Which country has the highest percentage of miners?

[onemorexmr]

No its a extremely huge problem. People don't know *which* fork will be validated later on, the transaction from the destroyed fork will be invalidated, and will never get confirmed in the chain that survive.

What will everyone do if that happen? They will dump it down to 10 cents in one hour.

why not? as i said they are already signed and miners can just pick them up

No one is actively broadcasting those transactions. By the time the forks combine, the transactions confirmed in one fork would no longer be unconfirmed, and thus no longer broadcast. When the forks combine, the nodes on one fork would not know of those transactions and would not ask for them, and the nodes on the other fork would not know to broadcast them. Thus those transactions are essentially dropped and forgotten.

i expect miners to pick transactions up from the lost fork. for the same reason they are putting transactions in a block right now: to get their fees

They can't. They don't know those transactions exist because no one is broadcasting them. The other nodes don't know that the other nodes don't have those transactions, so they aren't broadcasting them. Thus no one is broadcasting those transactions and thus those transactions that were lost will never be included.

This is assuming that nothing is done by the devs to deal with said fork. I believe that Bitcoin Core will go into safe mode if it detects a fork and the devs will probably issue an alert regarding said fork.

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

[onemorexmr]

imagine this:

we have a chain split between china and rest of the world.
i offer a service: i drive to china daily with an usb stick containing all transactions (back and forth)

now both chains can include all transactions.
exchanges that use my service may have a confirmation delay of one day to be sure their transaction is in both chains

problem solved?

[achow101]

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

How would they know? Those transaction's aren't being broadcast by anyone, and their nodes would immediately reject the forked blockchain? They would need a code change in order to fix that.

Again, the scenario was assuming that nothing would be done. Honestly, if such a situation were to happen, it would probably be very brief and not much damage would be done. Or the someone would spot the problem immediately and someone would do something about it to fix it.

[onemorexmr]

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

How would they know? Those transaction's aren't being broadcast by anyone, and their nodes would immediately reject the forked blockchain? They would need a code change in order to fix that.

Again, the scenario was assuming that nothing would be done. Honestly, if such a situation were to happen, it would probably be very brief and not much damage would be done. Or the someone would spot the problem immediately and someone would do something about it to fix it.

orphaned blocks are not forgotten.
if all just run stock bitcoin and dont do anything this is true: but thats not the case

[achow101]

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

How would they know? Those transaction's aren't being broadcast by anyone, and their nodes would immediately reject the forked blockchain? They would need a code change in order to fix that.

Again, the scenario was assuming that nothing would be done. Honestly, if such a situation were to happen, it would probably be very brief and not much damage would be done. Or the someone would spot the problem immediately and someone would do something about it to fix it.

orphaned blocks are not forgotten.
if all just run stock bitcoin and dont do anything this is true: but thats not the case

AFAIK transactions in orphaned blocks are only included in another block because the miner rejects the orphan block so it still has those transactions in its mempool. Miners do not scan orphaned blocks for transactions and then include them in their mempool or blocks. In this scenario, older transactions do not exist in anyone's mempool because either the node is on the wrong side of the fork and never received it, or it has been removed from the mempool because it was already included in a block. If the transaction is not in any node's mempool, then it will no longer be broadcast.

[onemorexmr]

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

How would they know? Those transaction's aren't being broadcast by anyone, and their nodes would immediately reject the forked blockchain? They would need a code change in order to fix that.

Again, the scenario was assuming that nothing would be done. Honestly, if such a situation were to happen, it would probably be very brief and not much damage would be done. Or the someone would spot the problem immediately and someone would do something about it to fix it.

orphaned blocks are not forgotten.
if all just run stock bitcoin and dont do anything this is true: but thats not the case

AFAIK transactions in orphaned blocks are only included in another block because the miner rejects the orphan block so it still has those transactions in its mempool. Miners do not scan orphaned blocks for transactions and then include them in their mempool or blocks. In this scenario, older transactions do not exist in anyone's mempool because either the node is on the wrong side of the fork and never received it, or it has been removed from the mempool because it was already included in a block. If the transaction is not in any node's mempool, then it will no longer be broadcast.

again: you assume that everybody is just running stock bitcoin core and nobody is doing anything.
orphan blocks are not forgotton.
a miner can just save them, extract the transactions from there and put them in his new blocks.

[achow101]

they know as soon as both forks merge. miners dont run stock bitcoin. and even now there are people keeping orphaned blocks

How would they know? Those transaction's aren't being broadcast by anyone, and their nodes would immediately reject the forked blockchain? They would need a code change in order to fix that.

