4 ms·

There are 2 competing proposals on how to scale up bitcoin/blockchain and this is the day that the community/miners have to decide what side they will continue

There are 2 competing proposals on how to scale up bitcoin/blockchain and this is the day that the community/miners have to decide what side they will continue using: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-are-dates-keep-eye/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/countdown-segwit-these-...

runeks 9y ago
I still don't get it. As long as a reasonable majority of hashing power stays on one chain, there shouldn't be any symptoms except increased confirmation times. The bitcoin.org page says: > Do not trust any payments you receive after Tue Aug 01 2017 02:00:00 GMT+0200 (CEST) until the situation is resolved. No matter how many confirmations the new payment says it has, it can disappear from your wallet at any point up until the situation is resolved. Which I don't understand, unless miners are actively trying to make this happen (by mining on two different chains with roughly the same hashing power). According to the paper[1], as long as at least 20% of the hashing power is honest, 11 confirmations should be final (in 99.9% of cases) [1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (page 8)
- stale2002 9y ago
  The doomsday scenario is that Bitcoin forks for a long period of time, but then one fork down the road, crashes in value to worthlessness. There is nothing that prevents 2 forks from existing for an indefinite amount of time, just look at ethereum and ethereum classic. The question of the year is whether one side will suddenly crash down to a price of 0.
  - Taek 9y ago
    No, that's not correct. In the case of the UASF, something very frightening is possible. If the UASF has majority economic support (unlikely) and also the miners do not support it, initially the UASF side will be behind, and there will be multiple chains. There will be the UASF chain and the normal chain. But since the UASF has more support, it'll have more block reward, and eventually it'll have more hashrate behind it. It'll eventually catch up to the other chain, pass the other chain, and then... The other chain completely implodes, and stops existing. Yes, that's actually what happens, and why if you are a miner, you should be afraid of the UASF. You lose basically everything if the UASF ends up with more hashrate, and the UASF is eventually guaranteed to have more hashrate if it has a higher coin price. ---- Basically, your doomsday scenario dramatically understates the worst-case scenario.
    - ktta 9y ago
      >The other chain completely implodes, and stops existing. Are you sure? If I'm not wrong, this isn't that much different from Ethereum/Ethereum Classic situation. Ethereum Classic's price is no where near Ethereum's but it is still maintaining a good position - 5th by Market Cap and 3rd by 24hr volume. You are saying the ALL of the mining power will eventually move over, but what if it doesn't the miners (85% of whom support Segwit2x) stay on the non-UASF fork? UASF Bitcoin will be very weak, so I can't expect what would happen, but I'm just saying its not so simple.
      - patrickk 9y ago
        > Ethereum Classic's price is no where near Ethereum's but it is still maintaining a good position - 5th by Market Cap and 3rd by 24hr volume. ETC's price is being pumped up (some more context can be found on /r/ethereum), in some cases by taking advantage of newcomers looking to get into the ETH craze, helped by the fact that the Ethereum Foundation doesn't seem interested in maintaining ownership how the word "Ethereum" is used. There's no real technological innovation or developer interest in ETC.
        ktta 9y ago
        I didn't really find any proper reason as to how it is being pumped. Just about ETC misleading people into buying it. Any links? >There's no real technological innovation or developer interest in ETC. I mean, ETC guys can just push all of the new developments in ETH to their code. The codebase is the same. There probably won't be any original developments in ETC, but they don't really need much to stay on par with ETH.
        patrickk 9y ago
        Barry Silbert/Coindesk are quite pro-ETC and anti-ETH, just to name two examples. Here's an intro (google around for more): https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6d62td/the_story_behind_ethereum_classic_etc_and_whos/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6d62td/the_story... https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cost-of-bitcoins-malfeasance-culture-f83d15ad07d1 https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cos... Not saying ETH is perfect, far from it, but ETC is a pumped up scam for sure. They're using "Ethereum" in the name to fool newbies, likely propping up the price at current levels. I seriously doubt anyone know is knowledgable/not in on the scam really invests in a coin that is identical to ETH but none of the leadership, community or dev interest.

