Optimal Hard Fork Survival Strategies

[Westin Landon Cox]

Sometime early next year it's likely the blockchain will fork into the XT-chain (allowing for bigger blocks) and the Core-chain (with the 1MB block limit). Assuming Gavin's current proposal is what gets included into XT, it will happen 2 weeks after 75% of the mining power indicates they are mining on the XT-chain. After that the Core-chain will either die or survive. I've been thinking about scenarios in which the Core-chain survives.

To keep things simple I only look at survivability with 25% of the miners or less. It's possible that some miners will come back or even that some miners falsely voted for the XT fork, but it's not good to plan on that.

In every case, the Core-chain would need to survive the first two difficulty adjustments in order to get back to producing 10 minute blocks on average. Directly after the fork blocks would be very slow (40 minute blocks or slower). Difficulty is adjusted each 2016 blocks (typically 2 weeks, but this is an atypical situation). How long it would take to get to the first adjustment, and what the difficulty is afterwards, depends on when the actual fork occurs during one of these 2016 block windows.

Color Codes for Block Speeds

To get an idea for what can happen, here are some color codes:

Red: blocks take > 30 minutes on average
Amber: blocks take 30 minutes on average
Yellow: blocks take 20 minutes on average
Green: blocks take 10 minutes on average

It's unavoidable that we are in the red zone directly after the fork. Probably the worst case is if the fork happens right after a difficulty adjustment. In that case, the Core chain would be in the red zone for at least 8 weeks, with blocks taking 40 minutes or more on average. The only good thing about this scenario is that we would go directly to the green zone. I doubt 8 weeks in the red zone is survivable.

I wanted to find out when the "best" time for the fork would be. It depends on what the strategy is, of course. I considered two strategies:

Strategy 1. Get out of the red zone and into the amber zone as quickly as possible. After that, stay in the amber zone with 30 minute blocks for about 6 weeks. After that, we're green.

Strategy 2. Stay a little longer in the red zone and get into the yellow zone as quickly as possible. After that, stay in the yellow zone with 20 minute blocks for about 4 weeks. After that, we're green.

To get some concrete numbers a friend and I wrote a little python code. (Well, I talked; he coded.) It's on github: https://github.com/cjbauer/forkstats

Results

With 25% of the mining power and Strategy 1, the best option is for the fork to happen 89% of the way through the difficulty period (almost 13 days into the two weeks). Then it would take about 1 week to get to the difficulty adjustment and into the amber zone.

With 25% of the mining power and Strategy 2, the best option is for the fork to happen 2/3 of the way through the difficulty period (a little over 9 days into the two weeks). Then it would take almost 3 weeks in the red zone to get to the yellow zone.

The numbers are similar if we get down to 20% or 15% of the mining power, but for each drop add another week or so in the red zone.

If we're down to 10%, then aiming for the yellow zone is unreasonable, since it would require being in the red zone for over two months. It is possible to get to the amber zone after 5 weeks in the red zone.

With 5% survivability becomes unreasonable. To even get to the amber zone would require 3 months in the red zone.

All of this is if we are fortunate enough to fork at an opportune time. In general, the best time is roughly 75% of the way through the difficulty window.

Preemptive Forking

If the Core-chain is passive, then the actual fork will happen at the time when the XT-miners choose to mine their first big block.

On the other hand, there is this 2 week grace period after the 75% threshhold has been reached. Those miners supporting the Core-chain could decide now that during the 2 week grace period at the appropriate block (the one roughly 75% through the difficulty window) they will stop building on blocks that indicate (with the version number) that they will continue on the XT-chain. That is, the Core-chain could choose to preemptively fork at a time that makes it most likely to survive.

[1715226232]

1715226232

[1715226232]

1715226232

[1715226232]

1715226232

[1715226232]

1715226232

[1715226232]

1715226232

[1715226232]

1715226232

[SebastianJu]

Sometime early next year it's likely the blockchain will fork into the XT-chain (allowing for bigger blocks) and the Core-chain (with the 1MB block limit). Assuming Gavin's current proposal is what gets included into XT, it will happen 2 weeks after 75% of the mining power indicates they are mining on the XT-chain. After that the Core-chain will either die or survive.

