Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan

[monsanto]

2. A fork should make the exchanges some money, so it wouldn't surprise me to see them push for it.

It would be their single biggest money maker in history. They'll probably all retire and then some creep will set up a BTU only exchange to annoy us all.

Yes, and importantly all the exchanges that are really operating as fractional reserves because they lost or stole their customer's bitcoins will be able to buy back at cheap prices.  We might get our Gox coins back    

[1715015792]

1715015792

[1715015792]

1715015792

[1715015792]

1715015792

[dinofelis]

That is interesting.
The bitcoin community is obviously very divided currently and will probably continue to be divided even after the hard fork.
Hopefully bitcoin will survive this fiasco, however even if it does there will probably be future ones that are bigger.

A crypto currency is not an open source project, it is a protocol that serves as a smart contract.  Software implements this smart contract.   A crypto currency can be something like TCP/IP, except that it is not very open for revision because economic advantages are at stake: this is why it is not just a convention, but a contract.  

You could even say that a crypto currency is laid out in the original white paper, that is the contract.  Then, software can implement that.  But there can be several open source projects implementing the same white paper.  Once a system is up and running, economic adversity between users/antagonists makes that the only consensus on the protocol is status quo.
The software that wants to run in that system needs to respect that protocol, or it will get "punished".  What team makes the software is not so very important.

[quake313]

I don't understand why the unlimited people just don't fork off and leave. Prove their way is better, if it is people will follow them.

[gentlemand]

I don't understand why the unlimited people just don't fork off and leave. Prove their way is better, if it is people will follow them.

That assumes that there's no nefarious intention behind the whole thing or the desire to assert control over the existing chain and break a few wills at the same time.

If they really wanted to start afresh and stand apart then it would already have happened.

[quake313]

I don't understand why the unlimited people just don't fork off and leave. Prove their way is better, if it is people will follow them.

That assumes that there's no nefarious intention behind the whole thing.

Some will want to start afresh completely but others will want to assert control over the existing chain and break a few wills at the same time.

That would be some bullshit, grudges, politics and whatnot.

[gentlemand]

That would be some bullshit, grudges, politics and whatnot.

Yup. And it's only going to keep on growing. I'm sure much of it sprang from pure intentions originally but there's a lot of water under the bridge now and perhaps there are many people who now only want to ram their point home whatever it takes.

[mindrust]

Coinbase are a conspicuous absence on the list. Who else is missing?

Btc-e is absent too. I want to know which part of the text they didn't agree on to be honest. The declaration looked reasonable enough to me.

[Henkkaa]

These you have it folks, the economic majority is coming to a consensus that the BU implementation is an altcoin and will be listed under BTU.

But won't BU still make bitcoin's price go down a bunch, if it hardforks?

I'm a bit confused of this whole situation. I tried reading about this in many different places, such as coinbase, and everyone keeps saying bitcoin will hardfork. That would then decrease the value of bitcoin?? I'm a bit scared of what will happen with bitcoin to be honest.

[Lauda]

The notion of altcoin will not exist any more.  Bitcoin will have become a coin like any other.
First mover advantage gone if ever that happens.

Wrong. BTU will be, per definition, an altcoin. I'm not going to comment the latter part, but it will surely have a negative effect short term. I guess this is what they wanted when they were "concerned with the user experience".

These you have it folks, the economic majority is coming to a consensus that the BU implementation is an altcoin and will be listed under BTU.

But won't BU still make bitcoin's price go down a bunch, if it hardforks?

I'm a bit confused of this whole situation. I tried reading about this in many different places, such as coinbase, and everyone keeps saying bitcoin will hardfork. That would then decrease the value of bitcoin?? I'm a bit scared of what will happen with bitcoin to be honest.

Yes; to be frank, it will be a "fucking blood bath". Whales supporting their own chain will be dumping the other chain to the ground in hopes that their chain is significantly stronger than the opposition.

[Quickseller]

This is probably the best way to handle things. Once BU activates, the market will be able to decide which chain will emerge as the "winner" as the price will give the miners an incentive to mine on the higher priced coin.

In regards to what "blockstream coin" and "bitcoin unlimited" are called on the exchanges, I really do not think this matters, even if exchanges call either of them something other than Bitcoin for a long time. Although it is very likely that one chain will very quickly die due to the incentives associated with mining and the time it takes for the difficulty to recalculate.

I agree that there should be something to prevent replay attacks on the protocol level, both for the exchanges' sake, and for the protection of the end user. Although as mentioned above, one chain will likely die, and if this happens, replay attacks will be more or less a non-issue.

[Holliday]

I agree that there should be something to prevent replay attacks on the protocol level, both for the exchanges' sake, and for the protection of the end user.

