Gavin announcement explanation please.

[dasource]

A worst case scenario:

Half of the merchants/miners/users still use the bitcoin-qt, work on original chain; another half of the merchants/miners/users upgraded to bitcoin-xt and work on the new xt chain

Pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain, which means the total coin supply becomes 42 million if you count both chains, then price of the coins on both chains will be cut by half

Hash rate will also be cut by half on both chains if the miners are 50/50 divided. Having a competing chain with almost the same hash power as your chain is a nightmare: It means your chain will be easily exposed to attack ( almost 51%, so the attack will succeed every once a while), double spending and transaction reverse will be daily event if the majority of the hash power on the other chain decided to do so. There will be hash wars which benefit none

So, like Jeff Garzik said, the hard fork is extinction level event, it should be carried out with fully reached consensus

This is a common misunderstanding from those who haven't seen Gavin's proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the super-majority of nodes update their clients.

[1714708156]

1714708156

[1714708156]

1714708156

[1714708156]

1714708156

[1714708156]

1714708156

[1714708156]

1714708156

[1714708156]

1714708156

[johnyj]

A worst case scenario:

Half of the merchants/miners/users still use the bitcoin-qt, work on original chain; another half of the merchants/miners/users upgraded to bitcoin-xt and work on the new xt chain

Pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain, which means the total coin supply becomes 42 million if you count both chains, then price of the coins on both chains will be cut by half

Hash rate will also be cut by half on both chains if the miners are 50/50 divided. Having a competing chain with almost the same hash power as your chain is a nightmare: It means your chain will be easily exposed to attack ( almost 51%, so the attack will succeed every once a while), double spending and transaction reverse will be daily event if the majority of the hash power on the other chain decided to do so. There will be hash wars which benefit none

So, like Jeff Garzik said, the hard fork is extinction level event, it should be carried out with fully reached consensus

This is a common misunderstanding from those who haven't seen Gavin's proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the super-majority of nodes update their clients.

Of course a 50/50 divide is the worst scenario, currently the consensus is larger blocks is the way to go. To make it more smooth, Satoshi suggested phase-in the change earlier in several releases. But still, when someone is against the change, they would refuse to upgrade to the preparing-for-the-larger-block version

[Beefcake]

All this different information it is hard to know what is what.  But I am liking what the senior members are saying as far as not losing my coins.  I vote for that option!

[hund]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

Or on the new fork depending on which one makes it ...

Will you stop spreading nonsense ... how are we going to lose coins by your logic?

You could loose your coins in case you use them after the fork on Gavincoin but then it turns out the gavincoin is plummeting in value against core (be it because some powerful people dump it or be it because techical problems arise) and miners switch back to the old fork on which your coins will be gone as MP already announced to mess with txs. It could likely happen that coins you spend on one chain happen to be spent on the other chain aswell as signed txs are the same on both chains and can and probably will be broadcast on both chains.

[hund]

A worst case scenario:

Half of the merchants/miners/users still use the bitcoin-qt, work on original chain; another half of the merchants/miners/users upgraded to bitcoin-xt and work on the new xt chain

Pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain, which means the total coin supply becomes 42 million if you count both chains, then price of the coins on both chains will be cut by half

Hash rate will also be cut by half on both chains if the miners are 50/50 divided. Having a competing chain with almost the same hash power as your chain is a nightmare: It means your chain will be easily exposed to attack ( almost 51%, so the attack will succeed every once a while), double spending and transaction reverse will be daily event if the majority of the hash power on the other chain decided to do so. There will be hash wars which benefit none

So, like Jeff Garzik said, the hard fork is extinction level event, it should be carried out with fully reached consensus

This!
It could well happen this grows into a full blown miners war.

This is a common misunderstanding from those who haven't seen Gavin's proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the super-majority of nodes update their clients.

Also some miners could update to XT only with the intend to switch back to 'core' after the fork. So one can not be so sure about network consensus at all or 'supermajority' as some mining power could just play pretending.

In case it plays out like this likely both chains will loose a lot of value (up to 99%)

[dasource]

My understanding of Gavin's motive is that the hard fork is purely ego driven. There's no urgency to change block size. He just wants to be dramatic and make his personal mark on it. But controversy, technical-wise, is that some Bitcoin users may have their coins lose compatibility with the new implementation. In a sense, it may be Gavin and Hearn's attempt to hijack the Bitcoin name and implement their own coin or make changes to the protocol.