Again, the scenario was assuming that nothing would be done. Honestly, if such a situation were to happen, it would probably be very brief and not much damage would be done. Or the someone would spot the problem immediately and someone would do something about it to fix it.

orphaned blocks are not forgotten.
if all just run stock bitcoin and dont do anything this is true: but thats not the case

AFAIK transactions in orphaned blocks are only included in another block because the miner rejects the orphan block so it still has those transactions in its mempool. Miners do not scan orphaned blocks for transactions and then include them in their mempool or blocks. In this scenario, older transactions do not exist in anyone's mempool because either the node is on the wrong side of the fork and never received it, or it has been removed from the mempool because it was already included in a block. If the transaction is not in any node's mempool, then it will no longer be broadcast.

again: you assume that everybody is just running stock bitcoin core and nobody is doing anything.
orphan blocks are not forgotton.
a miner can just save them, extract the transactions from there and put them in his new blocks.

True.

Again, if you had read what I had posted, then you would know that I am assuming that nothing was being done about the fork. Yes I know that modifications to software can be made to not reject the fork and extract the transactions and modifications can be made to continuously broadcast transactions, and that someone will probably do something to fix the problem. BUT as I said earlier, I was assuming that no one was doing anything about it.

[onemorexmr]

Again, if you had read what I had posted, then you would know that I am assuming that nothing was being done about the fork. Yes I know that modifications to software can be made to not reject the fork and extract the transactions and modifications can be made to continuously broadcast transactions, and that someone will probably do something to fix the problem. BUT as I said earlier, I was assuming that no one was doing anything about it.

ok, then why do you think that nobody will do anything? do you really think that is an likely outcome of a fork?

EDIT: sorry btw. i originally answered VirosaGITS who said that bitcoin will be doomed(tm) in case of such a fork and was arguing about that.

[achow101]

ok, then why do you think that nobody will do anything? do you really think that is an likely outcome of a fork?

Well last time a fork happened, there were no major code changes addressing it.

And the likelihood of such a scenario happening is next to nothing. And with it being such that there are two groups of isolated nodes for long enough that tens of blocks are found the odds are practically nothing.

EDIT: sorry btw. i originally answered VirosaGITS who said that bitcoin will be doomed(tm) in case of such a fork and was arguing about that.

Well that was based on my original statement that such a fork would be disastrous, which I still stand by. Such a fork, if it were to somehow be tens of blocks, would be a massive pain to resolve and probably cause a dramatic loss of confidence in Bitcoin. But the odds of having two completely isolated groups of nodes is practically nothing so this isn't really a concern.

[onemorexmr]

ok, then why do you think that nobody will do anything? do you really think that is an likely outcome of a fork?

Well last time a fork happened, there were no major code changes addressing it.

And the likelihood of such a scenario happening is next to nothing. And with it being such that there are two groups of isolated nodes for long enough that tens of blocks are found the odds are practically nothing.

EDIT: sorry btw. i originally answered VirosaGITS who said that bitcoin will be doomed(tm) in case of such a fork and was arguing about that.

Well that was based on my original statement that such a fork would be disastrous, which I still stand by. Such a fork, if it were to somehow be tens of blocks, would be a massive pain to resolve and probably cause a dramatic loss of confidence in Bitcoin. But the odds of having two completely isolated groups of nodes is practically nothing so this isn't really a concern.

AFAIK the last big fork was that berkeleydb bug. and as far a i can remember transactions has been rebroadcasted by a core member.

one service has lost much coins; but i have not seen a big loss of confidence.

(it has been a while. dont remember names, sorry)

[arnav95]

well you can't tell because everyone is giving a good competition to everyone else when it comes to bitcoin mining. but I will surely pick a name and that would be Japan.

[Hugroll]

any countries in asia should have alot of the mining power.

[Blawpaw]

I guess China is the leader when it comes to mining. Either the United states or China are the countries who have the most miners, that's for sure.

[VirosaGITS]

No its a extremely huge problem. People don't know *which* fork will be validated later on, the transaction from the destroyed fork will be invalidated, and will never get confirmed in the chain that survive.

What will everyone do if that happen? They will dump it down to 10 cents in one hour.

why not? as i said they are already signed and miners can just pick them up

No they can't. For example block X get mined on fork #1, it include XYZ transaction, that fund then get used later on, its on block X2.

Meanwhile the same happen on Fork #2, the same block has been found by someone else and fund are already moved are spent on fork #2 and it include different transaction. All those transaction can't be validated since the funds cannot be used twice. And destroyed transaction aren't returned to the mempool to be retried.

