Fork: Will this be possible?

[maokoto]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

[gentlemand]

It's all or nothing in my opinion. If two chains continue side by side then that's a signal that the whole thing is about to go down the toilet. People won't put any faith in something that can split down the middle, not that that's how human nature works.

[maokoto]

It's all or nothing in my opinion. If two chains continue side by side then that's a signal that the whole thing is about to go down the toilet. People won't put any faith in something that can split down the middle, not that that's how human nature works.

But if it happened, I think that its highly unlikely that value will drop to 0. Some value would remain, and perhaps then would go up from there?

However, I agree that the most probable thing would be destruction as you say...

[gentlemand]

But if it happened, I think that its highly unlikely that value will drop to 0. Some value would remain, and perhaps then would go up from there?

There might be a tiny hard core of people still messing around with it but the loser would have to become a total irrelevance for the whole scene to survive. It might live on as an alt but nothing more.

[Q7]

It's all or nothing in my opinion. If two chains continue side by side then that's a signal that the whole thing is about to go down the toilet. People won't put any faith in something that can split down the middle, not that that's how human nature works.

Same here. Thus, I'm not sure how OP can profit from it but supposed that really happens with two different chains being there, people are already getting the misleading impression about bitcoin. As far as branding, trust and reputation are concerned, that will never work out. People who are new might be asking which one is better or which one is more superior, in the end both are not.

[silverleafy]

With two chains, the coins are not duplicated. Since everyone would still be on the same network and using the same magic bytes, every transaction that spends a transaction from before the fork would appear on both blockchains. You wouldn't have double the coins, you would just be moving them around simultaneously on two chains.

[maokoto]

With two chains, the coins are not duplicated. Since everyone would still be on the same network and using the same magic bytes, every transaction that spends a transaction from before the fork would appear on both blockchains. You wouldn't have double the coins, you would just be moving them around simultaneously on two chains.

It is really so? if there is a fork and you spend a coin in blockchain A, How would that transaction be translated to blockchain B? Is that really possible?

I am asking from my ignorance. It seems to me that it would not be possible, since there is no way that the two blockchains would communicate anymore, but perhaps I am missing something.

[Slark]

Remember what happened couple weeks ago with Bitcoin XT nodes. Every split of fork into to separate beings will be catastrophic to bitcoin integrity.
You will not profit from it, in fact we all lose.

[gentlemand]

Remember what happened couple weeks ago with Bitcoin XT nodes. Every split of fork into to separate beings will be catastrophic to bitcoin integrity.
You will not profit from it, in fact we all lose.

Yup. And that was just the tiniest taste of the real thing. That exploded instantly. If the real deal was on the horizon it would be a whole load messier.

[silverleafy]

With two chains, the coins are not duplicated. Since everyone would still be on the same network and using the same magic bytes, every transaction that spends a transaction from before the fork would appear on both blockchains. You wouldn't have double the coins, you would just be moving them around simultaneously on two chains.

It is really so? if there is a fork and you spend a coin in blockchain A, How would that transaction be translated to blockchain B? Is that really possible?

I am asking from my ignorance. It seems to me that it would not be possible, since there is no way that the two blockchains would communicate anymore, but perhaps I am missing something.

There is absolutely nothing that distinguishes the transactions of one chain and the other except that some of the transactions might eventually lead back to a coinbase which is in one chain but not the other.

Assuming that nothing else changes except stuff for the fork, then nodes would still communicate to each other no matter which fork they are on. So they would still relay transactions and thus those transactions would appear to all nodes. If those transactions spent coins that were not tainted with coins from coinbases created after the fork, then that transaction would be accepted by nodes on both blockchains and thus be included in both blockchains.

[Mickeyb]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

[mayax]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

Bitcoin XT is real. So, why not?