Everything you said is inaccurate. The reason there is a debate is because there are a lot of people on both sides of the blocksize increase, Gavin is not even close to being alone on wanting to increase the limit. He does not want to be the one to make the call on what happens. If you haven't watched a recent Q&A with Gavin and Mike you should, they specifically discuss the blocksize issue at the 27 minute mark https://youtu.be/RIafZXRDH7w?t=27m50s
Also no one is going to lose any coins unless you are a miner receive block rewards and you start mining on the "wrong/old" fork.

Or on the new fork depending on which one makes it ...

Will you stop spreading nonsense ... how are we going to lose coins by your logic?

You could loose your coins in case you use them after the fork on Gavincoin but then it turns out the gavincoin is plummeting in value (be it because some powerful people dump it or be it because techical problems arise) and miners switch back to the old fork on which your coins will be gone as MP already announced to mess with txs. It could likely happen that coins you spend on one chain happen to be spent on the other chain aswell as signed txs are the same on both chains and can and probably will be broadcast on both chains.

You have no idea what you are talking about ... seriously!

[hund]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

[coinableS]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

Yea everyone should dump their btc and buy some shitcoins. LTC whew! Remember when that was $28 bucks each? How's the order of magnitude drop feel at $1.80  Don't forget to buy that potcoin and dashcoin and all the other unoriginal ripoffs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for BTC.

[EndTheFed321]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

Yea everyone should dump their btc and buy some shitcoins. LTC whew! Remember when that was $28 bucks each? How's the order of magnitude drop feel at $1.80  Don't forget to buy that potcoin and dashcoin and all the other unoriginal ripoffs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for BTC.

no, no everone go out and get into Scam coin OneCoin 

[hund]

Don't forget to buy that potcoin and dashcoin and all the other unoriginal ripoffs that wouldn't exist if it weren't for BTC.

Are you still using Nexus browser? Because the unoriginal ripoff firefox you are probably using now couldn't exist if it wasn't for nexus in the 1990s.

[Eastwind]

Your coins are fine. If the fork does not go well and there are two competing chains "old coin" and "new coin" they will both be using today's blockchain as a reference as to who owns what and then split from there, so worst case scenario you will have double the coins, one for each fork.

So I can spend my coins twice, once in each fork?

[Amph]

Your coins are fine. If the fork does not go well and there are two competing chains "old coin" and "new coin" they will both be using today's blockchain as a reference as to who owns what and then split from there, so worst case scenario you will have double the coins, one for each fork.

So I can spend my coins twice, once in each fork?

and this is not exactly desiderable, it's like asking doing a legit 51%, so there must be an agreement on what chain we should use, we can't simply use both, if one go wrong

XT should be treated like a simply upgrade like 0.11, or call it even 1.00 so we can begin from a fresh start

[LiteCoinGuy]

A worst case scenario:

Half of the merchants/miners/users still use the bitcoin-qt, work on original chain; another half of the merchants/miners/users upgraded to bitcoin-xt and work on the new xt chain

Pre-fork coins can be spent on both chain, which means the total coin supply becomes 42 million if you count both chains, then price of the coins on both chains will be cut by half

Hash rate will also be cut by half on both chains if the miners are 50/50 divided. Having a competing chain with almost the same hash power as your chain is a nightmare: It means your chain will be easily exposed to attack ( almost 51%, so the attack will succeed every once a while), double spending and transaction reverse will be daily event if the majority of the hash power on the other chain decided to do so. There will be hash wars which benefit none

So, like Jeff Garzik said, the hard fork is extinction level event, it should be carried out with fully reached consensus

This is a common misunderstanding from those who haven't seen Gavin's proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the super-majority of nodes update their clients.

Of course a 50/50 divide is the worst scenario, currently the consensus is larger blocks is the way to go. To make it more smooth, Satoshi suggested phase-in the change earlier in several releases. But still, when someone is against the change, they would refuse to upgrade to the preparing-for-the-larger-block version

that is the way we will go. dont worry noobs 

[rjclarke2000]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

I still am a little confused and worried. I was going to buy another fairly large amount of btc but I must be honest I don't know what to do now.

