What is the worst case if we have more than one bitcoin

[deisik]

1) many players of both sides would try to "dump" the other currency to accelerate a win of the "own" chain. That would favour Bitcoin Core, because the economic majority is there, as far as I know. So termporarily, first the BTC price will be well over the BTU price.
2) but miners that have decided to adhere to Bitcoin Unlimited won't change back to the Core chain that fast after achieving 75% of the hashrate, because they would lose money. That could lead to the BTC blockchain to get slower and less usable until the next difficulty adjustment. In this case, a part of the "apolitical" users - above all, merchants - could change to BTU. That would mean the "economic majority" assumption for Core would not be that clear anymore

I don't quite agree with the emphasized part

The difficulty should adjust in about two weeks (the worst case scenario), but we should understand that there still will be enough hash power remaining to support the Bitcoin network even if two thirds of all miners choose to leave. Apart from that, I don't really think that the psychotic types will change to BTU. If they will ever be switching to anything that will certainly not be BTU (since otherwise they wouldn't switch at all). If ever, they will either move to fiat (most likely), i.e. disable Bitcoin payments altogether until the dust settles, or to some other altcoin (less likely)

[Yanisumin]

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

The market seems to be over-reacting.

Because of the introduction of some altcoins or the competitiveness of etherium and other cryptocurrencies to Bitcoin bitcoins prices are decreasing drastically within a few days. But in my opinion it is nothing new, Bitcoin has been like that since the beginning. The stability we've been hoping can only be achieved if Bitcoin will be accepted as a world currency legally. I mean even the great dollars fall down sometimes.

Worst case scenario? I've seen my friends worrying about how money they've lost when bitcoins value decrease. The impact of bitcoins price hike in the past months make them but BTC because they thought the price would be higher and will double at the end of the year. And since bitcoins price decrease they have lost a 100 dollars or more. This over reaction made by these price hike and down affected few of us and turn to other cryptocurrencies instead, and that's a bad scenario.

Since we've been in these field we must accept the fact that we win some and we lose some. Since Bitcoin is not yet well known to everyone and been fighting for survival till now we must know that these happenings are common. We will all lose if this twist of events make us to give up and I hope that won't happen.

[Viscount]

Bitcoin may be only one. What you are calling other bitcoins are just alts e.g. BTU, XT etc...

[d5000]

2) but miners that have decided to adhere to Bitcoin Unlimited won't change back to the Core chain that fast after achieving 75% of the hashrate, because they would lose money. That could lead to the BTC blockchain to get slower and less usable until the next difficulty adjustment. In this case, a part of the "apolitical" users - above all, merchants - could change to BTU. That would mean the "economic majority" assumption for Core would not be that clear anymore

I don't quite agree with the emphasized part

The difficulty should adjust in about two weeks (the worst case scenario), but we should understand that there still will be enough hash power remaining to support the Bitcoin network even if two thirds of all miners choose to leave.

As BU supporters said, they will fork if they have more than 75% of the hashrate. I consider it very probable that they will intentionally choose a point in time where they could harm the Core chain, so they would most probably fork just after a difficulty adjustment.

A difficulty period are 2016 blocks. That are two weeks if the hashrate corresponds to the difficulty, but in the case I outlined hashrate will be about a third than before. That would mean that we would have ~30 minutes between blocks for about six weeks. Perhaps Core supporters would buy hashrate but that won't be cheap and I don't think they would succeed easily - because then, why don't have they done the same with Segwit?

That scenario would drive transaction fees to the moon, because there would be three times less capacity.

Apart from that, I don't really think that the psychotic types will change to BTU.

Psychotic? Do you mean users that are scared by the fork?

I think the users that would be tempted to change to BTU would be those who use Bitcoin regularly as a currency. For example, remittance senders and online gamblers. As major exchanges (excluding the Canadians) have said they will support BTU "as an altcoin", they could use BTU for that purposes. They could also change to ETH or other altcoin, but BTU would be more familiar for them. And for merchants in a "undecided" scenario it would be rational to support both chains (like for the exchanges) so they can get sales from all users.

[hl5460]

I happen to notice the 10x rise of Bitcoin plus, bitcoindark etc that utilize the name of bitcoin.

Look like the market has already displayed warm welcome.

[deisik]

2) but miners that have decided to adhere to Bitcoin Unlimited won't change back to the Core chain that fast after achieving 75% of the hashrate, because they would lose money. That could lead to the BTC blockchain to get slower and less usable until the next difficulty adjustment. In this case, a part of the "apolitical" users - above all, merchants - could change to BTU. That would mean the "economic majority" assumption for Core would not be that clear anymore

I don't quite agree with the emphasized part

The difficulty should adjust in about two weeks (the worst case scenario), but we should understand that there still will be enough hash power remaining to support the Bitcoin network even if two thirds of all miners choose to leave.