Oh well, i stopped reading here. The amount of clearvoyance you show is too much for me.

First, bitcoin core will surely get a higher block limit. Secondly... why do you think the majority of miners will switch to a bitcoin version whose is owned by a private company? I cant believe that happening. Otherwise i would have a really wrong view about bitcoiners and their thoughts.

Bitcoin under a tradename Bitcoin-XT, with a developer and company that decide what will happen with bitcoin. Surely that would be the dead to bitcoin and surely i would stay at bitcoin core or leave bitcoin totally. Bitcoin wasnt invented to take financials out of the hands of the banks only to give it in the hand of a private company.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Sometime early next year it's likely the blockchain will fork into the XT-chain

Oh well, i stopped reading here. The amount of clearvoyance you show is too much for me.

First, bitcoin core will surely get a higher block limit. Secondly... why do you think the majority of miners will switch to a bitcoin version whose is owned by a private company? I cant believe that happening. Otherwise i would have a really wrong view about bitcoiners and their thoughts.

Bitcoin under a tradename Bitcoin-XT, with a developer and company that decide what will happen with bitcoin. Surely that would be the dead to bitcoin and surely i would stay at bitcoin core or leave bitcoin totally. Bitcoin wasnt invented to take financials out of the hands of the banks only to give it in the hand of a private company.

i stopped reading there.

[Klestin]

First, bitcoin core will surely get a higher block limit. Secondly... why do you think the majority of miners will switch to a bitcoin version whose is owned by a private company? I cant believe that happening. Otherwise i would have a really wrong view about bitcoiners and their thoughts.

This just in: an open source branch of an open source project = "a private company".

I'll dust off the ouija board for my own take:  Before the fork cliff deadline, we will begin running into the 1MB limit on a semi-regular basis.  The core branch will adopt its own take on block size increase.  The two branches will be made to be compatible (at least in the near term), and the only fork to occur in 2015-16 will be by those individual users who are still running an obsolete version of either branch.  Mostly nobody will notice, just like the last hard fork. 

[Westin Landon Cox]

why do you think the majority of miners will switch to a bitcoin version whose is owned by a private company? I cant believe that happening. Otherwise i would have a really wrong view about bitcoiners and their thoughts.

Mike Hearn's made it clear he supports forking even with a minority of miners. Under that condition, miners might consider joining him just to prevent a fork. As for bitcoiners in general, many of them are sufficiently committed to being on the "winning side" of this argument that they'll gladly run Mike Hearn's code. They want progress, and hope for change and stuff. Being in favor of big blocks is how they know they're good people, not like bad evil reactionaries holding back progress with their evil block limits intended to help the corporations with their plots to profit from global warming by running bitcoin through Tor. Basically: don't be evil; support big blocks.

I think it's less likely to happen since the largest mining pools from China have now said they won't switch to XT. Time will tell.

In the end there might be some compromise lifting of the limit that gets released in Core. I find it hilarious that Gavin's compromise was: You don't like 20MB? Well, how about 8MB now and 8GB later? You like that better? I saw one funny (apparently serious) reply that "conservatives" should be happy with this compromise because there's still a hard block limit of ... 8GB. So I'm not holding out too much hope for a compromise when that's one side's idea of a compromise.

The point of my unreadable post was to figure out how Core could survive even with the loss of a supermajority of miners. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to point out what a post no one read is about in a reply no one will read this far into. 

[PolarPoint]

OP's line to thought is interesting, take time to read the whole post. The second half is easy to follow if you read the first half slowly.

I have not given much thought on 2 forks running simultaneously. OP made a good point about the slim chance of survival for the minority fork if the blockchain forks soon after a difficulty adjustment.

[Westin Landon Cox]

OP's line to thought is interesting, take time to read the whole post. The second half is easy to follow if you read the first half slowly.

