If BTC hardforks, all people owning BTC will own the exact ammount on both forks

[Mikcik]

If BTC hardforks (due to segwit vs bigger blocks for example or for whatever reason), people owning BTC (lets say 5 BTC) will own still 5 BTC on BOTH chains/forks... Correct?

And would it matter if the 5 BTC in the moment of fork was on my private adress/wallet, OR if it was on some agregated BTC adress/wallet (like on an exchange like bitstamp for example)...? Even in this case i would still own 5 BTC on BOTH chains?

[BillyBobZorton]

If BTC hardforks (due to segwit vs bigger blocks for example or for whatever reason), people owning BTC (lets say 5 BTC) will own still 5 BTC on BOTH chains/forks... Correct?

And would it matter if the 5 BTC in the moment of fork was on my private adress/wallet, OR if it was on some agregated BTC adress/wallet (like on an exchange like bitstamp for example)...? Even in this case i would still own 5 BTC on BOTH chains?

Yes, you will have 5 BTC in BTC and 5 BUC or whatever Bitcoin Unlimited gets (BUC for BUCoins)

I predict everyone will dump BUC if that ever happens just like how everyone dumped ETC when ETH/ETC split happened.

[franky1]

hard fork does not mean automatic split and 2 chains co-exist forevr
soft fork does not mean automatic single chain and no issues

stop using umprella terms and thn using best case scenario of soft and worse case scenario of hard.

in short:
soft=only pools vote
hard=nodes and pools vote.

then there are sub categories of good or bad of each

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

if you want to talk about the ethereum style of for. that was a hard BILATERAL(intentional) split.

but also remember there is code in bip 9 to allow a soft bilateral(intentional) split too.


to answer your question about an intentional(bilateral) split.

yes if 2 chains persist what ever funds were on the key belonging to you prior to the split will be mirrored on both copies of the chain. so yes 5btc on chain A and 5btc on chain B.

as for the 'value' or 'usability' of each, is dependant on who recognises or uses which chain.
EG if no one uses chain B then you cant really 'spend' the B chain coins because no one accepts them.

[calkob]

If BTC hardforks (due to segwit vs bigger blocks for example or for whatever reason), people owning BTC (lets say 5 BTC) will own still 5 BTC on BOTH chains/forks... Correct?

And would it matter if the 5 BTC in the moment of fork was on my private adress/wallet, OR if it was on some agregated BTC adress/wallet (like on an exchange like bitstamp for example)...? Even in this case i would still own 5 BTC on BOTH chains?

That is correct you would own BTC on both chains and could wait and see which chain is winning before bailing out.  i made a few Bitcoin when i sold all of my ETC when this happened in ethereum.

Beware tho when it comes to exchanges, technically they own the addresses and could pick a chain to follow which means you wouldnt get the benefit of the other chain.  although i know that POLO allowed both chains when eth split over the DAO.

[Holliday]

And would it matter if the 5 BTC in the moment of fork was on my private adress/wallet, OR if it was on some agregated BTC adress/wallet (like on an exchange like bitstamp for example)...? Even in this case i would still own 5 BTC on BOTH chains?

Of course it matters.

If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.

If your coins are held by an exchange, you have IOUs, not bitcoins. In that case, if a contentious hard fork occurs and two chains survive the split, the exchange decides which coins you receive. They may let you withdraw your coins on both chains, or they may choose one for you and keep the coins on the other chain for themselves. This is just one of many reasons why no one should ever use an exchange as a wallet. If you want to trade, fine, but when you are finished, withdraw your coins to an address that is exclusively under your control (or risk the various shenanigans which tend to occur at exchanges / central wallets).

[Mikcik]

Thank you for tips and explanations :-).