I am the same as some of the others here and just buy and hold. (Whether this is good or not, it's what I do) btc is one of my investments as are precious metals. Btc has always seemed more interesting and appealing since getting involved in about sept/ oct 2013.

I'd be pissed off losing coins or suddenly holding a load of junk. I am still a bit confused about Gavin's proposal and as to when he wants it done. I understand it needs to be done as it can't carry on the way it is but it's hard to get into my head as I am not a techie guy and not a miner etc. I buy and hold and enjoy reading stuff in here.

I hold other alt coins but I would not feel comfortable transferring my btc hoard to an alt coin!

There is a lot of confusion here. Will btc still exist? Will it be something different? Sorry for the questions but it really does need to be explained in laymans terms.

I am sure there are many of us in here like me who want to know but I am happy to be the stupid one holding his hand up saying I don't get it.


Anyway, enough talking from me.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Thanks for all the replies everyone.

I still am a little confused and worried. I was going to buy another fairly large amount of btc but I must be honest I don't know what to do now.

I am the same as some of the others here and just buy and hold. (Whether this is good or not, it's what I do) btc is one of my investments as are precious metals. Btc has always seemed more interesting and appealing since getting involved in about sept/ oct 2013.

I'd be pissed off losing coins or suddenly holding a load of junk. I am still a bit confused about Gavin's proposal and as to when he wants it done. I understand it needs to be done as it can't carry on the way it is but it's hard to get into my head as I am not a techie guy and not a miner etc. I buy and hold and enjoy reading stuff in here.

I hold other alt coins but I would not feel comfortable transferring my btc hoard to an alt coin!

There is a lot of confusion here. Will btc still exist? Will it be something different? Sorry for the questions but it really does need to be explained in laymans terms.

I am sure there are many of us in here like me who want to know but I am happy to be the stupid one holding his hand up saying I don't get it.


Anyway, enough talking from me.

RJ, we've spoken a number of times & as bitcoin investors we're pretty much identical.
I share pretty much all the fears you've highlighted/brought up.
I'm interested to see if anybody can answer the questions you've asked in the post I've quoted.
Please anybody, tech experts etc, put us out of our misery.

As long term HODLERS are we ok, what do you suggest we do, any advice, tips or help are much needed.
Thanks in advance.

[rjclarke2000]

Yes we have.

I have seen a lot of your posts and I have thought the same thing. We seems to have the same plan.

I know how you are feeling at the moment.

[balu2]

@noob

Buy silver with your money. Stay away from this rigged bitcoin game. Normal people can not win here.

[ArticMine]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

Litcoin is not the answer here, neither is Doge and most other alt-coins. Why because they also have the same fixed blocksize issue and furthermore those communities have done nothing about fixed blocksize limits in spite of the debate that has been raging in the Bitcoin community for years. In order to use an alt-coin as part of a hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit on needs to spend the time, do the research and pick an alt-coin that does not have this issue.  Otherwise it is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

[hund]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

Litcoin is not the answer here, neither is Doge and most other alt-coins. Why because they also have the same fixed blocksize issue and furthermore those communities have done nothing about fixed blocksize limits in spite of the debate that has been raging in the Bitcoin community for years. In order to use an alt-coin as part of a hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit on needs to spend the time, do the research and pick an alt-coin that does not have this issue.  Otherwise it is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

"Doing nothing" is also a choice and that option has just as many supporters if not more than Gavins' poop.

[Amph]

@OP
I'd just forget about BTC for a little while and get Litecoin, Dogecoin and some other alts with good reputation. They won't be affected in a negative way by all this. Most people with a brain will choose that route. Won't be a mistake to hold some Litecoin in case the morons blow up the Titanic.

Also for some understanding look at this crap:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

Litcoin is not the answer here, neither is Doge and most other alt-coins. Why because they also have the same fixed blocksize issue and furthermore those communities have done nothing about fixed blocksize limits in spite of the debate that has been raging in the Bitcoin community for years. In order to use an alt-coin as part of a hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit on needs to spend the time, do the research and pick an alt-coin that does not have this issue.  Otherwise it is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

someone has proposed maidsafe, but you can't even call it an altcoin, right now every alt is affected by this, because they are just clone, i don't know right now if coin that run with cryptonote are affected to, but certainly they are, it's not a problem for those alt because they have still ridiculous numbers of Transactions per second, that's why newbie like "hund" can't see the difference