I have not given much thought on 2 forks running simultaneously. OP made a good point about the slim chance of survival for the minority fork if the blockchain forks soon after a difficulty adjustment.

Thanks. I probably got too annoyed that the only responses were "didn't read it."

[NUFCrichard]

I don't expect that many people will mine the old fork.  The coins mined there will be, at best, of questionable value.
All vendors and exchanges will accept the new fork, major miners will move to the new fork, people who continue on the old will be wasting mining power with possibly no reward.

It will undoubtedly be adopted by someone, but it will be an alt, and alts have lower values than Bitcoin, I expect that to continue.

[Scamalert]

In the end then will it be the 2-3 large exhange + what client the user get when he goes to bitcoin.org.
I does not matter what the indivual does. Once bitcoin.org point on the chosen client and the major exhange does the same, then will this be the one everybody follow. Nobody want bitcoin that cannot be exhanged to cash. Simple as that. Most people is in for the money not for decentrilization and poltics, those people already exited long time ago.

[tvbcof]

I don't expect that many people will mine the old fork.  The coins mined there will be, at best, of questionable value.
All vendors and exchanges will accept the new fork, major miners will move to the new fork, people who continue on the old will be wasting mining power with possibly no reward.

It will undoubtedly be adopted by someone, but it will be an alt, and alts have lower values than Bitcoin, I expect that to continue.

In the end then will it be the 2-3 large exhange + what client the user get when he goes to bitcoin.org.
I does not matter what the indivual does. Once bitcoin.org point on the chosen client and the major exhange does the same, then will this be the one everybody follow. Nobody want bitcoin that cannot be exhanged to cash. Simple as that. Most people is in for the money not for decentrilization and poltics, those people already exited long time ago.

Difficulties will adjust.  Mine less valuable coins but at a higher rate with given gear.  Probably things will work out more or less zero-sum in this regard free markets being what they are.

Exchanges will form to trade anything for anything if there is a market.  Even if, say, BTC1 is dangerious because it doesn't comply with tracking regulations and only BTC2 can be sold through Coinbase, other exchanges operating in the darker spaces will gladly exchange BTC1 for BTC2 at instentanious market rate (plus commission.)

Of course if the so obtained BTC2 cannot be used at Coinbase because it cannot be _fully_ tracked that creates a sticky problem for some users.  That's probably the end-goal which is being worked towards and it will probably be somewhat effective, but not fully, and with luck it will totally crater BTC2 eventually.

[SebastianJu]

Sometime early next year it's likely the blockchain will fork into the XT-chain

Oh well, i stopped reading here. The amount of clearvoyance you show is too much for me.

First, bitcoin core will surely get a higher block limit. Secondly... why do you think the majority of miners will switch to a bitcoin version whose is owned by a private company? I cant believe that happening. Otherwise i would have a really wrong view about bitcoiners and their thoughts.

Bitcoin under a tradename Bitcoin-XT, with a developer and company that decide what will happen with bitcoin. Surely that would be the dead to bitcoin and surely i would stay at bitcoin core or leave bitcoin totally. Bitcoin wasnt invented to take financials out of the hands of the banks only to give it in the hand of a private company.

i stopped reading there.

I might be wrong so please correct me on the following.

Bitcoin XT has a company with funding rounds behind themselfes. Hearn and Gavin together are part of the company. Bitcoin XT is or will surely be trademarked as a name.

So why should someone fund such a venture without awaiting to profit in some way from it?

Let me know if im wrong. If thats not correct then what remains is "our" bitcoin under the development of someone who wants to force his will when it comes to development decisions.

I might have missed something so please correct me.

[SebastianJu]

Lots of statements with no evidence or known precedent, yet you say things with absolute certainty. Honestly this is very hard to understand and at this point I think it's gibberish, unless I'm missing something.