Instead the block chain repair itself and after the forks return to one chain, every fund that was spent on the other (destroyed) chain will be back to where it was when the fork happened.

Which means no one can put FIAT value on it since they don't know if the transaction done at the time will be validated.

that is only true if some party tries an malicous doublespent. in that case you are right.
but you should not assume that all bitcoin users are thieves. in case of a large split exchanges and other services will find ways to detect that (which probably means way longer conf-times on both chains than we are used to atm)

edit: btw this assumes that someone is able to broadcast a tx in both forks. if there is an internet connection between two forks there will be no fork at all

No... you don't understand;

Both fork will find the same blocks for a while, there's nothing to rebroadcast, you can't rebroadcast that you actually own all those BTC, because you just dont.

Only the chain that survive will decide who really own those blocks, which means from the destroyed chain, every blocks found, its fund and its and transaction included in and after those blocks will be completely invalidated and its completely impossible to rebroadcast those transactions, since the owner of those blocks will have changed;

The people people that found blocks and did transaction after the fork will see all of their actions reversed. You can't have a block reward twice, once for each fork.

Its just not.

You can have the wallet rebroadcast all the transaction and IF they had the fund before the fork, then sure they can then be accepted but that doesn't matter because at that point BTC will have crashed to nothingness because of the primary effect.

[achow101]

No its a extremely huge problem. People don't know *which* fork will be validated later on, the transaction from the destroyed fork will be invalidated, and will never get confirmed in the chain that survive.

What will everyone do if that happen? They will dump it down to 10 cents in one hour.

why not? as i said they are already signed and miners can just pick them up

No they can't. For example block X get mined on fork #1, it include XYZ transaction, that fund then get used later on, its on block X2.

Meanwhile the same happen on Fork #2, the same block has been found by someone else and fund are already moved are spent on fork #2 and it include different transaction. All those transaction can't be validated since the funds cannot be used twice. And destroyed transaction aren't returned to the mempool to be retried.

Instead the block chain repair itself and after the forks return to one chain, every fund that was spent on the other (destroyed) chain will be back to where it was when the fork happened.

Which means no one can put FIAT value on it since they don't know if the transaction done at the time will be validated.

that is only true if some party tries an malicous doublespent. in that case you are right.
but you should not assume that all bitcoin users are thieves. in case of a large split exchanges and other services will find ways to detect that (which probably means way longer conf-times on both chains than we are used to atm)

edit: btw this assumes that someone is able to broadcast a tx in both forks. if there is an internet connection between two forks there will be no fork at all

No... you don't understand;

Both fork will find the same blocks for a while, there's nothing to rebroadcast, you can't rebroadcast that you actually own all those BTC, because you just dont.

Only the chain that survive will decide who really own those blocks, which means from the destroyed chain, every blocks found, its fund and its and transaction included in and after those blocks will be completely invalidated and its completely impossible to rebroadcast those transactions, since the owner of those blocks will have changed;

The people people that found blocks and did transaction after the fork will see all of their actions reversed. You can't have a block reward twice, once for each fork.

Its just not.

You can have the wallet rebroadcast all the transaction and IF they had the fund before the fork, then sure they can then be accepted but that doesn't matter because at that point BTC will have crashed to nothingness because of the primary effect.

Oh. You are talking about coinbase transactions. Yes, coinbase transactions and any transactions spending them will be invalidated and thus will not be in the new post fork chain. However, in order for those coinbase to be even spendable, the blockchain needs to be at least 100 blocks long since the fork.

[VirosaGITS]

No its a extremely huge problem. People don't know *which* fork will be validated later on, the transaction from the destroyed fork will be invalidated, and will never get confirmed in the chain that survive.

What will everyone do if that happen? They will dump it down to 10 cents in one hour.

why not? as i said they are already signed and miners can just pick them up

No they can't. For example block X get mined on fork #1, it include XYZ transaction, that fund then get used later on, its on block X2.

Meanwhile the same happen on Fork #2, the same block has been found by someone else and fund are already moved are spent on fork #2 and it include different transaction. All those transaction can't be validated since the funds cannot be used twice. And destroyed transaction aren't returned to the mempool to be retried.

Instead the block chain repair itself and after the forks return to one chain, every fund that was spent on the other (destroyed) chain will be back to where it was when the fork happened.

Which means no one can put FIAT value on it since they don't know if the transaction done at the time will be validated.

that is only true if some party tries an malicous doublespent. in that case you are right.
but you should not assume that all bitcoin users are thieves. in case of a large split exchanges and other services will find ways to detect that (which probably means way longer conf-times on both chains than we are used to atm)

edit: btw this assumes that someone is able to broadcast a tx in both forks. if there is an internet connection between two forks there will be no fork at all

No... you don't understand;

Both fork will find the same blocks for a while, there's nothing to rebroadcast, you can't rebroadcast that you actually own all those BTC, because you just dont.