[neurotypical]

What you need to know is that for the fork to happen (2 actual chains) you need to reach maximun consensus, which means that that point, the other chain is automatically rendered valueless. Your coins will be availible automatically in the other chain so no worries. Also its not going to happen anyway.

[Amph]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

Bitcoin XT is real. So, why not?

because there is no consensus for it, there are better proposal, and core is strong with the greater %

[franky1]

if it did split into tw chains.. then its not about users just using 2 chains.. its about whatever coinbase, bitpay and vendors choose as their prefered chain..

after all if users prefer chain 1 but 30,000 vendors linked via bitpay are using chain 2.. then there is literally no point using chain one as you cant spend it..

i think that worrying about thousands of users deciding on a particular chain is important.. when infact the decision is more about 7 business preferences that will cause one fork to fail or suceed.

so keep your eyes out for which fork/bip preference these companies have
bitpay
coinbase
bitpay
localbitcoins
illicit market


because whatever they choose. users will follow

[Kakmakr]

Whatever happens is bad news for Bitcoin. This whole fork thing has spread enough confusion for business to second guess their decision to accept BTC as a payment method. Most people using Bitcoin without the technical knowledge, do not even know about the possible fork.

The businesses out there needs stability and trust in the currency they use and Bitcoin is not providing that at the moment. It is sadly all about Blockstream and The Lighting network and what profits engineers can make from this.

[Mickeyb]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

Bitcoin XT is real. So, why not?

It is real, but if they meant to get some support, I am sure they would have gotten it by now! It's clear to everyone by now that Bitcoin XT was just a failed case of highjacking Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

The blocksize needs to be increased, most people can agree with this. increasing the blocksize requires a hard fork. Regardless whether it is implemented in XT or Core.

It will not be possible to spend coins from chain A on chain B after the hard fork event. Whether we will have multiple surviving chains with the original genesis block will depend on how much support people give to these alternatives.

We should embrace the concept of hard forking away from the core developer team as an extension of the ethos of volunteerism and freedom. Since it is this mechanism that helps to prevent the centralization of power within a Core development team.

I would not discount XT just yet, miners are smart, they would not support a controversial fork without the support of the economic majority. If the blocks did become consistently full it would lead to transactions being rendered unreliable while also increasing the transaction cost, over the long term with increased adoption this would even lead to transactions becoming prohibitively expensive for most people. This scenario would cause economic pressure to increase the blocksize whether it be through Core, XT or possibly another alternative implementation. Since it is the economic majority that rules Bitcoin not the Core development team after all.

[mayax]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

Bitcoin XT is real. So, why not?

It is real, but if they meant to get some support, I am sure they would have gotten it by now! It's clear to everyone by now that Bitcoin XT was just a failed case of highjacking Bitcoin.

Well, you should remember that Gavin is a BTC VIP. All the BTC media says that he is the best developer. )))
So, did he want to highjack BTC?

[VeritasSapere]

I know that the fork talk is low nowadays  , and that the possibility of it to happen are close to 0.

But let's say it does happen and BTC exist in the two chains... Would it not be a possibility to profit from it? if coins are duplicated, the highest possibility is that they drop to half value. But, could it not be that they keep some of that value and people will end up with a gain %?

Would be kinda like a halving or not?

The fork will not happen (thanks God). Case closed!

It serves no purpose to even talk about the consequences when it's not going to happen!

Bitcoin XT is real. So, why not?

It is real, but if they meant to get some support, I am sure they would have gotten it by now! It's clear to everyone by now that Bitcoin XT was just a failed case of highjacking Bitcoin.

Well, you should remember that Gavin is a BTC VIP. All the BTC media says that he is the best developer. )))

So, did he want to highjack BTC?

Yeah the idea of Bitcoin being hijacked is ridiculous, it certainly must stem from a lack of understanding of Bitcoin. The only way to "hijack" Bitcoin would be to circumvent the consensus mechanism.

Ironically the only way to circumvent the consensus mechanism would be to forcefully oppose alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol.