Hard Fork - August 2

[HabBear]

A Chain split is never a good thing, because it creates confusion and fear and that is never a good thing for investors. On the other hand, if we can get rid of the group of people who are sabotaging and slowing down Bitcoin, then we have to cut off the limb that is causing all this cancer in our community. I would rather go forward without a arm and/or a leg, than dragging a sick limb behind me that is causing discomfort. < The Jihan/Roger Ver group is the Cancer of this community >   ^grrrrrrrr^

Aren't Jihan/Roger Ver for the solution that speeds up the bitcoin network by allowing greater transaction sizes through?

The sabotagers, as you call them, would be the people that refuse to let Bitcoin grow with the increased demand and adoption we've all witnessed and want to continue. There are so many alternatives available. If bitcoin does not keep up with speed and cost it will be abandoned.

[deisik]

I want a real chance for users to vote.

This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like. 

So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this

You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions

The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too

[Cuber Krypton]

I want a real chance for users to vote.

This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like.  

So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this

You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions

The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too

This is why I have been abundantly clear everywhere that I perfectly support Hard Forks in these cases. I think this soft fork represents much more danger. Because until users get to vote safely (no replay, reorg), you are stuck in a limbo game of chicken while everyone else is watching from the sidelines wondering what will happen with our money.

If you made it a hard fork, this could be immediately be solved in the market.

In fact, the only way I understand the UASF adoption procedure as a soft fork, is that game theory wise, it diminishes the hashrate need for it to go through. Instead of 51%, you now only need 51% - x where X is the market share of the biggest mining pool. Also the fact that whoever splits the chain definetively, altcoins themselves. This is the game of chicken preparing for the game of blame that will come after and the rights to Bitcoin brandname.

It creates increasing and exponential pressure for miner adoption rather than a real vote. As a user, until there is a Hard Fork, you are just participating in a peaceful sit in. Or a vigil. Or a meetup. It has its merits, but no practical utility.

[Herbert2020]

what happened for Bitcoin Unlimited? Once ever, I buy BTU on bitfinex, but bitfinex seems like an unethical businessman, merciful, and shortly after, BTU is gone away

even if BTU were to become the future bitcoin and gain all the support you shouldn't have bought it! because it is not yet anything! you bought a virtual promise at best. and the only person making a profit is the exchange themselves who get the fees from you.

to OP, i disagree with saying there is an urgency for a scaling solution. the spam attack is the problem that is pretending there is an urgency.

[Amph]

Stupid poll. Where's the option for "Fuck segwit, it's poision. We need a big block for to 8mb asap!"?

worst idea, which is not helping bitcoin to solve the scaling problem anyway, so why bother with hard forking, which will split anyway the chain?

segwit without the hard fork is the way to go for now, until better solution come up, it's not about finding the best solution but just the best we have

[CyberKuro]

what happened for Bitcoin Unlimited? Once ever, I buy BTU on bitfinex, but bitfinex seems like an unethical businessman, merciful, and shortly after, BTU is gone away

even if BTU were to become the future bitcoin and gain all the support you shouldn't have bought it! because it is not yet anything! you bought a virtual promise at best. and the only person making a profit is the exchange themselves who get the fees from you.

to OP, i disagree with saying there is an urgency for a scaling solution. the spam attack is the problem that is pretending there is an urgency.

I'm not sure whether blockchain will split or not but I think we're really need scaling solution to increase adopters and merchants to adopt and use bitcoin as an alternative currency which could be used all over the world (as long as there is internet connection) just like people use PayPal to purchase goods right now. The spam attack could be prevented by increase blocksize, so miners could process more transactions every 10 minutes.

[Pennywis3]

Soft fork please 

[xFiber]

I don't think bitcoin will actually split. It's just important for us to implement the segwit so we can go forward. Segwit can be a big step in preparing bitcoin to go mainstream.

[deisik]

I want a real chance for users to vote.

This means a chain split and we will vote with our money. The Full Node propaganda is crap and even if it had any technical support, any sane user, and by user I mean Exchanges who control the money flow, will just run 2 nodes. The only way for ALL users to have a say, is for both Chains to be listed and let users dump whichever they don't like. 

So yes. I want a chain split so I can have a say in this

You forget about gory details and nasty repercussions

The most serious one which exchanges never fail to stress seems to be related to the so-called replay attack which is possible when a chain split happens (just like it happened with the Ethereum split). This attack comes down to spending coins on one chain, and the respective transaction inadvertently (or not so inadvertently) propagating to another chain, so coins end up having been spent on the two chains. I read that Coinbase lost some monies due to this kind of attack. It might well have been a deliberate attempt by someone rebroadcasting every transaction from one chain to the other. Without doubt, there should be a host of other issues too

This is why I have been abundantly clear everywhere that I perfectly support Hard Forks in these cases. I think this soft fork represents much more danger. Because until users get to vote safely (no replay, reorg), you are stuck in a limbo game of chicken while everyone else is watching from the sidelines wondering what will happen with our money

And what does it change in the end?

Cloning an existing blockchain with all its transactions as well as balances and making this new blockchain somewhat incompatible with the original one is the way to go when some group doesn't agree to proposed changes. Would that count as a hard fork? And does soft fork pose these dangers if there is no second blockchain and thus no potential for such issues arising? That's the reason why major exchanges require any hard fork resulting in what is essentially an altcoin to implement means to avoid the replay attack before they are going to list this fork (altcoin)

[roadbits]

what happened for Bitcoin Unlimited? Once ever, I buy BTU on bitfinex, but bitfinex seems like an unethical businessman, merciful, and shortly after, BTU is gone away

even if BTU were to become the future bitcoin and gain all the support you shouldn't have bought it! because it is not yet anything! you bought a virtual promise at best. and the only person making a profit is the exchange themselves who get the fees from you.

to OP, i disagree with saying there is an urgency for a scaling solution. the spam attack is the problem that is pretending there is an urgency.

I'm not sure whether blockchain will split or not but I think we're really need scaling solution to increase adopters and merchants to adopt and use bitcoin as an alternative currency which could be used all over the world (as long as there is internet connection) just like people use PayPal to purchase goods right now. The spam attack could be prevented by increase blocksize, so miners could process more transactions every 10 minutes.

I will also not vote for this blockchain splitting and not sure this is going to happen or not. One thing is sure that if it split, then people will get confused, and it takes some time to attract new people to use bitcoins in real life. This segwit intention is to attract more new users and Bitcoin will use by all over the world without any issues. I think after this August 1st many issues of bitcoin will be solved.

[ImHash]

Stupid poll. Where's the option for "Fuck segwit, it's poision. We need a big block for to 8mb asap!"?

Obvious shill, why is it so obvious? because you have nothing to say other than cursing Core and their upgrade. I think Core should also change their name like BU did and now is EC.