Would my bitcoins be worthless if miners would switch to bitcoin classic?

[BruceLee007]

So yeah i did some readings about the whole thing that is happening with the block size problem. So if the miners would switch from core to classic would all my bitcoins become worthless or it still would stay safely in my wallet without any affect?

[shorena]

So yeah i did some readings about the whole thing that is happening with the block size problem. So if the miners would switch from core to classic would all my bitcoins become worthless or it still would stay safely in my wallet without any affect?

No, if a split happens you have coins on both sides of the split as long as you control the private keys to them. If you are using a service that holds the keys for you, they will decide for you.

[Lauda]

Let me try explaining this properly. Currently Bitcoin is running on Chain A with Bitcoin Core being the main implementation. If Bitcoin Classic chooses a lower consensus threshold and the miners adopt it this means that Blockchain A will fork and now we will have two separate chains: Chain A and Chain B. This is also means that you will have coins on both Chain A and Chain B. You would just have to install and run Bitcoin Classic and you would be able to move coins on that chain to (if you have the private keys).
Your coins will not be worthless. However, it is highly likely that there is going to be chaos and high devaluation of both chains (depending on consensus threshold).

[BruceLee007]

Let me try explaining this properly. Currently Bitcoin is running on Chain A with Bitcoin Core being the main implementation. If Bitcoin Classic chooses a lower consensus threshold and the miners adopt it this means that Blockchain A will fork and now we will have two separate chains: Chain A and Chain B. This is also means that you will have coins on both Chain A and Chain B. You would just have to install and run Bitcoin Classic and you would be able to move coins on that chain to (if you have the private keys).
Your coins will not be worthless. However, it is highly likely that there is going to be chaos and high devaluation of both chains (depending on consensus threshold).

but if there will be two chains and my bitcoins will be on both of them wouldnt it mean that i could actually spend my bitcoins twice then on the first and the second chain?

[Lauda]

but if there will be two chains and my bitcoins will be on both of them wouldnt it mean that i could actually spend my bitcoins twice then on the first and the second chain?

That depends. It is possible that there will be a time period in which you would be able to move the coins on the minority chain (if it has sufficient hashrate).

[MicroGuy]

So yeah i did some readings about the whole thing that is happening with the block size problem. So if the miners would switch from core to classic would all my bitcoins become worthless or it still would stay safely in my wallet without any affect?

The bitcoins you have now on the blockchain would be secure. But the overall value of bitcoin will decline massively if the Classic coup is successful.

Instead of applying rocket science complexity to softfork bitcoin, core needs a simple 2MB hard fork.

[BruceLee007]

but if there will be two chains and my bitcoins will be on both of them wouldnt it mean that i could actually spend my bitcoins twice then on the first and the second chain?

That depends. It is possible that there will be a time period in which you would be able to move the coins on the minority chain (if it has sufficient hashrate).

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

[achow101]

but if there will be two chains and my bitcoins will be on both of them wouldnt it mean that i could actually spend my bitcoins twice then on the first and the second chain?

That depends. It is possible that there will be a time period in which you would be able to move the coins on the minority chain (if it has sufficient hashrate).

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

It would, which is why when hard forks deploy, they do so with consensus so as to prevent two chains from surviving.

[BruceLee007]

So yeah i did some readings about the whole thing that is happening with the block size problem. So if the miners would switch from core to classic would all my bitcoins become worthless or it still would stay safely in my wallet without any affect?

The bitcoins you have now on the blockchain would be secure. But the overall value of bitcoin will decline massively if the Classic coup is successful.

Instead of applying rocket science complexity to softfork bitcoin, core needs a simple 2MB hard fork.

uhmm actually the main thing im worrying about is the price, would it be the drop like to 100 mark and it wouldnt recover any time soon, or it wouldnt be so serious and after a few months the price would recover?

