Consequences of the hardfork?

[MiBambino]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

[calkob]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

In weeks things will probably be pretty much the same
in months we will have to hope that some sort os sanity can return to the debate
and in years i think we can get past this problem and look to a bright future.

If you have bitcoin and a hardfork happens then you will have bitcoin on both chains, my advise is to wait awhile before moving it as it could be vunerable to interacting on both chains.  which is bad if you want to keep one and sell the other.

[andron8383]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

Will be created BTC and BU.
When BTC will get segwit activated and price rise, BU miners will back to BTC to get $$$ because BTC price will rise.
BTC miners who want BU will act like paid "bitches" that goes where they pay more.
Really i want that HF happend because we will sooner get rid of BU miner blocking segwit.
After Segwit activated and LN enabled BTC will back to its price.

Today alts like ETH are used like LN but on that alt chain.

After few years we will have to proposal of increasing block-size because mining fees will go to 0 at some point and miners have to have some reward.
Alone blockincrease is nonse you will have to increase blocksize with price of BTC to cap fee at lest say 0.01$

So:
1MB = 1 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
10MB = 10 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
100MB = 100 000USD/BTC = 0.01$fee
 
I hope you see that only increasing block-size is something WRONG ,
blocksize have to be proportional to price like you see to maintain low fees.

[d5000]

I can imagine several scenarios.

1) The most positive for BTC: BTU gets dumped hard and is progressively abandoned or acquires the status of a standard altcoin, miners change back to BTC. That's what some are hoping in the Core group. If it comes true, then we can expect a continuation of the Bitcoin rally (>1000$ prices) and maybe Segwit will be relatively fastly approved.

2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.

3) The 50%/50% scenario. BTC and BTU coexist for a long time. Both parties will try to dump and harm the other chain. That's most likely the most negative scenario for Bitcoin, and I think both chains will end at prices well below $500. BTU mining pools will probably try to continue to block Segwit and so Bitcoin's progress would be retarded. Maybe ETH or another altcoin could in this case challenge Bitcoin's leadership and we'll end with a much more fragmented cryptocurrency market.

4) The 75%/25% scenario (a bit similar to the "ETC scenario"): BTC and BTU coexist, but BTU is marginalized a bit respect to Bitcoin. But it resists, conserves a lot of hashrate, and even if its market cap is significantly smaller than BTC's, gets some traction and usage. This scenario is, for me, the most likely. My price estimation would then be: BTC 500$, BTU 100-200$. There would be constantly danger that BTU came near BTC in terms of market cap. That could lead to a positive event: To conserve its advantage, BTC perhaps would be able to approve Segwit and enable 2nd layer solutions. But the market would be more fragmented than today and it would take a long time back to $1000.

[franky1]

2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.

A. thinking bitcoin belongs only to core is not a bitcoin ethos of decentralisation. its a mindset of centralists. there are over a dozen different implementations that keep bitcoin diverse and open. wanting only core to run the show is already a mindset of harming bitcoin, by thinking core have control and bitcoin would fail without core...

B. pools wont just produce different blocks only once a hashrate is met. the pools actually look at the node count and ensure the blocks they produce will be acceptable to the nodes(whoever has consensus). this is what true consensus is about NODES + pools.. thus if there is a majority to trigger a consensus activation the community (nodes and pools) will be BTC. and the minority become the altcoin.
hence why even with core trying to bypass consensus and intentionally give only pools voting power. the pools are smart enough to wait it out until unofficially they see good node count..

C. if core want to pretend they are independent then why are they avoiding independence. and instead clinging hard onto one implementation of bip9 pool ban hammer code and UASF node and pool ban hammer code. yep thats right. other implementations are not setup to ban off other implementations they want to remain open and decentralised. if an activation is triggered it will be core that then press the red button of splitting the chains to keep core alive as a minority altcoin, should core not be the majority.. not the other way round.

D. the whole DCG commercial announcement of their investors calling bu BTU also state that it would do so IF core split off in a "controversial fork( split)" which knowing logic of bitcoin consensus is that if bu or any non-core imp' activates due to consensus. there is no "controversial" thing about it thus no BTU... just BTC and some other alt(logically core) which will get the rename(probably SWCoin)

E. if you look at the whole investment. EG core->blockstream -> DCG... coinbase->DCG .. and then check out all the other DCG investments
you will see that core, by putting themselves into the centralist control. they are literally spelling it out to everyone that they are the take over attempt. after all bitcoin 2009-2013 was not even called "core".

