[Guide] Surviving the fork, or How to double your bitcoins (or save fiat)

[harrymmmm]

If majority of user are against XT why the fuck they want to fork it? Did anyone tried to know total number of users who are against XT??
Someone should start a petition to know reality.
https://www.change.org/en-IN/petition

Right now, I'm getting the sense that a lot of the xt types are not that serious. They are just moving in that direction to put pressure on core devs to make a block cap change soon.
I hope I'm right (tho even if they are serious, i still don't think xt will get the miners necessary to fork).

[1715334631]

1715334631

[1715334631]

1715334631

[1715334631]

1715334631

[Lauda]

If majority of user are against XT why the fuck they want to fork it? Did anyone tried to know total number of users who are against XT??
Someone should start a petition to know reality.
https://www.change.org/en-IN/petition

Well instead of petitioning against XT, we should make one to force the Core developers to increase. If the petition is successful, and they refuse, then there is something wrong with the current way that development is operating.

Right now, I'm getting the sense that a lot of the xt types are not that serious. They are just moving in that direction to put pressure on core devs to make a block cap change soon.
I hope I'm right (tho even if they are serious, i still don't think xt will get the miners necessary to fork).

A petition could still prove to be useful.

[desired_username]

If majority of user are against XT why the fuck they want to fork it? Did anyone tried to know total number of users who are against XT??
Someone should start a petition to know reality.
https://www.change.org/en-IN/petition

Right now, I'm getting the sense that a lot of the xt types are not that serious. They are just moving in that direction to put pressure on core devs to make a block cap change soon.
I hope I'm right (tho even if they are serious, i still don't think xt will get the miners necessary to fork).

As it stands Bitcoin is being hijacked by Blockstream.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to resort to spreading lies and propaganda.

[Come-from-Beyond]

not much to gain though if btc and/or the pretender drop at this point in price v USD a significant amount (compared to when u acquired said btc), which is an exceedingly likely scenario imo.

Well, then don't even attempt this. Good for others because they will have less competitors.

[Mickeyb]

Will exchanges not be at risk with all of this mess as well? Will they not lose if they find themselves on the wrong side of the chain?

If this is the case, I would say that most of the exchanges will freeze their operations for a day or two until this mess doesn't get sorted out.

Also, price of the losing chain can go to zero in about 10 minutes in my opinion, lock at the crash yesterday on Bitfinex.

[harrymmmm]

Forks are nothing new in the world of open source software. (“Open source” is software that can be used, and even changed, by anybody. The software supporting Bitcoin is essentially that). When two rival versions of the software are made available at the same time it is known as a fork. It is, in effect, a way of forcing a “vote” on which version users prefer. If one is adopted by the vast majority of people, then it naturally becomes the “winner” and the default version. That is what we are seeing right now in terms of the software that supports Bitcoin.

Sorry but a 4 billion dollar open source project cannot just be forked without super special care about the risk to the ecosystem and the value stored there.

[harrymmmm]

If majority of user are against XT why the fuck they want to fork it? Did anyone tried to know total number of users who are against XT??
Someone should start a petition to know reality.
https://www.change.org/en-IN/petition

Right now, I'm getting the sense that a lot of the xt types are not that serious. They are just moving in that direction to put pressure on core devs to make a block cap change soon.
I hope I'm right (tho even if they are serious, i still don't think xt will get the miners necessary to fork).

As it stands Bitcoin is being hijacked by Blockstream.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to resort to spreading lies and propaganda.

Even if i believed this, i think i'd still rather the devil i know than the fork devil i don't know.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If this is the case, I would say that most of the exchanges will freeze their operations for a day or two until this mess doesn't get sorted out.

And voluntary refuse to earn a day or two worth trading fees (which likely be 2-3 times higher than usually)? Operating on the both blockchains looks as a much better decision.

[S4VV4S]

....

Well instead of petitioning against XT, we should make one to force the Core developers to increase. If the petition is successful, and they refuse, then there is something wrong with the current way that development is operating.

....

A petition could still prove to be useful.

+1

Will exchanges not be at risk with all of this mess as well? Will they not lose if they find themselves on the wrong side of the chain?

If this is the case, I would say that most of the exchanges will freeze their operations for a day or two until this mess doesn't get sorted out.

Also, price of the losing chain can go to zero in about 10 minutes in my opinion, lock at the crash yesterday on Bitfinex.

That would be the logical thing to do, but....
This seems like a great opportunity for many to rip you off your coins....
You don't think that exchanges are coming up with ways (like the OP is for miners) on how to part you with your coins as we speak?