[Lauda]

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

No. You don't understand what 2 chains means. Let me make an example (that might not be directly suitable):
Bitcoin and Litecoin have two different chains. 'Bitcoin Core' and 'Bitcoin Classic' would separate at a point in time (if it comes to this) and their chains would not be related just as Bitcoin and Litecoin are. The different here is that Bitcoin Classic would inherent everything from Bitcoin Core where Litecoin started fresh (but is still a fork of Bitcoin).
There would be a maximum of:
21 million coins on Bitcoin Core; &
21 million coins on Bitcoin Classic.

Technically this is a very bad thing. I've told you that it depends on the consensus threshold. If almost everyone upgrades then this is not going to happen as the chain would die very quickly. It would be best to avoid Classic completely.

[MicroGuy]

but if there will be two chains and my bitcoins will be on both of them wouldnt it mean that i could actually spend my bitcoins twice then on the first and the second chain?

That depends. It is possible that there will be a time period in which you would be able to move the coins on the minority chain (if it has sufficient hashrate).

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

Don't feel bad. The Founder and CEO of Coinbase doesn't understand the difference between a soft fork and a hard fork either!



http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

[BruceLee007]

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

No. You don't understand what 2 chains means. Let me make an example (that might not be directly suitable):
Bitcoin and Litecoin have two different chains. 'Bitcoin Core' and 'Bitcoin Classic' would separate at a point in time (if it comes to this) and their chains would not be related just as Bitcoin and Litecoin are. The different here is that Bitcoin Classic would inherent everything from Bitcoin Core where Litecoin started fresh (but is still a fork of Bitcoin).
There would be a maximum of:
21 million coins on Bitcoin Core; &
21 million coins on Bitcoin Classic.

Technically this is a very bad thing. I've told you that it depends on the consensus threshold. If almost everyone upgrades then this is not going to happen as the chain would die very quickly. It would be best to avoid Classic completely.

so actually we would create another cryptocurrency if we move to classic and everything would be copied and the previous currency that was with core would be killed? im getting more and more scared

[Lauda]

so actually we would create another cryptocurrency if we move to classic and everything would be copied and the previous currency that was with core would be killed? im getting more and more scared

You could say that. That is how a hard fork functions. This would happen only if there was a consensus threshold lower than 90-95% and it was rushed. We've had hard forks in the past but they were for different reasons. The optimal case when it comes to a hard fork is a planned upgrade (min. 6 months IMO) and consensus of 95% (minimum). This way we prevent that from happening.

[unamis76]

Before creating threads such as this I advise reading threads on the exact same issue with the exact same answers when this was discussed on the first time, when XT merged those big block patches.

Starting to really question myself if some of these threads are legit doubts, incapability of using Google and search functions or people paid to raise chaos

[helloeverybody]

i see, but wouldnt it break the whole system, as if i double spend the coins at that time it would mean that more bitcoins would be in circulation and thus there would be more than 21 million coins??

No. You don't understand what 2 chains means. Let me make an example (that might not be directly suitable):
Bitcoin and Litecoin have two different chains. 'Bitcoin Core' and 'Bitcoin Classic' would separate at a point in time (if it comes to this) and their chains would not be related just as Bitcoin and Litecoin are. The different here is that Bitcoin Classic would inherent everything from Bitcoin Core where Litecoin started fresh (but is still a fork of Bitcoin).
There would be a maximum of:
21 million coins on Bitcoin Core; &
21 million coins on Bitcoin Classic.

Technically this is a very bad thing. I've told you that it depends on the consensus threshold. If almost everyone upgrades then this is not going to happen as the chain would die very quickly. It would be best to avoid Classic completely.

so actually we would create another cryptocurrency if we move to classic and everything would be copied and the previous currency that was with core would be killed? im getting more and more scared

Any hard fork we do is essentially making an alt coin, unless the original is killed by everyone moving to the new coin  in which case your new alt just gets called bitcoin. thats the way i see it and im pretty sure thats correct unless someone wants to correct me.