F. this should make (E) clearer
if you look at the announcement by the corporat cartel. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor)
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then compare the names (yep blockstream is there and coindesk(the announcement publicist)
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt)
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

things become much clearer yep blockstream and coindesk and all the big names BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, bitso, shapeshift are all in DCG pocket, owing DCG millions that need to be repaid soon..

G. DCG getting edgy to get returns flowing from LN fee's so is trying to rock the boat. however the non-core implementations have set no deadlines set no activation threshold and set no agenda to ban nodes, pools or blocks.. they will only activate if they get consensus.

H. once you read passed the reddit scripts. and look at the details. its CORE causing the drama and forcing the issue. core even removed fee lowering code to push the fee's up and then is offering the community a 'discount' bribe if people vote in cores favour.. thats how desperate they are getting.

i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.

[jonald_fyookball]

I can imagine several scenarios.

1) The most positive for BTC: BTU gets dumped hard and is progressively abandoned or acquires the status of a standard altcoin, miners change back to BTC. That's what some are hoping in the Core group. If it comes true, then we can expect a continuation of the Bitcoin rally (>1000$ prices) and maybe Segwit will be relatively fastly approved.

2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.
 

you're assuming most users don't want bigger blocks, which i would say is a dubious assumption

[layoutph]

In the long run, BU might vanished once BTC back to its original price.. BU miners might become centralize due to low numbers of miners who quit because of low fees.

[szpalata]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

It means Bitcoin can be easily attacked by vectors if care is not taken. It can collapse as a result of theft of the coins or people will loose their enthusiasm in it.

[d5000]

you're assuming most users don't want bigger blocks, which i would say is a dubious assumption

Bigger blocks != BU.

I think that Unlimited is a minority position, yes. That's why I consider that BU only can "win instantly" if it attacks the minority blockchain, OR in a case like the 50/50 scenario when everything plays out well for BU. All "bigger blocks" options together (BU, 2 MB, BIP 100 ...) could have the support of 50% or more of the users.

BIP 100 should _really_ be reconsidered by the "bigger blocks" community, and maybe modified to include a "security limit" to prevent extremely large blocks. Combined with Segwit I think it would be possible to achieve >80% or even >95% approval for this kind of solution.

[Kakmakr]

2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.

i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.

Do you have any proof of this? The way I see it, most miners on both sides profit from this whole mempool spam. They even contribute to this problem, by selectively mining around this problem. So blaming Core for this, does not even make sense. BU wants a Block size increase and has more to benefit from a mempool spam to proof their point and to be fair I would say both BU and Core has something to gain, if a perception could be created that a Block size upgrade is very critical. < faked congestion >

Until we know for certain, we can just speculate on who is doing this. Luke Jr even wanted to go to court to stop a company from running a "stress test" for a new voting system, so we know how they are feeling about this.

[jacafbiz]

It seems people believed that hardfork seems inevitable, even if it eventual happen, there can only be a winner here and the loser will lose the fight for life, so when you want to take a fight think twice, in my country I've seen politicians paying money to mobilise support but when election comes they lose gallantly. 

[Amph]

it's all depend on the exchange, if they really see and listen it as an altcoin, there nothing to worry about, you will get the same situation as ETH and ETC, each with its price and its hashrate, but if the chain split it can have a bad impact on the value

i'm more curious about merchants, what they would do if accepting yes or not the new BU, they said nothing regard this, if they see this as an alt, would be the first alt to be accepted by merchants

[jakelyson]

If hardfork happens, then bitcoin will lose its position as the top cryptocurrency. It can be over run by an altcoin or even btu can kill it if roger ver dumps all his bitcoins. If it happens, btc prize fall and others may follow and dump their coins too.

[franky1]

i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.

