Bitcoin Forum

If the exchange or service you are using does not list BIP148 coins after august 1st, you are being effectively scammed, since if you are keeping the coins there, the split will happen anyway, but they are not giving you the opportunity to manage your own money, so most likely they will keep the 148 coins for themselves and act as if nothing happened.

Be aware that if BIP148 gains traction, the legacy coins would disappear and you would lose all money.

Demand all exchanges and services to list BIP148, and if they don't, point at the fact that they are scammers.

Get all of your coins back in your Bitcoin Core wallet before august 1st to guarantee you get the coins on both chains.

Exchanges that don't prepare for this are going to go bankrupt. Look at the ETH/ETC clusterfuck. If BIP148 actually wins and people lose their money, they are going to need to pay millions to customers in loses. Coinbase would go out for sure.

Anyone not holding their coins on a full validating node is a god damn moron at this point. If you trust anything but your own full validating node you are a pushover.

I only keep a very small amount on exchanges so I am good about it. This is a great advice for people who are daily traders and are forced to keep the majority of their coins in the exchanges they do the trading. I also think that anyone should withdraw their coins to a wallet of their choice in which they have control over the coins and this should be done at least a few days before the August 1.

Aren't miners the ones forking with the Bitcoin SegWit2x?

you guys are funny.  exchanges aren't going to support bip148 because they would be forking themselves from the main chain.

Miners will never do anything to scale bitcoin because it would mean they lose money on fees, which is why bitcoin can only scale by force (UASF)



This is nonsense. UASF is happening august 1 independently on what you think about it. If you have customers holding BTC in your exchange and you don't give them their equivalent of holdings in the UASF chain, you are robbing them. If UASF wins, it will end badly for those not supporting UASF coins.

oh... I have to say I don't understand everything quite well ^^

But the idea is that there is a chance for a fork in august?
So that we'll have a BTC1 and a BTC2?

Then I'll just be careful about withdrawing my btc, whatever what the exchange says it'll be much safer I guess.

Jonald thinks Exchanges don't want to handle multiple coins... think about why exchanges exist. LOL. This will be a profit opportunity for them.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-beginners-guide-surviving-bip-148-uasf/

August 1 is Bitcoin Independence Day.

Exactly. Exchanges will list anything that allows them to rack up fees, and this will surely create for some good fee racking opportunity.

But this is beyond some altcoin fee racking operation, we are talking about the possibility of UASF coin winning and then every exchange that didn't list UASF coins would have lost MILLIONS to all the holders of legacy coins that don't get UASF coins.

They are forced to list BIP148 coins, anything else is a recipe for disaster.

Sorry, but the only way to stop this is if miners signal segwit, and they will not, so get ready.

The end result of this is going to be a division between miners on the one side and services on the other. The smart miners will go towards BIP148,

because it will be the dominant path in the future. The BIP148 will surely create some panic amongst some users, but it's just a small learning

curve and then it is back to normal business.  8) ..... We need to move forward, even if some people are going to be left behind.  :P

How can i know that the exchange that i'm using is supporting BIP148 and what are the wallets that also supports BIP148 aside from bitcoin core wallet because that wallets takes a lot of years before you sync it.

if there's a split, sure they might list it as an altcoin "uasf-coin". 

Can anyone speculate how much of the total hashing power would be behind UASF? Would it be good to assume that the 30% that are signalling Segwit now would all support UASF?

30% would surely cause a split.

As of a few days ago, coinbase support recommended people move their coins off coinbase prior to August 1:

Eric - Coinbase support:

https://community.coinbase.com/t/what-is-coinbases-plan-regarding-bip148/15391

Seems like it would be safer to not use exchanges as we get closer. Better to be smart than to keep it om exchanges.

UASF itself causes a split... deemed as a hard bilateral split*
which is:
much much worse than a hard contentious upgrade
much much much worse than a hard consensual upgrade

* technically if its User activated (non mining) then its a hard bilateral split, not soft
but if they want to pretend its 'soft' (not user related) then its actually MAST not UASF

but core do love playing buzzword games to stroke people to sleep with false pretenses of soft cushions and fluffy clouds

They can call it what ever they want, but those coins should be in their customers' control if there is a split.

if your funds are in an exchange you have no control..
learn lessons from 8 years of "we Been hacked bankruptcies"

you can only HOPE they do the honourable thing.

But would it not also depend on how much hashing power is behind it? What if there is only a total of 5% or less supporting it?


Why bring Core into this? They are against UASF if I am not mistaken.

With 5% of hashpower it would take two weeks before miner could sell his mined coins (after 100 confirmations). Hard to predict UASF BIP148 coin price after two weeks, possibly close to zero as well. So miners who care about profit could risk a lot. If you count only the ones who dont care they could just waste electricity in the end, then indeed only few % could mine on top of BIP148 chain - then is the question whether the BIP148 chain would survive longterm.

I would argue that the funds you put in exchanges are the earlier BTC.  The split chain is something you deserve to own, but not something you've been trading, depositing or withdrawing with the exchange, so unfortunately I think many exchanges won't make that ethical decision.

The chances are that they would pick one or the other.  Look at Coinbase taking their users' ETC - that would be worth a good 5-10% of their holdings now.

No matter what the exchange says, if a UASF looks like it'll gain any traction on August 1st, you'd be downright stupid to leave it on there.  Just take it to Bitcoin Core or another wallet where you own your private keys and are given instructions on what to do.