runeks 9y ago

I still don't get it. As long as a reasonable majority of hashing power stays on one chain, there shouldn't be any symptoms except increased confirmation times. The bitcoin.org page says: > Do not trust any payments you receive after Tue Aug 01 2017 02:00:00 GMT+0200 (CEST) until the situation is resolved. No matter how many confirmations the new payment says it has, it can disappear from your wallet at any point up until the situation is resolved. Which I don't understand, unless miners are actively trying to make this happen (by mining on two different chains with roughly the same hashing power). According to the paper[1], as long as at least 20% of the hashing power is honest, 11 confirmations should be final (in 99.9% of cases) [1] https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (page 8)

stale2002 9y ago
The doomsday scenario is that Bitcoin forks for a long period of time, but then one fork down the road, crashes in value to worthlessness. There is nothing that prevents 2 forks from existing for an indefinite amount of time, just look at ethereum and ethereum classic. The question of the year is whether one side will suddenly crash down to a price of 0.
- Taek 9y ago
  No, that's not correct. In the case of the UASF, something very frightening is possible. If the UASF has majority economic support (unlikely) and also the miners do not support it, initially the UASF side will be behind, and there will be multiple chains. There will be the UASF chain and the normal chain. But since the UASF has more support, it'll have more block reward, and eventually it'll have more hashrate behind it. It'll eventually catch up to the other chain, pass the other chain, and then... The other chain completely implodes, and stops existing. Yes, that's actually what happens, and why if you are a miner, you should be afraid of the UASF. You lose basically everything if the UASF ends up with more hashrate, and the UASF is eventually guaranteed to have more hashrate if it has a higher coin price. ---- Basically, your doomsday scenario dramatically understates the worst-case scenario.
  - ktta 9y ago
    >The other chain completely implodes, and stops existing. Are you sure? If I'm not wrong, this isn't that much different from Ethereum/Ethereum Classic situation. Ethereum Classic's price is no where near Ethereum's but it is still maintaining a good position - 5th by Market Cap and 3rd by 24hr volume. You are saying the ALL of the mining power will eventually move over, but what if it doesn't the miners (85% of whom support Segwit2x) stay on the non-UASF fork? UASF Bitcoin will be very weak, so I can't expect what would happen, but I'm just saying its not so simple.
    - patrickk 9y ago
      > Ethereum Classic's price is no where near Ethereum's but it is still maintaining a good position - 5th by Market Cap and 3rd by 24hr volume. ETC's price is being pumped up (some more context can be found on /r/ethereum), in some cases by taking advantage of newcomers looking to get into the ETH craze, helped by the fact that the Ethereum Foundation doesn't seem interested in maintaining ownership how the word "Ethereum" is used. There's no real technological innovation or developer interest in ETC.
      - ktta 9y ago
        I didn't really find any proper reason as to how it is being pumped. Just about ETC misleading people into buying it. Any links? >There's no real technological innovation or developer interest in ETC. I mean, ETC guys can just push all of the new developments in ETH to their code. The codebase is the same. There probably won't be any original developments in ETC, but they don't really need much to stay on par with ETH.
        patrickk 9y ago
        Barry Silbert/Coindesk are quite pro-ETC and anti-ETH, just to name two examples. Here's an intro (google around for more): https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6d62td/the_story_behind_ethereum_classic_etc_and_whos/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6d62td/the_story... https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cost-of-bitcoins-malfeasance-culture-f83d15ad07d1 https://medium.com/@charlescmackay/barry-silbert-and-the-cos... Not saying ETH is perfect, far from it, but ETC is a pumped up scam for sure. They're using "Ethereum" in the name to fool newbies, likely propping up the price at current levels. I seriously doubt anyone know is knowledgable/not in on the scam really invests in a coin that is identical to ETH but none of the leadership, community or dev interest.