Used properly, the block size itself can be leveraged to disassociate coins between chains.

I can send a transaction (or a chain of them) which would take ages to confirm on the existing chain, yet on a big block chain it should confirm in the next block. I then RBF on the existing chain to a different address under my control. Voila, easy disassociation.

There is also mining reward "taint", although you have to actually get some of it to use it. Once you've tainted your coins though, they can be used to taint others, and so on.

[Quickseller]

I agree that there should be something to prevent replay attacks on the protocol level, both for the exchanges' sake, and for the protection of the end user.

Used properly, the block size itself can be leveraged to disassociate coins between chains.

I can send a transaction (or a chain of them) which would take ages to confirm on the existing chain, yet on a big block chain it should confirm in the next block. I then RBF on the existing chain to a different address under my control. Voila, easy disassociation.

There is also mining reward "taint", although you have to actually get some of it to use it. Once you've tainted your coins though, they can be used to taint others, and so on.

Yes, exchanges (and users) could send some of their BTC to one address on BU, have that transaction confirm, then double spend that transaction spending those blockstream coins to a second address with a high enough fee for it to confirm, and subsequently have each transaction be dependent on each of those non-compatible transactions . Unfortunately that could turn out to be very expensive and impractical, especially if many people are trying to do this at nearly the same time, especially considering that many exchange customers will not like delays in processing withdrawals.

If there was something in the BU protocol that makes a BU transaction not compatible with a blockstream coin transaction, then this would solve the problem.

[Holliday]

If there was something in the BU protocol that makes a BU transaction not compatible with a blockstream coin transaction, then this would solve the problem.

Sure, but then you have to convince them that they should implement this, which they probably see as an admission that they are not the "original chain" or something.

As contentious as this has become, I wonder if either side would be willing to do that. I doubt it, but I have been surprised before!

[BitUsher]

Summary

TLDR = BU fork will only be added to exchnages with proper replay protection and it will be an altcoin called BTU / XBT

https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/assets/exchange_handling_of_contentious_hard_fork_event.pdf

20 Exchanges in the document that say the original chain with remain bitcoin / btc regardless of outcome :

Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Bitso, Bitsquare, Bitonic, Bitbank, Coinfloor, Coincheck, itBit, QuadrigaCX, Bitt, Bittrex, Kraken, Ripio, ShapeShift, The Rock Trading and Zaif

2 signers agree with document but place an exception that they reserve the right to rename BTU as BTC if the supermajpority switches :

ShapeShift  - If BTU sees 95% it wins the name BTC, otherwise the original chain remains BTC -
https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/842830189474136064

Kraken - At their discretion - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5zz6cu/important_the_exchange_announcement_is_indicating/df2fnyz/

----------------------------------

2 more exchange joined this list :

21) Bitmex  

https://twitter.com/BitMEXdotcom/status/842796617120059393

https://blog.bitmex.com/a-statement-on-the-possible-bitcoin-unlimited-hard-fork/

22) poloniex
  
https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/

https://twitter.com/Poloniex/status/842789390518812673

[jujugoboom]

I am nervous because if I hold bitcoin, I may not earn much money. But if bitcoin plummets, the altcoins will pump hard, I choose to invest altcoins instead.

[Wind_FURY]

Coinbase are a conspicuous absence on the list. Who else is missing?

Yes but Brian Armstrong already declared his support for Core and Segwit activation months ago and that presumably is the unofficial statement from Coinbase.

There we have it, the top exchanges declaring their support for Core. Those people must know what is really going on. Behind all the technical argument, there is really politics.

[iamTom123]

One thing is certain. Bitcoin problems won't be tackled with these on going wars and community split. It's been 3 years already, nothing changed.

Say that again, these oldies are making things difficult and doing politics everywhere. Let's stop the politicization and get the solutions for Bitcoin to be strengthened.

I am not expert on Bitcoin and its many confusing terms and technicalities but one thing I see is that we are trying to complicate things because we are bringing our biases and self-interests into the Bitcoin table. Another problem is that because Bitcoin is supposedly decentralized there is no single agency that can decide on certain issues with finality. Hence, nay problem or debate can go on for years with no solution but this scenario can be more desirable if the whole thing can be centralized or regulated, I guess.

When i started in Bitcoin, all I read and see online were praises and hurrahs for Bitcoin as if it is the the newfound thing that can give hope for mankind. Now, I thin am mistaken as it is just another form of currency to play with. I felt that I was just carried away emotionally and I lost the fact that we are still dealing with humans here.

[dinofelis]

I don't understand why the unlimited people just don't fork off and leave. Prove their way is better, if it is people will follow them.

