2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen.

[R2D221]

So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied.

When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains.

Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD.

[1714145936]

1714145936

[1714145936]

1714145936

[1714145936]

1714145936

[1714145936]

1714145936

[TKeenan]

So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied.

When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains.

Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD.

But what if I spend all my BitcoinA AND then also spend all my BitcoinB - will that be 'double spending'?  Will I actually get to buy twice as much stuff now?  It seems like this will result in 21M X 2 bitcoins in total.  I like this idea.  I've been trying to find an easy way to double my money.  I say go with the fork!!

[Bitware]

So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied.

When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains.

Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD.

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

[R2D221]

So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied.

When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains.

Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD.

But what if I spend all my BitcoinA AND then also spend all my BitcoinB - will that be 'double spending'?  Will I actually get to buy twice as much stuff now?  It seems like this will result in 21M X 2 bitcoins in total.  I like this idea.  I've been trying to find an easy way to double my money.  I say go with the fork!!

No, you still don't understand. There won't be “Bitcoin A” and “Bitcoin B” at the same time. Either one or the other exists, and you won't be able to exchange between.

[R2D221]

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

[Bitware]

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

[R2D221]

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

Because you're on the losing side. You will only have a blockchain for you and your friends, and it will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is actually using.

[Amph]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

[R2D221]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

[melody82]

Look at this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075510.0

There is an interview with Gavin on there that makes things a little more clear.  He explains different things and goes over his position very clearly.  It turns out he has very good reasons for wanting the 20mb block size, and it isn't just an ego trip.  It is a really good listen.

[Bitware]

What if people continue mining on the blockchain that loses the hashrate battle?

What if people still run the client and send and receive coins on the client that lost the hashrate battle?

While technically possible, if they're on the losing side, they will have just 10% of the network. It would be a wasted effort to continue mining there.

So, if it is "technically possible" to mine on an alternate chain and send and receive coins on an alternate chain, how are the efforts wasted?

Because you're on the losing side. You will only have a blockchain for you and your friends, and it will not be compatible with what the rest of the world is actually using.

What if my friends and I are most bitcoin users?

Are we users the ones who apply value to any crypto coin, regardless of who mines it and the chain version they mine it on?

Is it the Bitcoin users trust and transaction fees that Bitcoin valuation and the miners revenue relies on?

It sounds like you are ASSuming that miners version requires users to upgrade to the version compatible with what they miners use. I do not believe that is necessarily the case, and I think it quite dangerous and naive for you to be so reliant on that ASSumption.

[Cruxer]

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

[TKeenan]

Im little tired of this 20 MB block discussion. Consensus? Of course, in theory beautiful idea but in reality someone has to do it and many people that have no technical knowledge about bitcoin are for or against, please.

Remember Coke/New Coke?  That didn't work out well either. 

Bitcoin/New Bitcoin - is going to be a problem.  This time, the death of Bitcoin is probably real.

[Amph]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

[dserrano5]

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

That enforcement is made in code. The changes will be there but they won't be active until 90% of the last N blocks supports them.

[turvarya]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

The 51% is what you theoretical need to make a double spend(there are models where you need less). People are just to fixed on that number.

But I also don't understand, what "90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork" is supposed to mean.
As far as I understand the network, it can't be that all the full nodes announce to each other, that they are ready(since a full node doesn't see all the other full nodes). Is it about blocks being mined, with the new version?

Edit:
I see, dserrano5 answered my question.

[R2D221]

If I wanted what the "rest of the world" wanted I would just put fiat in a bank. By your definition, we are already on the "losing side" because we use Bitcoin over fiat.

Bitcoin adoption is growing. I don't get how's that being on the losing side.

I use Bitcoin for certain reasons, and if Bitcoin forks into something I don't agree with, I will continue to use OldBitcoin, even if it's not accepted at Starbucks like NewBitcoin.

Very idealistic, but we need consensus for a reason.

[R2D221]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

Well, if you just left it at 51%, the network is still unstable and can still go either side. With 90%, the probability of success is increased.

[virtualx]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

Democratically yes, but you want to have consesus and stability in the bitcoin network for it to function. If 49% of the people would not use the same version, this is a very high amount of users. To be precise, it means about half of the bitcoin users would be affected. If only 10% uses an old version, it's their lost case. That's why 90% would be better.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

in the end are miners that will decide, like i said, , but why 90%, would not be sufficient 51% for this?

That's exactly the part people don't understand. The fork does not go live until 90% of the network announce that they're ready for the fork.

still i can't understand why the network need 90% to go live, 51% usually define the majority

Afaik 51% just means danger zone activated, but it doesn't necessarily mean at soon as you hit 51% attacks are effective.