what happens to unconfirmed txs on the forked chain?

[consar]

hello,
i had an unconfirmed transaction on the snapshot block. after the snapshot it was confirmed successfully but i was wondering if the forked coins will be on the sending address or the receiving?

[HCP]

If it was unconfirmed at block 491407... then the sending address was still in control of the coins at the time of the snapshot.

[consar]

cool, thank you.

[xFiber]

If it was unconfirmed at block 491407... then the sending address was still in control of the coins at the time of the snapshot.

Hmm that seems quite strange to me to be fair. So everybody who sent an unconfirmed transaction will still be in control of the coins on the forked chain? So if I understand correctly dedicating hash power to the forked chain is rather pointless because right after the fork there's nothing to mine? Can someone verify this for the sake of having a second opinion?

[AdolfinWolf]

If it was unconfirmed at block 491407... then the sending address was still in control of the coins at the time of the snapshot.

Hmm that seems quite strange to me to be fair. So everybody who sent an unconfirmed transaction will still be in control of the coins on the forked chain? So if I understand correctly dedicating hash power to the forked chain is rather pointless because right after the fork there's nothing to mine? Can someone verify this for the sake of having a second opinion?

It seems to me that right after the fork would be the best time to mine actually, since the momentum is at its peak. Like we've seen with bitcoincash, alot of people wanted to get their BCH to the exchanges as soon as possible, creating a shitton of txs with unnecessary high fees.

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash-transactionfees.html

The tx fees + the price were alot higher the first few weeks with bitcoincash. Now you never know for sure, but im pretty confident something similar will happen with bitcoingold.

[DannyHamilton]

Hmm that seems quite strange to me to be fair. So everybody who sent an unconfirmed transaction will still be in control of the coins on the forked chain?

Depending on the fork, and whether it has replay protection or not, it is possible that the transaction could become confirmed on BOTH forks.  In either case, the most recent confirmed transaction on a given fork will determine which address has control of the coins on that fork.

So if I understand correctly dedicating hash power to the forked chain is rather pointless because right after the fork there's nothing to mine?

There is the block subsidy.  Transaction fees would need to wait for users to start sending transactions that are valid on that fork.  However, the subsidy is still the majority of revenue per block for most (all?) bitcoin forks.

[AdolfinWolf]

Depending on the fork, and whether it has replay protection or not, it is possible that the transaction could become confirmed on BOTH forks.  In either case, the most recent confirmed transaction on a given fork will determine which address has control of the coins on that fork.

Is this something that has been "implemented"/fixed  in bitcoingold already?

Various articles i've read over the past week tells me they don't have such a thing, but i'm wondering with what they are going to replace that, if they're not adding it.

https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002320451-Statement-on-Bitcoin-Gold-BTG-

Seems to me that they really don't think that it is such a big deal..?

[achow101]

Depending on the fork, and whether it has replay protection or not, it is possible that the transaction could become confirmed on BOTH forks.  In either case, the most recent confirmed transaction on a given fork will determine which address has control of the coins on that fork.

Is this something that has been "implemented"/fixed  in bitcoingold already?

Various articles i've read over the past week tells me they don't have such a thing, but i'm wondering with what they are going to replace that, if they're not adding it.

https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002320451-Statement-on-Bitcoin-Gold-BTG-

Seems to me that they really don't think that it is such a big deal..?

Replay protection is supposed to be implemented for Bitcoin Gold but they have not done so yet.

[consar]

Depending on the fork, and whether it has replay protection or not, it is possible that the transaction could become confirmed on BOTH forks.  In either case, the most recent confirmed transaction on a given fork will determine which address has control of the coins on that fork.

Is this something that has been "implemented"/fixed  in bitcoingold already?

Various articles i've read over the past week tells me they don't have such a thing, but i'm wondering with what they are going to replace that, if they're not adding it.

https://support.bittrex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002320451-Statement-on-Bitcoin-Gold-BTG-

Seems to me that they really don't think that it is such a big deal..?

Replay protection is supposed to be implemented for Bitcoin Gold but they have not done so yet.

in fact, they were looking for someone to implement replay protection 3 days ago.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/786mnr/bitcoin_gold_has_been_lying_on_their_webpage/

[DannyHamilton]

Is this something that has been "implemented"/fixed  in bitcoingold already?

Bitcoin Gold is not something that interests me.  Therefore, I have not learned anything about it.

I suggest you try asking in the Altcoin Discussion sub-forum.  You are more likely to find someone that knows something about Bitcoin Gold there.

This sub-forum is for discussion about Bitcoin.

[xFiber]

So if I understand correctly dedicating hash power to the forked chain is rather pointless because right after the fork there's nothing to mine?

There is the block subsidy.  Transaction fees would need to wait for users to start sending transactions that are valid on that fork.  However, the subsidy is still the majority of revenue per block for most (all?) bitcoin forks.

Of course! I completely forgot about the block rewards. That adds a whole new layer of insight. So essentially it might even become more profitable for miners to mine blocks since there are less transactions to be mined? Or doesn't the size of a block correlate with the difficulty to mine a certain block? Sorry for the amount of questions but I never properly researched mining and everything that goes with it. A lot of food for thought, that's for sure!

[DannyHamilton]

Of course! I completely forgot about the block rewards. That adds a whole new layer of insight. So essentially it might even become more profitable for miners to mine blocks since there are less transactions to be mined? Or doesn't the size of a block correlate with the difficulty to mine a certain block?

No.  The number of transactions in a block does not correlate at all with the difficulty.  Difficulty is entirely dependent on the total amount of hash power being performed globally.  As miners add more net hash power to the global system, difficulty increases.  As net hash power is removed from the system, difficulty decreases.

[HCP]

Or, in other words... at any given time, a block with 1 transaction in it is (theoretically) just as "difficult" to mine as a block with 1000 transactions in it.