Because the only thing bitcoin has going for it is its brand name.  It can still say it is "not an alt coin".  There are better alt coins out there than BU, technically speaking.   Hell, all big alt coins are technically better than bitcoin or BU.  Segwit is already existing in lite coin (but not activated either).  DASH is bitcoin with integrated tumblers.  ETH has smart contracts.  Monero is fungible and private.  ALL of these coins, by themselves, are technically far superior over bitcoin.  The only thing that bitcoin has, is its brand name, which keeps it at number 1 for the moment.

[dinofelis]

One thing is certain. Bitcoin problems won't be tackled with these on going wars and community split. It's been 3 years already, nothing changed.

Say that again, these oldies are making things difficult and doing politics everywhere. Let's stop the politicization and get the solutions for Bitcoin to be strengthened.

I am not expert on Bitcoin and its many confusing terms and technicalities but one thing I see is that we are trying to complicate things because we are bringing our biases and self-interests into the Bitcoin table. Another problem is that because Bitcoin is supposedly decentralized there is no single agency that can decide on certain issues with finality. Hence, nay problem or debate can go on for years with no solution but this scenario can be more desirable if the whole thing can be centralized or regulated, I guess.

When i started in Bitcoin, all I read and see online were praises and hurrahs for Bitcoin as if it is the the newfound thing that can give hope for mankind. Now, I thin am mistaken as it is just another form of currency to play with. I felt that I was just carried away emotionally and I lost the fact that we are still dealing with humans here.

But the thing I highlighted is the (only) thing that makes it precious: NOBODY can change it.   As we see, indeed, nobody can change it.  So it is working.  Immutability: it works the way it was designed from the start, and cannot be changed: the rules are graved in stone, for the better or the worse.

Yes, the *software* implementing those rules can change.  But the rules themselves, no, if they determine something economical.  That was the guarantee of a crypto currency: the rules are graved in stone for ever, like the transactions.

[Xester]

Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-exchanges-unveil-emergency-hard-fork-contingency-plan/

"As exchanges in the Bitcoin ecosystem, we face certain challenges that are unique to us. Specifically, we are collectively faced with addressing the very real possibility that a Bitcoin network split may occur in the future. We’d like to take the time to update the community on the procedure that we, as an industry, intend to follow in the event of a contentious hardfork activating on the Bitcoin network.

First, we want to make it clear that we are not here to pass judgement on such an event. If miners want to direct their hashing power to an alternative and incompatible protocol implementation, that is their right. We believe, however, that such hardforks should be engendered through a consensus of miners and users and, at this time, we have not achieved consensus.

As exchanges, we have a responsibility to maintain orderly markets that trade continuously 24/7/365. It is incumbent upon us to support a coherent, orderly, and industry-wide approach to preparing for and responding to a contentious hardfork. In the case of a Bitcoin hardfork, we cannot suspend operations and wait for a winner to emerge. Many of our platforms allow leveraged trading that requires markets to operate continuously. Due to operational requirements alone we are compelled to label an incompatible fork as a new asset.

Since it appears likely we may see a hardfork initiated by the Bitcoin Unlimited project, we have decided to designate the Bitcoin Unlimited fork as BTU (or XBU). The Bitcoin Core implementation will continue to trade as BTC (or XBT) and all exchanges will process deposits and withdrawals in BTC even if the BTU chain has more hashing power. Some exchanges intend to list BTU and all of us will try to take steps to preserve and enable access to customers’ BTU. However, none of the undersigned can list BTU unless we can run both chains independently without incident. Consequently, we insist that the Bitcoin Unlimited community (or any other consensus breaking implementation) build in strong two-wayreplay protection. Failure to do so will impede our ability to preserve BTU for customers and will either delay or outright preclude the listing of BTU.

In summary, if a contentious hardfork occurs, the Bitcoin Core implementation will continue to be listed as BTC (or XBT) and the new fork as BTU (or XBU), but not without adequate replay protection. We do this not out of judgement or philosophical reasons but rather for practical and operational considerations.

While a contentious forking event may be inevitable, and may ultimately provide a path forward for on-chain capacity increases, we have an obligation to our customers to provide a clear and consistent plan to minimize potential confusion surrounding such an event. We welcome any and all assistance that the development community may offer in reducing the risk inherent with such a pivotal moment in Bitcoin’s history."

We are:

Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Bitso, Bitsquare, Bitonic, Bitbank, Coinfloor, Coincheck, itBit, QuadrigaCX, Bitt, Bittrex, Kraken, Ripio, ShapeShift, The Rock Trading and Zaif

This is a sad month for all bitcoin users. We are now faced with the possibility of a split community the other one is with the core developers while the other group is with Bitcoin Unlimited. It is sad to see that bitcoin will split into BTC and BTU however it seems that this time we can no longer meet a consensus and thus bitcoin will split like Ethereum and Ethereum Classic.