I'm expecting some "hacks" and "DDoS attacks" around that kind of time.  That's the kind of time that even the most "trustworthy" exchanges can start turning on you.

I think all the exchanges will offer their users the possibility of using the two chains in case of split. If not in the last weeks of July there will be an exodus of bitcoins outside of these exchanges that will cause them many problems. In fact, if someone is thinking of withdrawing their bitcoins from some exchange to their wallet it´s better that they do it now and do not wait until July.

Pretty much it's the time to run your Bitcoin wallet and prepare for any contingencies, service providers are a hazard risk although the big ones will likely be prepared it would be the small ones that may not be ready for it.
That said hard code needs to have 50% on the execution for an activation clause to avoid that a node is best.


Mumble
Mintpal, Mtgox, Bitfunder etc. Honorable things indeed

You can email them and ask if they're supporting bip148 or not. electrum and mycelium are supporting bip148, you can use those 2 wallets to keep your coins.

This is still June 1st and we still have July before August which I am sure its still a lot of time to really make a decision because the awareness would have circulated very well as well as more clarification would have surfaced that would aid decision making instead of going above our heads predicting the outcome of something that could even change before the proposed time because there is still a possibility that the price of bitcoin crashes and I am sure when that happens, none of the discussions about this would really matter.

I don't see a reason to worry with coins in exchanges beyond the usual ones. Besides this, emergent consensus is still ahead (https://coin.dance/blocks) of SegWit.


There are no miners who "don't care" about wasting electricity, they all care, otherwise they wouldn't be constantly trying to be ahead of the curve. Mining is not a charity in the end. Eventually there could be some miners running at no profit, but definitely there are no miners mining on the red.

These people in the hats wouldnt care to mine home and waste few KWatt every hour (or rent some hashing power for small fraction of Bitcoin for a day just to support their case), but for any industrial miner paying a lot for electricity its very risky. Thats why I think no big miner like BitFurry joins this, and there are not enought BIP148 supporters to have more than few % of current hashrate (the irony is the people in the hats often hate the miners, but without chain with most proof of work, they cannot get their chain a Bitcoin name).

I think smart exchanges are going to list both, because there's a lot of exchange fees to be taken from all people selling bitcoinA for bitcoinB and vice versa.
They've learned their lesson with ETC/ETH.

However, this is going to be one big replay-attack cluster fuck, because the split starts as a soft fork ; it is not going to be easy to separate both types of transactions.  Actually, exchanges are in a better position to separate them than individual users are, because exchanges could easily get their hands on coins of coinbase transactions on one prong or another, while individual users can't really, and it is the only way to avoid replays.

exchange were very clear about supporting the original fork and UASF is against what the dev core think and therefore the original fork, if they are not going to support it why we should worry about? our coin are safe there if not for hackers

besides you need enough node to have UASF doing something significant and create a minority fork, this explain well what will going to happen https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-uasf-and-skin-in-the-game-7695031c5689

Replay protection is not even needed because this is a soft fork, unless the suicidal BUcoin which wanted to do this without replay attack.

If the split happens then services that aren't ready by listing both coins are effectively scamming you from your share.

It's like a company splits into two, two different shares now exist, and they only give you 1 part.

What might happen is that people sell for fiat and hold, waiting to see how things play out, rather than hold coins.

"Core" is not a group, it's a decentralized development team so every single person working in Core have separate opinions. Greg Maxwell thinks BIP148 is too rushed while LukeJR thinks it's the only way out, so this proves everyone has their own opinion and can act accordingly.

I used to think that BIP148 was too reckless, but lack of consensus has made me jump the fence.

We can NOT wait +1 year for BIP149. The fees will be insane by then.

The frankensegwit camp is just a mess so that is out of the question.

The only alternative to UASF is that miners signal for segwit, avoiding the possible mess, or an agreement with a proper HF plan, not the 6 month rushed nonsense.

Well, we have experienced a huge hack incident back in 2013 and since then many bitcoin holders started maintaining cold storage either in a paper wallet or in their dedicated hardware. It does not make any sense to call it secure if you have shared your private key with the exchange or web wallet service provider. Even if you are enabling 2FA like features, it just secures your account and not the exchange's or web wallet's database. Therefore, it is recommended to maintain a cold storage.

So which exchanges are safe to use and which are not?

We need to wait to what plans they have, I guess the next month they will make statement explaining what they will do. We don´t even know if there will be a split of if nothing will happen. Anyway a conservative move could be to withdraw coins to your wallet (not an online wallet but one whose keys are under your control) and wait until the situation is cleared.

Soft or hard fork have nothing to do with replay attack.  If there are two prongs on the chain, whether it is a bilateral hard fork split, or a minority soft fork split from the main chain, and you want users to "vote in the market", when two coins are listed on exchanges, users must be able to transact one version of the coin, and not transact the other version of the coin.  If there's no protection against replay, then every transaction they do on one prong, is also a valid transaction on the other one and will most probably be picked up and included, making the "economic voting" of the user moot: he will not be able to sell one version, and keep the other one.

In other words, without replay protection, there's no room AT ALL for the user in this "user" activated soft fork.  The only power the user had, was to vote in the market with his money when miners had already split off, and exchanges listed both coins.  But without any replay protection, this is going to be one hell of a fuck-up.