[Mickeyb]

Forks are nothing new in the world of open source software. (“Open source” is software that can be used, and even changed, by anybody. The software supporting Bitcoin is essentially that). When two rival versions of the software are made available at the same time it is known as a fork. It is, in effect, a way of forcing a “vote” on which version users prefer. If one is adopted by the vast majority of people, then it naturally becomes the “winner” and the default version. That is what we are seeing right now in terms of the software that supports Bitcoin.

Sorry but a 4 billion dollar open source project cannot just be forked without super special care about the risk to the ecosystem and the value stored there.

I am pretty sure that even e the fork happens, everything will be thought about in advance and measures will be taken so the OP's scenario cannot happen.

Because if the OP's scenario will be able to happen, that will mean that for every person that doubled their coins, some poor sucker out there has lost their coins.

Just because of this, devs on the both side should think of the mechanism to prevent OP's scenario from happening.

If they don't take certain measures and this scenario happens to be possible, then honestly, Bitcoin would be the biggest joke around.

[ajas]

The question in my mind is: how do you get coins on exactly one chain immediately after the first big block is mined?

All the coins created (and all transactions using these coins) before the fork are valid on both chains.
After the fork the coins created (mined as part of the block reward) will be valid on the respective chain only.
Transactions which use some of the latter coins will be valid on that respective chain only.

To answer your question: you have to get some of the coins of the block reward on the respective chain.

So in your view there is no way to get exclusive coins immediately after the fork? Everyone has to wait 100 blocks.
OP says different, but I'm not following his argument ... yet.

I think you immediatly can create a transaction using (part of) the block reward (if you mined that coins) and
send it to the network. But it may take 100 blocks until it will be included in the blockchain. However, I have to
admit that I am not familiar with the details of the protocol in this respect.

[jstnrgrs]

So basically, if I understand correctly, this is a hack that favours the miners.
And obviously, miners would be motivated to make a fork happen.

Am I correct?

What do you mean "hack"? If you are talking about the guide - it's a necessary thing to do for everyone who wants to save as much money as possible. If you are talking about the trick of creation of exclusive coin inputs - yes, it favours the miners because gives them a way to sell 1 BTC for 1000+ BTC.

Well, since I doubt anyone will be selling these newly generated coins or be lucky enough to get his transaction in only one chain,
it is logical to assume that we will see a lot of this hack (or trick if you prefer) happening by miners.

The question is: Where does that leave the average Bitcoiner who is not aware of it or lucky enough to get them coins and attempt to double them?

So as I understand it:  I have 1BTC.  The blockchian forks, I now have 1BTC-core + 1BTC-XT.  I continue to do nothing, and this balance remains.  After a time, the value of these different coins (in fiat terms) diverges.  Someday, I decide to sell for fiat.  If I've waited long enough, I think one of those coins is probably worthless, so I probably don't want to bother separating them. If I want to separate them, I can do so by the method in the OP.

It is worth noting that BTC-XT is not necessarily the one that gets the value (even though it has greater than 75% of the network).  If the people who are buying bitcoins with fiat are more confident in btc-core, than that is where the money will go, and that is the version that will have more value (even though it's network is smaller).

[Come-from-Beyond]

So as I understand it:  I have 1BTC.  The blockchian forks, I now have 1BTC-core + 1BTC-XT.  I continue to do nothing, and this balance remains.  After a time, the value of these different coins (in fiat terms) diverges.  Someday, I decide to sell for fiat.  If I've waited long enough, I think one of those coins is probably worthless, so I probably don't want to bother separating them. If I want to separate them, I can do so by the method in the OP.

There is no a way for the market to instantly decide which coin is worthless, this can be done only via trading. If you have balls of steel and can wait long enough then you indeed don't need to bother separating your bitcoins.

[desired_username]

Forks are nothing new in the world of open source software. (“Open source” is software that can be used, and even changed, by anybody. The software supporting Bitcoin is essentially that). When two rival versions of the software are made available at the same time it is known as a fork. It is, in effect, a way of forcing a “vote” on which version users prefer. If one is adopted by the vast majority of people, then it naturally becomes the “winner” and the default version. That is what we are seeing right now in terms of the software that supports Bitcoin.

Sorry but a 4 billion dollar open source project cannot just be forked without super special care about the risk to the ecosystem and the value stored there.

Forks are needed to improve bitcoin. There were a number of forks already.

XT is a fork of Bitcoin Core which implemented BIP101. It's a way to progress and it depends on all the participants of the network to accept it.

Bitcoin is not Core, XT, d or any other software. These are just the implementation of the rules followed by the community.

The blocksize increase is not even the real issue here.

Blockstream have grown to completely dominate bitcoin development. It is unacceptable considering that bitcoin is a decentralized system.

Boiling it down we have 2 choice:

XT = freedom

Core/Blockstream = slavery

When I got into bitcoin, I subscribed to transparency, independence and freedom, not the tyrannical rule of a select few.