Only the chain that survive will decide who really own those blocks, which means from the destroyed chain, every blocks found, its fund and its and transaction included in and after those blocks will be completely invalidated and its completely impossible to rebroadcast those transactions, since the owner of those blocks will have changed;

The people people that found blocks and did transaction after the fork will see all of their actions reversed. You can't have a block reward twice, once for each fork.

Its just not.

You can have the wallet rebroadcast all the transaction and IF they had the fund before the fork, then sure they can then be accepted but that doesn't matter because at that point BTC will have crashed to nothingness because of the primary effect.

Oh. You are talking about coinbase transactions. Yes, coinbase transactions and any transactions spending them will be invalidated and thus will not be in the new post fork chain. However, in order for those coinbase to be even spendable, the blockchain needs to be at least 100 blocks long since the fork.

No o.O.

ALL transaction regarding the funds from the blocks after the fork will be invalidated. The destroyed fork will have all those transaction simply not exist in the final block chain.

I'm not talking about the nitpicky stuff. Or special circumstance.

You just can't have two people both get the 25BTC+TXfee per block. The end.

I don't know if i'm not explaining what i'm trying to say or something? Both fork will find the same blocks #, but there can only be one instance in the end. And whoever is in the destroyed fork will have no BTC from them after the merge. This also include the tx fee, the transaction, everything.

[aakashsangwan]

If we talk about the hashing power, than i think that china wins by miles.

And if we talk about the no. Of people who mines bitcoins then i would say the name of usa or europe.

What i am trying to say is that china is having mining farms in bulk amd in usa and europe, people mine in their homes, this is not a fact but a speculation by me. 

[achow101]

No o.O.

ALL transaction regarding the funds from the blocks after the fork will be invalidated. The destroyed fork will have all those transaction simply not exist in the final block chain.

I'm not talking about the nitpicky stuff. Or special circumstance.

You just can't have two people both get the 25BTC+TXfee per block. The end.

I don't know if i'm not explaining what i'm trying to say or something? Both fork will find the same blocks #, but there can only be one instance in the end. And whoever is in the destroyed fork will have no BTC from them after the merge. This also include the tx fee, the transaction, everything.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. The coinbase transactions and all of the following transactions in one fork can not exist when the forks combine.

[VirosaGITS]

No o.O.

ALL transaction regarding the funds from the blocks after the fork will be invalidated. The destroyed fork will have all those transaction simply not exist in the final block chain.

I'm not talking about the nitpicky stuff. Or special circumstance.

You just can't have two people both get the 25BTC+TXfee per block. The end.

I don't know if i'm not explaining what i'm trying to say or something? Both fork will find the same blocks #, but there can only be one instance in the end. And whoever is in the destroyed fork will have no BTC from them after the merge. This also include the tx fee, the transaction, everything.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. The coinbase transactions and all of the following transactions in one fork can not exist when the forks combine.

Sure but what i'm saying has nothing to do with coinbase per see. All transactions to and from coinbase would also get hit just like all non coinbase transaction as well. And coinbase would actually be less catastrophic internally because internal transaction doesn't go through the blockchain.

But regardless, even though it could be possible to operate, they would shut it down, since there is no way Coinbase or any proper exchange would continue to operate in those conditions.

[achow101]

No o.O.

ALL transaction regarding the funds from the blocks after the fork will be invalidated. The destroyed fork will have all those transaction simply not exist in the final block chain.

I'm not talking about the nitpicky stuff. Or special circumstance.

You just can't have two people both get the 25BTC+TXfee per block. The end.

I don't know if i'm not explaining what i'm trying to say or something? Both fork will find the same blocks #, but there can only be one instance in the end. And whoever is in the destroyed fork will have no BTC from them after the merge. This also include the tx fee, the transaction, everything.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. The coinbase transactions and all of the following transactions in one fork can not exist when the forks combine.

Sure but what i'm saying has nothing to do with coinbase per see. All transactions to and from coinbase would also get hit just like all non coinbase transaction as well. And coinbase would actually be less catastrophic internally because internal transaction doesn't go through the blockchain.

But regardless, even though it could be possible to operate, they would shut it down, since there is no way Coinbase or any proper exchange would continue to operate in those conditions.

I'm not taking about coinbase the company. I'm talking about the transactions which generate the block reward, which are called coinbase transactions.