Do you have any proof of this?

https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
spike in june/july
then general constant spiking after october..

then
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-50k.png
CSV june july
segwit after october

P.S the CSV /sgwit data is from sipa (blockstreamer) so yea, not some anti-blockstream propaganda image

The way I see it, most miners on both sides profit from this whole mempool spam.

pools dont care much for tx fee.. to them its treated as a bonus not a main income. this is why pools still do the spv/empty block mining because they care more about getting a solution and thus a blockreward. rather than waste time hand picking expnsive tx's wasting he valuable time of solving a block.
after all if they cant be first to solve a block then it doesnt matter what tx's they cherry pick.. the block they sbsequently built wont make it as a new blockheight because they took too long being picky.
they would rather be efficient and just get a block solved and be happy with the blockreward, where by any tx they can add in without wasting time is a bonus.

They even contribute to this problem, by selectively mining around this problem. So blaming Core for this, does not even make sense. BU wants a Block size increase and has more to benefit from a mempool spam to proof their point and to be fair I would say both BU and Core has something to gain, if a perception could be created that a Block size upgrade is very critical. < faked congestion >

true.. but BU have been on the mainnet for 2 years as have other non-core imps that want more than 1mb blocks.. however the non-core imps are not in a rush.. they set no deadlines. they made no threats. they dont have any overseaous (bip9 and UASF) ban hammers to force the issue. they are just plodding along waiting for natural consensus..

but what is very clear is that the mempool bloat dates co-inside with core deadlines and activities.

Until we know for certain, we can just speculate on who is doing this. Luke Jr even wanted to go to court to stop a company from running a "stress test" for a new voting system, so we know how they are feeling about this.

Luke Jr has funny opinions. he dislikes women having orgasms unless its in active duty of creating a baby.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/60cfep/is_sex_for_pleasure_inherently_morallydisordered/df5p4n0/

Is sex for pleasure inherently morally-disordered?
It's okay, so long as the couple 1) doesn't act to prevent conception, and 2) fulfils their positive duty to cooperate in procreation.

and let us not forget how he wanted to change bitcoins unit of measure away from decimal counts down to satoshi. to instead be 'tonal' counts

[Carlsen]

I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??

[franky1]

I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??

core plan on doing something before mid november 2017

non-core implementations are ignoring the bear pokes of 'fork off' and will continually and happily plod along and leave it up to bitcoins natural consensus to decide if non-core implementations activate. no deadlines, no threats. just leave it to consensus to decide. so far non-core implementations have been running for 2 years and not rocked the boat.

it has been core that have tried rocking the boat and pointing the finger at everyone apart from themselves. first it was other implementations who just laughed. now core have bypassed node vote. core are pointing the finger at pools (hypocritically after only giving the pools the vote in the first place).

[pinkflower]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

In weeks things will probably be pretty much the same
in months we will have to hope that some sort os sanity can return to the debate
and in years i think we can get past this problem and look to a bright future.

If you have bitcoin and a hardfork happens then you will have bitcoin on both chains, my advise is to wait awhile before moving it as it could be vunerable to interacting on both chains.  which is bad if you want to keep one and sell the other.

Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.

[savioroshan]

What is most likely to occur in the cryptoworld in the next weeks/months/years? What happens when a hardfork takes place?

In my opinion , because of this hardfork and confusion among bitcoin developers, surely one currency is going to take the whole advantage of this scenario. Its the ethereum. See how its price is rising . Most of the investers started to invest in ethereum now because of this hardfork and I am very sure, that its price will rise again and very soon its going to rise above 100 dollars.

[franky1]

Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.

to avoid replay attack,
one side would need to change the TX mechanism where TX version bits are something the other side wont understand and wont validate.
core wont do it themselves. even if they were the minority  or majority.. instead they want to play the victim card and beg others to change so that if attacked they can blame someone else.. rather than take a defensive stance and change it themselves if they win or lose.

kind of funny though.
for segwit to even achieve some of its promises, users need to move funds over to segwit keypairs
so it makes logical sense win or lose for core to just defend and chang their tx versions. or force funds to only be spendable if the output is recognised as a segwit address.. thus it would not be acceptable to any non-core implementation. and also forceably help core get people to use segwit keys. and at the same time reduce the risk of native key attacks by transitioning everyone over to segwit keys.

but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves

[pinkflower]

Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.

but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves

I dont blame them with the other group trying to fork it all away from them. You have to admit that both sides have their own dirty tricks. One group wants to retain control while the other longs for it.