Why would a Core/XT Hard Fork be bad if both live on?

[keepdoing]

Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY?  List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?

[Carlton Banks]

A proportion of the chain with the larger hashrate could be employed to 51% the chain with the smaller hashrate. I'm not sure anything could be done to prevent that.

[unamis76]

A proportion of the chain with the larger hashrate could be employed to 51% the chain with the smaller hashrate. I'm not sure anything could be done to prevent that.

Exactly, not to mention the fact that two Bitcoins would be the worse outcome, confusing users and making people escape from Bitcoin because it would be confusing.

There would be two "Bitcoins" serving the same purpose which would be redundant and a complete chaos/mess/deorganization. People could end up paying others accepting the "Core" chain with "XT" coins.

Because of that, the probability of the smaller fork surviving is really low. It's like someone disconnecting their internet because they don't agree where the line was placed on the street.

[Sourgummies]

Would be confusing and would divide a already small community. Would be a slow drip kind of like the online poker scene with the Countries slowly squeezing off players.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

It's impossible for both to live on because one of the nodes is ultimately useless unless its having an impact on the blockchain. I just hope the XT thing is over soon so we can focus on making bitcoin better.

[criptix]

In the case of two existing blockchains ppl could doublespend coins mined before the forking block on the other chain.

That would kill trust pretty fast.

[keepdoing]

What if the XT fork exploded into the mainstream?    And as technology improved, speed of transaction verification increases etc... wouldn't it be rather easy to "Non-Verify" a Core Coin trying to be spent on the XT Chain.  And if it did go into hyper-acceptance then that sure won't be people buying via LocalBitcoin.  They'll be getting XT Coin via XT Exchanges.

And I'm thinking that if a hardcore group of "Core" Coin holders wanted to exist as an underground payment network - they could easily do so.  I think increases in technology will develop to quickly detect cross-chain transactions and alert buyer/seller to the fact it is occuring.  Thoughts?

[Carlton Banks]

Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".

[keepdoing]

Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".

I am fully aware of this.  I was simply responding to an earlier poster who seems to imply that this is "The Problem" that will be caused.  That people will attempt to cross spend, and those transactions will fail, and that suddenly because of this chaos will reign in both Bitcoin Chains and the world will self destruct and it is a "Disaster."

I mean, this seems to be the primary actual thing on the list that is evidence of this Hard Fork resulting in 2 chains continuing on is going to be Horrible, Disastrous, etc etc.

There is the argument that it will divide an "already small community" - but honestly, after the fork, I think most everyone is aware that this goes mainstream pretty quickly then.  So not so little of a community anymore.

There is also the "doubling" argument I see - but I fail to see what is so horrible about the possibility (I still think this is a fantasy scenario) in which your Bitcoin is doubled and exists on both Chains ina  spendable fashion.... again, I double my bitcoin, what a disaster?

Still not getting it...... I still haven't seen any solid technical reason that would cause a DISASTROUS Bitcoin Killing Scenario of a Hardfork resulted in 2 separate forks moving along.  Under ALL the arguments really it just sounds like anger and bitterness that this whole XT thing is happening and out of people's control and they feel sold out.

But this doesn't supply a single item to my requested list.  That's just sour grapes stuff.  Give a factual issue that would be disastrous.

[Carlton Banks]

Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".

I am fully aware of this.  I was simply responding to an earlier poster who seems to imply that this is "The Problem" that will be caused.  That people will attempt to cross spend, and those transactions will fail, and that suddenly because of this chaos will reign in both Bitcoin Chains and the world will self destruct and it is a "Disaster."

I mean, this seems to be the primary actual thing on the list that is evidence of this Hard Fork resulting in 2 chains continuing on is going to be Horrible, Disastrous, etc etc.

There is the argument that it will divide an "already small community" - but honestly, after the fork, I think most everyone is aware that this goes mainstream pretty quickly then.  So not so little of a community anymore.

There is also the "doubling" argument I see - but I fail to see what is so horrible about the possibility (I still think this is a fantasy scenario) in which your Bitcoin is doubled and exists on both Chains ina  spendable fashion.... again, I double my bitcoin, what a disaster?

Still not getting it...... I still haven't seen any solid technical reason that would cause a DISASTROUS Bitcoin Killing Scenario of a Hardfork resulted in 2 separate forks moving along.  Under ALL the arguments really it just sounds like anger and bitterness that this whole XT thing is happening and out of people's control and they feel sold out.

Yeah, you're right, none of that is credible

[Klestin]

The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.

[Carlton Banks]

The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.

Wrong. The users decide the chain. Will miners mine coins on a chain with no users? A chain with no users is a coin with a $0.00 exchange rate.

[achow101]

Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY?  List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?

They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen.

A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them
B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending
C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating
each as a separate currency.

However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen.

[keepdoing]

Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY?  List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?

They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen.

A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them
B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending
C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating
each as a separate currency.

However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen.

So you are saying that the Cross Spending IS the main problem.  Don't know what "magic packets" are - and can guess as to address prefixes, but again, couldn't a technology solution be developed that would speed recognition of cross spend attempts and alert on them?  And would there be a way to "Grab" a Coin that was being attempted to Cross Spend, and then "Mark" it with an identifier, so that at least that one was then forever marked.  Or maybe a technology that does a one time "Check - Mark" on a Bitcoin, thereby locking it into that Chain - but more importantly IDENTIFYING it quickly in future transactions.  Over time it would reduce the issue closer to zero. 