[franky1]

its not that simple... there are 4 scenarios.. not one.. dont confuse one for the other

1.
if only some miners upgraded to 2mb (miner c) and A and B were regular <1mb block limits this would happen:

inshort, C(large) blocks would get orphaned

2.
if 2mb implementations(classic or xt or BU) only communicated to miner C and totally ignore miner A, B.. then 2mb imps and C would have their own unique data (fork/altcoin). and segwit would get data from A,B happily and just drop C.. so A,B and segwit would share data.. 2 chains not talking to each other..

3.
if ALL miners upgraded, but there was a mix of segwit and 2mb imps.
then the miners would all have the same chain data, 2mb imps would have the same data... but segwit would be left behind missing a few blocks it deems not compatible. in short segwit wont be able to sync with the network as its left way behind and their chain is missing a few links

4.
if no miners upgrade.. and only users do.. then users can still get 1mb blocks as there is nothing stopping them.. the rule is anything below 2mb so even under  1mb is still valid to a sub 2mb node
and they are ready for any surprises in the future as the extra setting change is just sat there an unused buffer,..

summary.
scenario 1 is acceptable as it will regulate itself,,, orphaning off when needed is bad, but it can work..(eventually C miners would downgrade to <1mb to avoid ophans and loss of revenue.. si it works out in the end)
scenario 2  and 3 are not good for the community as a whole..
scenario 4 is acceptable. because miners will still be producing <1mb blocks so the whole community still receive the same data.

but as the OP asked.. its the miners that can cause scenarios 2, 3 if they upgraded, which is not what the community want until its ready to happen

but if there was a scenario 2 or 3.. then the OP can import his private key into a service he wanted to use with funds he already had to play around on that chain..
the problem.. lets use scenario 2 for instance.

if he received funds from someone on 2mb imp chain.. it would only appear on 2mb imp chain and he would need to find a service that uses 2mb chain.. same for segwit.. if he received a segwit transaction while there was 2 chains.. then that new funds would only be on the segwit chain..

but if he had funds cold stored before the fork.. then they can be used on both chains. as they existed on both chains when the data use to be the same chain

[Lauda]

Any hard fork we do is essentially making an alt coin, unless the original is killed by everyone moving to the new coin  in which case your new alt just gets called bitcoin. thats the way i see it and im pretty sure thats correct unless someone wants to correct me.

Yes. Without going into the technical explanation of a hard fork and whatnot, this is how I would explain it to someone who does not have knowledge in these areas. Essentially it is an 'upgrade' of the old chain if there is consensus among almost everybody (killing off the old one), otherwise the chain will split in two.

[Nomad88]

I think reading this topic helped me more to understand the basics of the bitcoin classic issue, but i still have some questions about bitcoin classic. What will it take to start running this system? I mean don`t they, bitcoin classic supporters need to control the majority of the mining power in blockchain? I mean, even %51 percent of mining power might not be enough. Aren`t we talking about a fork in blockchain which will be created on purpose? How will we make sure every single bitcoin(hard copys as well) is copied to new chain? This chaotic divided bitcoin comminity is worrying me for the future of bitcoin. Should i be worried actually? Some help from experienced users would be very appreciated.

[avikz]

I have a very simple answer to your question.

I hope you know Angelina Jolie. Now whose movie you will prefer?? Original Jolie's or her look alike's??

This way, Bitcoin can have many alternatives, but nothing can replace it really.

I can understand that the difficulty is increasing and solo miners and out of profit from some time now. But it has paved ways for new type of improvements and innovations.

I can strongly say, Bitcoin will never be worthless.

[Shrinath]

I can say with total confidence, Bitcoin will never be worthless. I hope you know Angelina Jolie. Now whose movie you will prefer?? Original Jolie's or her look alike's? I have a very simple answer to your question. This way, Bitcoin can have many alternatives, but nothing can replace it really.  I can understand that the difficulty is increasing and solo miners and out of profit from some time now. But it has paved ways for new type of improvements and innovations. Instead of applying rocket science complexity to softfork bitcoin, core needs a simple 2MB hard fork. The bitcoins you have now on the blockchain would be secure. But the overall value of bitcoin will decline massively if the Classic coup is successful.