3 ms·

In case the blockchain forks, it will get really interesting. And how I understand it, some people will get stinking rich. Because you can then effectively doub

by 3dfan 11y ago

In case the blockchain forks, it will get really interesting. And how I understand it, some people will get stinking rich. Because you can then effectively double every old coin by mixing it with new coins. After that, it is valid and independently spendable on both forks. So people in the know will probably buy old coins like mad, mix them with new coins and immediately sell them on both chains. Then use the money to buy old coins again.

adrianmacneil 11y ago
Not how it works. If there was a fork, then coins on each side would become independent (you could not mix them together). Since the current price represents the total demand, the market cap must equal the sum of the parts, so coins on each side would become less valuable. I would expect the aggregate would actually go down, due to lack of faith in Bitcoin developers being able to get shit done (and possibility for other coins to pick up the slack).
- 3dfan 11y ago
  The fork that is on the horizon looks like this: On chain A blocks bigger then 1mb will be valid On chain B blocks bigger then 1mb will be invalid Now when you sign a transaction and broadcast it, it will get executed on both chains. Unless the transaction has coins in one of its inputs that already went through a block bigger then 1mb. Then the transaction is only valid in chain A. This way you can double the value of a coins that are spendable on both chains. Because now you can sell them once on chain A and once on chain B.
  - josephpoon 11y ago
    This is correct. The simplest way to do this would be to include in your transaction a spend deriving from the coinbase block reward after the fork.
  - adrianmacneil 11y ago
    Right. But economically speaking, if exchanges started allowing you to trade both coins against each other, then supply has doubled while total Bitcoin demand remained constant. So the price would tank to at least 50% of its previous level on each side of the fork to reflect the new equilibrium. Anyway, I think this is extremely unlikely to happen, because: 1) It requires 50% of miners to cooperate to even create a >1MB chain 2) Anyone using the old chain would be insecure, due to lack of mining power making it susceptible to a 51% attack. 3) If that many miners were on board, it's unlikely that existing core developers would opt to continue working on an insure fork rather than admit defeat. 4) If that many miners were on board, it's unlikely that exchanges would opt to confuse users by letting them separately trade two different types of Bitcoin, rather than just switching to the more secure, more popular chain.
    - josephpoon 11y ago
      I'm presuming 3dfan is assuming some kind of split in merchant/exchange acceptance, I agree this is less likely, though. However, in a hardfork, you can be sure there will be some kind of forkA/forkB exchange site that will emerge (not at a 1-to-1 exchange rate, of course).

by 3dfan 11y ago

adrianmacneil 11y ago

Not how it works. If there was a fork, then coins on each side would become independent (you could not mix them together). Since the current price represents the total demand, the market cap must equal the sum of the parts, so coins on each side would become less valuable. I would expect the aggregate would actually go down, due to lack of faith in Bitcoin developers being able to get shit done (and possibility for other coins to pick up the slack).

3dfan 11y ago
The fork that is on the horizon looks like this: On chain A blocks bigger then 1mb will be valid On chain B blocks bigger then 1mb will be invalid Now when you sign a transaction and broadcast it, it will get executed on both chains. Unless the transaction has coins in one of its inputs that already went through a block bigger then 1mb. Then the transaction is only valid in chain A. This way you can double the value of a coins that are spendable on both chains. Because now you can sell them once on chain A and once on chain B.
- josephpoon 11y ago
  This is correct. The simplest way to do this would be to include in your transaction a spend deriving from the coinbase block reward after the fork.
- adrianmacneil 11y ago
  Right. But economically speaking, if exchanges started allowing you to trade both coins against each other, then supply has doubled while total Bitcoin demand remained constant. So the price would tank to at least 50% of its previous level on each side of the fork to reflect the new equilibrium. Anyway, I think this is extremely unlikely to happen, because: 1) It requires 50% of miners to cooperate to even create a >1MB chain 2) Anyone using the old chain would be insecure, due to lack of mining power making it susceptible to a 51% attack. 3) If that many miners were on board, it's unlikely that existing core developers would opt to continue working on an insure fork rather than admit defeat. 4) If that many miners were on board, it's unlikely that exchanges would opt to confuse users by letting them separately trade two different types of Bitcoin, rather than just switching to the more secure, more popular chain.
  - josephpoon 11y ago
    I'm presuming 3dfan is assuming some kind of split in merchant/exchange acceptance, I agree this is less likely, though. However, in a hardfork, you can be sure there will be some kind of forkA/forkB exchange site that will emerge (not at a 1-to-1 exchange rate, of course).