the difficulty will be low enough to be fast block creation,, but at a cost of weak security that can easily be 51% attacked.

also with these forks. with 90% of people on one chain.. the other 10% will find it very hard to find someone to "spend"/accept the minority chain coins.

its not about moving coins.. its purely about which has the dominating hashpower and node count.. and the minority chain eventually dies out

the minority chain will be slow, expensive, security risk, and lack of utility to "spend". making the decision to move over with the majority that much more simple and quicker.. unlike some shit/altcoins that were never really useful or had infrastructure anyways, which made their forks live longer because they were useless anyway so their was no easy choice to make

My opinion on hard forks hasn't changed much. The difference now is I think we can solve things without necessarily having to go with a hard fork, but I do still think it is a viable option.

Commenting on current events, I don't think we can compare what happened in Ethereum with what's happening with Bitcoin. A hard fork on an altcoin cannot be considered as a kind of "benchmark" or "testbed" for how would Bitcoin handle a fork, as Bitcoin is very distinct from any altcoin and attracts many more users with different use cases for the currencies... So this Ethereum fork doesn't tell us much.


I think this is a very big point of forks... It would eventually develop the coin further. The problem is the collateral damage, would forcefully developing the coin and skipping some corners while at it at the expense of the userbase be worth it? Food for thought, I guess

Hard forks are usefull, Bitcoin and other altcoins already used it to fix issues. Very often it does not split the chains, but if there is not consensus anymore and opposing side have considerable support, the chains can split long term, especially if the ideological differences are too big and no compromise possible - reversing or never reversing contracts might be such example where compromise might not be possible, we shall see.

But splitting chains is better than substantional part of the users losing trust to the coin and leaving anyway. The result is basically the same, plus with two chains we gonna see what path was better, thus making the coin only better longterm. For those who are interested in longterm success of Bitcoin, more paths are a sure way one or both of the paths can compete in the future with the altcoins, so Bitcoin wont end forgotten as something from the past which refused to change and slowly got abandoned.

lol, that is true. we can learn from ethereum situation/mistakes but not a lot. because i think you can't really compare ethereum (or any other altcoin) with bitcoin because they are not really being used like bitcoin.

let me explain what my thought is.
there are many different groups of people using bitcoin, there are developers, there are regular users, there are those who only trade and care about $$$, and finally there are merchants and those who use bitcoin as currency only.
consider merchants that are accepting bitcoin as payment (as a currency) like steam (valve) for example. if the same situation happens to bitcoin everything will go to hell. because you can't just choose one chain and stick with it because steam may choose chain 1 and other merchant may use chain 2 and other remove bitcoin accepted option completely.

but in case of ethereum nobody cares. there is no place to spend eth on either chain, there is only one developer really and there is only people who only use it for trading. and the more chains it has the better it gets. literary. because as you can see there is twice the profit to be made on both chains. 2x pump and dump.

a fork can allow you tho choose, which is a good thing, but i see a problem there which i don't like much.
i don't thing it is good if two chains exist. this is bad and confusing for new or interested people in bitcoin.
also if i run a business it could be a problem if i have to decide between the chains or run both.

just imagine trump or clinton will win the election and the loser decides to also be president. that does not sound very appealing to me.

i really hope bitcoin wont fork anymore and can clear any differences within the chain.

Bumping this oldish thread of mine because I feel it's relevant to current events. Today, we can watch (or even partake in) a scenario similar to the one I've mentioned in the OP, thanks to Ethereum's hard fork.

I've often discussed (not only in this thread) what I would do should there be a contentious hard fork on the Bitcoin block chain. Many people responded suggesting that two chains would never survive such a fork. I think it's now clear that two chains most certainly can survive (perhaps it's temporary?) after a hard fork and we Bitcoiners should use current events as a chance to learn as much as we can from the situation. After all, I've always thought it better to learn from watching other people stick their hand in the fire as opposed to actually doing it myself. The Bitcoin community is still divided regarding scaling Bitcoin, and it's not unreasonable to imagine that in the future we may experience something like that which Ethereum is experiencing today.

As we watch the Ethereum hard fork unfold, consider the future of Bitcoin and whether or not we as a community should resolve our differences or go our separate ways forever.

Is a hard fork an opportunity or something that should be feared? Has current events changed your opinion?

One particular things that stands out for me, holding your own private keys, while always recommended, is especially important right before a hard fork, otherwise you are at the whim of the exchange/service/online wallet when it comes to claiming your coins on both chains post fork.

P.S. Although I mention Ethereum several times in this post, try to keep in mind that this is Bitcoin Discussion and any replies should only consider the example set forth by Ethereum's hard fork and how it could apply to Bitcoin, not how you feel about ETH or ETC (those opinions belong in the alt coin sub forum).

Short the enemy fork  

I really don't hope that we should go that far  

I suddenly recall Satoshi's 1 million coins: Maybe that is what those coins are reserved for, Satoshi have the ability to wipe out the value on one chain overnight 

I agree with you and I have always said this thing in all my previous posts "They should not decide for us", in this year (until Feb-Mar 2016) I will continue to think and inform myself about this fork. Now my choice is to spend the BitcoinXT coins and hold the actual bitcoinCore coins, my unique perplexity is the bandwith problem.

You mean like every other bitcoiner with a lick of sense? Yes, I do recognize that I lack the ability to drive a 4 billion dollar market in any direction. Do you? You probably think your vote for president matters too, huh?

This sums pretty much what I've been thinking and posting. We do have a chance to choose what we want, we have a chance to vote on what Bitcoin should be...

A fork is an opportunity for change. And changes aren't always bad.

Developers have forks and end up building entirely different projects
In a sense this is interesting though as what will come out of this in the end will hopefully be able to address and improve Bitcoin in the end just through all the debates and discussions to what we should do and hopefully progress.

Actually my opinion is first I will deploy very well Fork systems mechanism by great management team and after that will open public opinions how to development... In the competition market if need to achieve targets properly then have to be hard work in the marketing systems by very well trained team..

 Exchanges operate to make profit, they are capitalists, not idealists. 

If you have 2 block chains, which both have value associated with them, you can bet your ass that exchanges will run 2 tickers and profit from it.  Thinking otherwise is naive.

Exchanges are the ones who will make the choice if it comes to forking. What you do wont have much weigh if the exchange wallets are synced with the other fork.
It's quite frightening what will happen, but this is just another bump on the bitcoin road, we will manage whatever happens.

I have reservations on this statement. A serious exchange will not let that happen. I think all major exchanges will band together and put their weight on one fork only. They will make a statement well before the fork. Small exchanges will follow. I cannot imagine an exchange mechanism where we can trade the same pre-fork coins under 2 tickers.  

If you're wealthy enough to afford sacrificing all your bitcoin wealth for the sake of some misguided ideal, than yes you do have the liberty to behave like a financially moronic petulant child. The rest of us have bo such choice, the fork which survives with value is the fork we'll all be using, whether or not we like the implications.

Please stop and check your privilege next time before giving strangers potentially devastating financial advice.