Hm... i tried to back my point but didnt find that they had a company behind. Im not sure where i read it. Bitcoin xt was meant as a fork so it would be an altcoin. And practically every altcoin was created to gain some money to to issuer. Thats probably why i never doubted that information.

Ok, then are the same security measures in motion for the bitcoin xt code like it is for the bitcoin core code? I cant believe that since it would not make sense to switch to bitcoin xt until gavin could get what he wants. At the same time some bitcoiner voices about the need of a strong "leader" for bitcoin.

I dont find the article anymore that was about planned "milestones".

Might be that i saw things too black. Though giving in to an extortion is a bad thing in itself. I mean its not as if the other developers did not see the need of a change. Only gavin though he need to do things instantly his way. As if everything will break tomorrow.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Lots of statements with no evidence or known precedent, yet you say things with absolute certainty. Honestly this is very hard to understand and at this point I think it's gibberish, unless I'm missing something.

Hm... i tried to back my point but didnt find that they had a company behind. Im not sure where i read it. Bitcoin xt was meant as a fork so it would be an altcoin. And practically every altcoin was created to gain some money to to issuer. Thats probably why i never doubted that information.

Ok, then are the same security measures in motion for the bitcoin xt code like it is for the bitcoin core code? I cant believe that since it would not make sense to switch to bitcoin xt until gavin could get what he wants. At the same time some bitcoiner voices about the need of a strong "leader" for bitcoin.

I dont find the article anymore that was about planned "milestones".

Might be that i saw things too black. Though giving in to an extortion is a bad thing in itself. I mean its not as if the other developers did not see the need of a change. Only gavin though he need to do things instantly his way. As if everything will break tomorrow.

you cant find it because it is FUD.

[MicroGuy]

The point of my unreadable post was to figure out how Core could survive even with the loss of a supermajority of miners. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to point out what a post no one read is about in a reply no one will read this far into.  

I read your entire post and it was interesting. According to Jon Matonis the only way to handle this situation is to stick with Core and BIP. He believes that if Gavin and Hearn are successful, bitcoin will be in deep trouble.

His exact words as recorded yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA

[SpanishSoldier]

The point of my unreadable post was to figure out how Core could survive even with the loss of a supermajority of miners. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to point out what a post no one read is about in a reply no one will read this far into.  

I read your entire post and it was interesting. According to Jon Matonis the only way to handle this situation is to stick with Core and BIP. He believes that if Gavin and Hearn are successful, bitcoin will be in deep trouble.

His exact words as recorded yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwO5u6OVaaA

This, in fact, is true. Hearn is here with a mission. He wants to grab the code control to implement something he is trying for long. It is address blacklisting.

[SebastianJu]

Anyone know where to find the thread where they spoke about the plans of hearn or/and gavin about some milestones they plan for bitcoin xt? I didnt bother to read it because i anyway would simply prefer bitcoin core gets an update and thats it, but the reaction of the readers, even bitcoin xt supporters, were pretty contra bitcoin xt then.

Even when there is no company behind, i think supporting them will be an error.

Lets say they manage to implement tainting to their client, then release them without notice and many clients get a notice to update. Many will do without checking forums before. And they will find that a couple of their coins are tainted. Which brings fear not only to normal people. Since in reality tainted fiat means the police can seize it, without compensation. Even when everyone changes back to bitcoin core, the fear that one might own coins that are worth nothing, or at least less, will remain.

It doesnt make sense to me that some bitcoiners claim "we dont have to use it" and "all developers have to agree". Gavin will switch because he wants to bring through his own will. He cant do it with bitcoin core but he thinks he will be able with bitcoin xt. So when that is possible, then other things are possible too.

And even when everyone switches then back to bitcoin core, who says that bitcoin didnt get a nice damage from it? Forking in the future might only possible when the changes are taken over. It wouldnt be possible, for example, to change the blocksize back. (Or can it with an exception for a few blocks? If so, are no changes imaginable that cant be undone?) So in that case there were facts created that cant be undone. Or should the fork start in the past? Impossible when you wipe out all future transactions that way.