[desired_username]

So as I understand it:  I have 1BTC.  The blockchian forks, I now have 1BTC-core + 1BTC-XT.  I continue to do nothing, and this balance remains.  After a time, the value of these different coins (in fiat terms) diverges.  Someday, I decide to sell for fiat.  If I've waited long enough, I think one of those coins is probably worthless, so I probably don't want to bother separating them. If I want to separate them, I can do so by the method in the OP.

There is no a way for the market to instantly decide which coin is worthless, this can be done only via trading. If you have balls of steel and can wait long enough then you indeed don't need to bother separating your bitcoins.

The way BIP101 works prohibits a split of the blockchain.

[jstnrgrs]

So as I understand it:  I have 1BTC.  The blockchian forks, I now have 1BTC-core + 1BTC-XT.  I continue to do nothing, and this balance remains.  After a time, the value of these different coins (in fiat terms) diverges.  Someday, I decide to sell for fiat.  If I've waited long enough, I think one of those coins is probably worthless, so I probably don't want to bother separating them. If I want to separate them, I can do so by the method in the OP.

There is no a way for the market to instantly decide which coin is worthless, this can be done only via trading. If you have balls of steel and can wait long enough then you indeed don't need to bother separating your bitcoins.

I think waiting as long as possible is the most conservative and least ballsy action.  I believe that 1 BTC-prefork = 1 BTC-core + 1 BTC-XT.  Both of these values can go up and down since bitcoin is very volatile, but by doing nothing, I wouldn't expect to gain or loose (unless I have a prediction of which way the marked is going, but I'm not a market analyst.)

If I were to sell one or the other right away (or as soon as possible), I'd be gamboling on which fork will hold the value in the long run.  I might (roughly) double my money, or I might loose it all.

[S4VV4S]

XT = freedom

Core/Blockstream = slavery

When I got into bitcoin, I subscribed to transparency, independence and freedom, not the tyrannical rule of a select few.

XT is not freedom and neither is Core (or these forums for that matter).
And both of them are too centralized.
Yours and my oppinion don't matter to either sides because they both have their interests in mind, not the community's.

That is the problem with this.
And the real problem following this is that a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money over this bullshit.

 

[tintinstime]

Forks are nothing new in the world of open source software. (“Open source” is software that can be used, and even changed, by anybody. The software supporting Bitcoin is essentially that). When two rival versions of the software are made available at the same time it is known as a fork. It is, in effect, a way of forcing a “vote” on which version users prefer. If one is adopted by the vast majority of people, then it naturally becomes the “winner” and the default version. That is what we are seeing right now in terms of the software that supports Bitcoin.

Sorry but a 4 billion dollar open source project cannot just be forked without super special care about the risk to the ecosystem and the value stored there.

This is the most intelligent comment yet. Why is a community who idealizes decentralization indulging the whims of core maintainers who are positioned for personal gains if certain changes take effect?

I am all for democracy however this conversation is implicit in directing the less informed toward the wants of few. Allow the community to make a democratic decision with reference to adoptions that will result in unpredictable forks without the subversive FUD being created in this thread. The choice should be made without the influence of capital gain that will in the end demoralize an entire community.

The insistence of importance to adopt changes in the core of Bitcoin open source software is a contradiction to the ideals that a decentralized system is intended to espouse. Offer the changes in new software. See where it goes. Stop the manipulating BS that is designed to offer key players profit.

[pedrog]

I understand that, I don't believe it can work because businesses will update their software in time, but if someone neglects to do so, it is possible and it can go bankrupt in a second...

If bitcoinXT wins I'm pretty sure we'll see a couple of "legacy bitcoin" holdouts for a while, and for a short time we might also have a good chance to find some smaller exchanges on both chains. So I'm pretty much optimistic about doubling my BTC holdings . I also expecting to see some bottomed out BTC and inflated altcoin prices as fiat sources can dry out quickly after the first big BTC dumping wave.

This is a plausible scenario, I think the risk for the business is to great for someone to try this, for the business and for the user, in this situation pretty sure someone will try to scam people.

[ajas]

The blocksize increase is not even the real issue here.

Blockstream have grown to completely dominate bitcoin development. It is unacceptable considering that bitcoin is a decentralized system.

Boiling it down we have 2 choice:

XT = freedom

Core/Blockstream = slavery

When I got into bitcoin, I subscribed to transparency, independence and freedom, not the tyrannical rule of a select few.

I fully agree that blocksize increase is not the real issue.
It is just a  false pretence to take bitcoin-core out of the hands of the current developers.

I just do not agree with your rating: XT = freedom, Core/Blockstream = slavery
The world is not black and white.

The question is: are we all going to risk a breakdown of bitcoin because the developers do not get along with
each other.