As BU supporters said, they will fork if they have more than 75% of the hashrate. I consider it very probable that they will intentionally choose a point in time where they could harm the Core chain, so they would most probably fork just after a difficulty adjustment

In for a penny, in for a pound

If you seriously think that they are going to choose the date to hurt Bitcoin most, you should necessarily come to the conclusion that they will hit whenever their chances to succeed start to surpass their chances to fail. So no one will be really waiting for 75% of the hashrate. They will likely hit as soon as they get a little over 50% of the hashrate. And that would be a rational choice since they may never reach 75% in the first place and thus hitting fastest seems to be the best approach. But this is also less risky for Bitcoin Core too (which is a bit paradoxical if we don't take into account time frames of events) since having a little less than 50% of hashing power is still big enough to support the Network

Apart from that, I don't really think that the psychotic types will change to BTU.

Psychotic? Do you mean users that are scared by the fork?

I think the users that would be tempted to change to BTU would be those who use Bitcoin regularly as a currency. For example, remittance senders and online gamblers. As major exchanges (excluding the Canadians) have said they will support BTU "as an altcoin", they could use BTU for that purposes. They could also change to ETH or other altcoin, but BTU would be more familiar for them. And for merchants in a "undecided" scenario it would be rational to support both chains (like for the exchanges) so they can get sales from all users.

I refer to nervous types which get scared by the gust of wind, burst of thunder and stroke of lightning

[freedomno1]

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

The market seems to be over-reacting.

http://news.8btc.com/op-ed-how-bad-could-it-be-if-we-have-two-or-more-bitcoins

The article was a bit short for the question here is some supplementation
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-19/bitcoins-fork-road
https://magnr.com/blog/bitcoin/bitcoin-fork/
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-fork-segwit-vs-bitcoin-unlimited-explained-simply/

Worst Case
Pretty much a run back to fiat while the dust settles which is a fun way to look at it since we ran from fiat to crypto ^^.

Ofir did 3 simple enough

Do nothing – If you believe that the fork isn’t going to happen or that in the long run things will straighten themselves out through market forces you can just ride out the storm. Once the dust settles you’ll still have all of your coins (assuming you moved them to a self hosted wallet).
Convert your Bitcoins into altcoins – If you don’t want to be part of the drama but still need to use cryptocurrencies you can convert your Bitcoins into reputable altcoin like Ethereum, Monero or Litecoin.
Sell all of your Bitcoins – If you are holding an amount in Bitcoin that you can not afford to risk at any cost perhaps it would be best to sell all of them right now and not take any part in this. Once the drama is over you’ll be able to buy Bitcoins again. However, no one really knows when the drama will end or what will be the price when that happens.

[hl5460]

Also, considering ETC is still the #7 crypto, I think it's not at all useless.

Compared to other altcoins ETC is not useless at all.

It is just vast disproportion between price of ETC - $2.20 and ETH - $50 which makes ETC pretty insignificant from economic point of view.

And I expect in case of bitcoin split we might see similar trend happening.

So bitcoin split into two would be the best case?

[xuan87]

I think the worst case will be people dumping bitcoin and look for another alt coin to invest, and bitcoin will not as strong as it used to be because there will be splitting user, so if we had more than one bitcoin then we will see two weak coins​ instead of 1 strong coin

[Amph]

the worst case would be a split, on which you can dump 2x the amount of coin, nd destroy the value of bitcoin, no one would hold in a "double spending" scenario like that

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

Miners will determine their fates and chain with major support will survive while minority will suffer from 51% attack for several times

Miners would be irrelevant

I mean miners from the opposing camp after the split comes about. It is actually not about whose... chain is longer. If you were a miner you could continue or start mining any chain of your preference, and as long as you won't be alone, there shouldn't be any issues with that. After the split a new altcoin (or just coin) will be born, and their paths won't intersect in the future. In fact, the chains could be reemerged later but that is said to wreak total chaos in Bitcoin and unless someone is actually looking to kill Bitcoin, that's unlikely to happen either

well miners can attack the short chain and make it irrelevant, so miners being irrelevant is a moot point, they always retain their power, unless you chage the algo, but you are effectively making an altcoin

[lurker10]

So no one will be really waiting for 75% of the hashrate. They will likely hit as soon as they get a little over 50% of the hashrate. And that would be a rational choice since they may never reach 75% in the first place and thus hitting fastest seems to be the best approach.