AND... if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that if this continues to look bad as "Zero Hour" (75% acceptance) approaches - then XT could single handedly decide at last minute to do the magic packet / prefix thing?  And that would solve the crisis of Cross Spending?

And of course, again - Cross Spending simply results in a failed transaction and a bit of confusion.  No different really than a bounced check.  Heck, I've had a few of those in my life.  I'm still here, so is my bank, money, etc.  Still not sure this is rising to the level of a "Global Bitcoin Doomsday" event.

[criptix]

if there are two chains the believer of one will dump all his coins on the other.
there will be a economical war.
the mass dumping and anticipation for lowball coins will let the price crash to oblivion which could be even more fueled by miners going back to core after the fork. (worst case a 50/50 split)
you guys dont think this will kill trust?

@exchanges
im sure if there is demand they will supply a trading platform for both chains.

[keepdoing]

if there are two chains the believer of one will dump all his coins on the other.
there will be a economical war.
the mass dumping and anticipation for lowball coins will let the price crash to oblivion which could be even more fueled by miners going back to core after the fork. (worst case a 50/50 split)
you guys dont think this will kill trust?

@exchanges
im sure if there is demand they will supply a trading platform for both chains.

NO - I DO NOT. 

Let me tell you what I think will happen.  On the XT side there will be a wall of vultures waiting to snatch up every Bitcoin that is tossed across the void.  I really don't think you get it.   Do you understand that the ENTIRE BITCOIN UNIVERSE - even at $500 / Coin - could be bought by a company like JP Morgan COMPLETELY - every single last f#>king bitcoin on the planet - even on both eventual chains!, and they would most likely still have about 80% of their cash reserves left.

LOL - seriously?!?!  I mean you just keep dumping em baby!  The HUGE Money on the XT side will swallow them up and you won't be able to spit them across fast enough to even whet their appetite!  The entire dang global financial world is watching and waiting on this XT thing to be finalized.  WAITING.  You Don't Get It!!!

I have been trying to gently warn Core....... You are going to be SWALLOWED.  And I like you   I want you to survive.  But get a plan, because XT is happening in one form or another.  Bitchy, angry, and feeling betrayed is not a plan.

[achow101]

Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY?  List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?

They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen.

A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them
B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending
C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating
each as a separate currency.

However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen.

So you are saying that the Cross Spending IS the main problem.  Don't know what "magic packets" are - and can guess as to address prefixes, but again, couldn't a technology solution be developed that would speed recognition of cross spend attempts and alert on them?  And would there be a way to "Grab" a Coin that was being attempted to Cross Spend, and then "Mark" it with an identifier, so that at least that one was then forever marked.  Or maybe a technology that does a one time "Check - Mark" on a Bitcoin, thereby locking it into that Chain - but more importantly IDENTIFYING it quickly in future transactions.  Over time it would reduce the issue closer to zero. 

AND... if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that if this continues to look bad as "Zero Hour" (75% acceptance) approaches - then XT could single handedly decide at last minute to do the magic packet / prefix thing?  And that would solve the crisis of Cross Spending?

And of course, again - Cross Spending simply results in a failed transaction and a bit of confusion.  No different really than a bounced check.  Heck, I've had a few of those in my life.  I'm still here, so is my bank, money, etc.  Still not sure this is rising to the level of a "Global Bitcoin Doomsday" event.

Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems.

The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for.

Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin

It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well.

And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things.

[keepdoing]

Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems.

The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for.

Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin

It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well.

And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things.

Thanks Knight.  That helps a little with the understanding.  Taking emotion and personal issues out of the picture - and given that Gavin & Mike are probably well aware of this - is there any last minute patch that could be done on their side to minimalize (I'm not saying eliminate) this?  I'm not encouraging or suggesting this - but I'm just looking to predict what sort of monkey wrenches could be thrown into this.  I really do think that players bigger than Mike are guiding this - and I know how they think.  These guys are in battle plan mode and I am sure that all scenarios / solutions are being discussed and considered.

I really would like to see Core survive - even though most of my money would go to XT, just out of survival principle.  But I like the idea of a fighting underground - able to move money around - in the world I see coming.

[nachoig]

The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.

Wrong. The users decide the chain. Will miners mine coins on a chain with no users? A chain with no users is a coin with a $0.00 exchange rate.

SPV wallets go to the longest chain. Probably XT wallets too.

If you don't want this you'll have to stay with Core and wait for the next < 1 MB block being validated. If the Core isn't the longest chain, and > 1 MB block are frequently, this can take ages for confirmations because of the drop of the hashrate in Core.

[achow101]

Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems.

The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for.

Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin

It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well.

And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things.

Thanks Knight.  That helps a little with the understanding.  Taking emotion and personal issues out of the picture - and given that Gavin & Mike are probably well aware of this - is there any last minute patch that could be done on their side to minimalize (I'm not saying eliminate) this?  I'm not encouraging or suggesting this - but I'm just looking to predict what sort of monkey wrenches could be thrown into this.  I really do think that players bigger than Mike are guiding this - and I know how they think.  These guys are in battle plan mode and I am sure that all scenarios / solutions are being discussed and considered.

I really would like to see Core survive - even though most of my money would go to XT, just out of survival principle.  But I like the idea of a fighting underground - able to move money around - in the world I see coming.

The only methods that minimizes the risk and problems of cross spending would be to completely separate both networks (almost impossible) or have one chain. There really is no way to prevent cross spending when two chains exist.