So the destruction of Bitcoin is now official?

[Lauda]

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

The chain can't disappear. People can only stop using it. If everyone comes on board the Chain B you will have your coins there as well.
This happens with just about any hard fork. This one isn't special at all, aside from the drama around it.

The coins on Chain A will always be there, but if nobody uses it then it is useless.

I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.

The possibility is there, but the chances are slim. If the majority jumps onto Chain B, Chain A would be risky. The difficulty would drop as it gets abandoned by miners, thus increasing the chance of a 51%.

[gustav]

What happens when people switch back to Core after Gavincoin turned out to be no good?

Peter Wuille (who is a very respectable intelectual in the space) hints at “things we don’t even know of that could break”

[jonald_fyookball]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

Well you are correct, however in this example (where chain A disapears)  you still have your coins on chain B, which is the one that matters.

The only risk is for people who try to sell their chain B coins for chain A coins , betting chain A will succeed , but it really fails.

[Amph]

If there are better solutions that have been proposed then the update is definitely not mandatory. Even though I agree on the increase of the block size, I do not agree with Gavin forcing it. If the developers don't agree then it should wait.

but as it is right now, there are no better alternatives, so in fact it is mandatory, we can't certainly wait forever on it, there is still time until early 2016 i think, then you must have a better plan or simply do the hardfork or the soft version

[LiteCoinGuy]

Is this more FUD?

Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.

correct. only a moron would think that we dont have to change the blocksize. good luck morons! 

[redsn0w]

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

The chain can't disappear. People can only stop using it. If everyone comes on board the Chain B you will have your coins there as well.
This happens with just about any hard fork. This one isn't special at all, aside from the drama around it.

The coins on Chain A will always be there, but if nobody uses it then it is useless.

I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.

The possibility is there, but the chances are slim. If the majority jumps onto Chain B, Chain A would be risky. The difficulty would drop as it gets abandoned by miners, thus increasing the chance of a 51%.

Maybe I have used the wrong words, but I was partial correct with my logic... because if someone will buy bitcoin from the chain-A and after a couple of days nobody will continue to use that chain then he basically will lose 'money' (Fiat currency that he used to buy Chain-A~btc.).

This is one of the problem, maybe the important one because at the end it is only a question about money.

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

Well you are correct, however in this example (where chain A disapears)  you still have your coins on chain B, which is the one that matters.

The only risk is for people who try to sell their chain B coins for chain A coins , betting chain A will succeed , but it really fails.

Yes of course, it will be one of the risk.

[gustav]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

[chennan]

It is not wise to fork bitcoin, put new name Gavincoin. The two coins will be ruined together. some concepts are discussed for long time before being implemented,such as big block size, fast synchronization ect. The dev team will reach to consensus before releasing new version bitcoin qt.

[Q7]

I just thought we are overreacting to the situation. More like a fud trying to scare people away telling them that the community is undecided and with no direction. I think your coins holding are pretty much there whether it is on chain A or B or whatever you guys want to call it. It won't just disappear just like that.

[BillyBobZorton]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

[Slark]

Great. Just as I thought we don't have enough of perplexing bitcoin bitcoin news. The title of this thread is an exaggeration of course but still this news are not 100% optimistic.
I understand that bitcoin have to change, it must evolve and be updated, but to do this in that way is a little too much. It will create drama, people won't understand this and wtf is Gavincoin?
20 MB fork is inevitable but now I see that decentralization of bitcoin can be tinkered with as much as developers want it to be...

[redsn0w]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Another opinion:




What do you think if the blockSize will be random? Not even 1 MB not even 20 MB  .

[blockchain slavery]

I think both chains will become worthless within short time. Very likely "Bitcoin" (no matter which one) will loose #1 spot on the list of coins if Gavin gets his way.
I also think core will not die because it's not broken.
I'm going to keep exactly 1 Bitcoin in cold store and not moving after fork. I'll put 90% of my money into altcoins. 

[thejaytiesto]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Another opinion:




What do you think if the blockSize will be random? Not even 1 MB not even 20 MB  .

What was this test like? Did they test visa+mastercard+paypal+major banks transaction per second volume? because that is what Bitcoin should be aiming at. Anything less is shit.

[BTI4LIFE]

This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin   and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).

Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin)
but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right?

Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense.
In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B.
If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies.
...

So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.

You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value.

^increase possibility of double-spends? hmmmm

[gustav]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Nope, i don't agree on that.

Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc.  
Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo.
This whole problem is imaginary in my humble opinion.

[redsn0w]

What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.

Nope, i don't agree on that.

Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc.  
Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo.
This whole problem is imaginary.

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

[gustav]

But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).

Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners.

And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways.

[Netnox]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

[gustav]

Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.

Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price?

At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ.
AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins.

I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast. There will only be casualties and no winner in that war imo.