Even when its changed back... what will this mean to adoption of bitcoin when we allow someone to get his will that way?

Sorry, i dont get it. I see the need for bigger blocks, the same like the other developers see them. But why we need to go the gavin way is something i dont see.

[Scamalert]

I am so confused about all this Bitcoin XT talk.
I have tried to ask in 2-3 different threads now, but no clear answer.

I would like that a bunch of legendary members like SebastianJu, Theymos and DannyHamilton would make a post and guide us newbies, since I belive that these type of guys only want what is "best for bitcoin".

I lost track of what is FUD and what is real, who is the good guys and who that is just in it to make dollars regadsless of it will cause the dead of bitcoin.

[SebastianJu]

I am so confused about all this Bitcoin XT talk.
I have tried to ask in 2-3 different threads now, but no clear answer.

I would like that a bunch of legendary members like SebastianJu, Theymos and DannyHamilton would make a post and guide us newbies, since I belive that these type of guys only want what is "best for bitcoin".

I lost track of what is FUD and what is real, who is the good guys and who that is just in it to make dollars regadsless of it will cause the dead of bitcoin.

The problem is that no one can say for sure what will happen and what the intentions of the protagonists are.

There is NO choice at all to raise the blocksize at one point in time. So a fork will happen at one point in time anyway. Thats not avoidable.

So the only thing open is WHEN it will happen.

ALL developers see the need of a fork happening. Most developers think we should discuss and find the best solution. But gavin, the chief developer, wrote he will move avay from development of bitcoin core to the one of bitcoin xt. He practically extorted and its not clear why he did it in a way as if tomorrow bitcoin will die. In fact we have one and a half year time until things would get critical.

So now some things he and Hearn (who developed bitcoin xt before) have their own plans. Its not unlikely at least, because they already had plans that were not liked. Like tainting coins.

Others say the other developers have low motives because they dont want to do everything now in an instant.

Many users say forking will bring no problems to bitcoins at all. Though there are many too that think there might be problems. Especially when some exchanges go with the bitcoin xt fork and some stay with bitcoin core. The problem i see is that everyone will think of its coin as "the" real coin and "his" coin having the bitcoin value. Awaiting that the other users will switch over soon. Unfortunately you cant simply copy a currency have double the value. So one, or for some time, both currencies might drop in value until the situation is solved. Though thats only my opinion and a worst case.

Regarding the development of bitcoin xt. Of course users can decide which software to use. Though i see some risk when really a big part of the community would switch to bitcoin xt. Im not alone though its only a potential risk so far because no one knows what will happen.

I think you should not fear the fork. Its still a strange situation for bitcoin and we werent yet in such a situation.

[PolarPoint]

I think the community is generally is agreeing to a new block limit, the only question is the size. We, the common bitcoin user, has no say in the decision if we keep our coins on exchanges and online wallets.

I would suggest people to start moving coins to a wallet you have private keys for before the fork and don't move them until the fork issue is resolved. OP talked about how difficult it would be for a minority chain to survive. So, wait for a majority.

[balu2]

Bo, just don't give a flying. Just act like normal until shortly before the fork, buy some Litecoin and wait. When the fork comes up just dump your BTC like all the normal people for fiat and wait it out in fiat and LTC. Should be ok. No need to hold Bitcoin during that shit. Nobody will. Shit's gonna crash hard on the Gavincoin bullshit. Pretty sure. Could be the end of BTC. Why would anyone want to hold BTC during that time is beyond me. Coins will be very pletiful (not to say will 'flood the market') if Gavincoin gains traction. So just keep an eye out for the xt node count and when that hits some critical mass like 30%, 50% or 60% of the network just dump that shit and wait it out.
Flashcrash or even persistent devaluation of BTC (and appreciation of different alts in return) is pretty much done deal in case people like lemmings choose to go with the Gavinattack.
If you see a controversial fork coming up with lots of screaming, shouting, personal insults and hand waving: dump for alts and fiat like the rest of us.
My 2c