A little over 50% will be contentious in the eyes of BU supporters themselves so miners won't do it.
2/3 of the hashrate over last 1000 blocks is a sweet spot.

[deisik]

the worst case would be a split, on which you can dump 2x the amount of coin, nd destroy the value of bitcoin, no one would hold in a "double spending" scenario like that

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

Miners will determine their fates and chain with major support will survive while minority will suffer from 51% attack for several times

Miners would be irrelevant

I mean miners from the opposing camp after the split comes about. It is actually not about whose... chain is longer. If you were a miner you could continue or start mining any chain of your preference, and as long as you won't be alone, there shouldn't be any issues with that. After the split a new altcoin (or just coin) will be born, and their paths won't intersect in the future. In fact, the chains could be reemerged later but that is said to wreak total chaos in Bitcoin and unless someone is actually looking to kill Bitcoin, that's unlikely to happen either

well miners can attack the short chain and make it irrelevant, so miners being irrelevant is a moot point, they always retain their power, unless you chage the algo, but you are effectively making an altcoin

And how are they going to attack it?

When they would (should) be busy mining their new longer chain to keep it longer? As soon as they start attacking the shorter chain their own chain may become shorter in a very short time, and then their attack is set to lose while their efforts ultimately wasted. You seem to look at only one factor while in reality you should consider all relevant factors and take into account all possible combinations of them as well as their interdependence. This is not to say that my assumption is right, I just point out where yours has gaping flaws

[hl5460]

And how are they going to attack it?

When they would (should) be busy mining their new longer chain to keep it longer? As soon as they start attacking the shorter chain their own chain may become shorter in a very short time, and then their attack is set to lose while their efforts ultimately wasted. You seem to look at only one factor while in reality you should consider all relevant factors and take into account all possible combinations of them as well as their interdependence. This is not to say that my assumption is right, I just point out where yours has gaping flaws

If the hashrate on both chains are very close. It would be too risky for the longer-chain miners to point their miners to attack the shorter chain.

[jovs]

We should have minority against majority I guess, that could make things better, If It was equal that could screw things up over time as they will have less value then they would have If one of them had majority of the demand, having two cheap and low value coins could result into people not trusting bitcoin anymore and switching to something else (alt).

Yes maybe if we have a 1 or more bitcoin we would take more risk on such things like tradings. We may forgot the risk because of the bigger income we could have. Majority will do the same cause most of people do trading is the risk takers. But for me we should always remember to hold some earnings on trading so we could have extra capital if we would lose some on trading. Then continue to work hard and focus so you can always have a source of income on the near future. Panic buying may be a problem to especially when  the price increased on the moment you thought that it will drop so if the increase the continue and you already trade bitcoin ,you will lose and have a regret.

[Turk Ace]

2 or more bitcoin is not too much to lose. You will just lose whatever the current USD value is that is all.
Those are fear articles who knows why they write things like that . Secret agenda ?

[Xester]

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

The market seems to be over-reacting.

http://news.8btc.com/op-ed-how-bad-could-it-be-if-we-have-two-or-more-bitcoins

It is true that the market will dictate the price of bitcoin. It simply means that it is the users that will have the say as to how to give value to bitcoin. The worst case scenario in bitcoin is the possibility of a market crash when the price will have meltdown. But I don’t believe that such scenario will occur to bitcoin. Its value has increased over the years and even there is an even that causes the price to go  down but it has recovered the price fast.

[topesis]

Bitcoin may be only one. What you are calling other bitcoins are just alts e.g. BTU, XT etc...

I totally agree that BU is dead, it was not set up to succeed initially and more light has been shed on this but to block SegWit, the code is outdated and no strong coder on the team

[Amph]

the worst case would be a split, on which you can dump 2x the amount of coin, nd destroy the value of bitcoin, no one would hold in a "double spending" scenario like that

Market will determine their fates, right?
What is the worst-case scenario? Are they acceptable to you?

Miners will determine their fates and chain with major support will survive while minority will suffer from 51% attack for several times

Miners would be irrelevant

I mean miners from the opposing camp after the split comes about. It is actually not about whose... chain is longer. If you were a miner you could continue or start mining any chain of your preference, and as long as you won't be alone, there shouldn't be any issues with that. After the split a new altcoin (or just coin) will be born, and their paths won't intersect in the future. In fact, the chains could be reemerged later but that is said to wreak total chaos in Bitcoin and unless someone is actually looking to kill Bitcoin, that's unlikely to happen either

well miners can attack the short chain and make it irrelevant, so miners being irrelevant is a moot point, they always retain their power, unless you chage the algo, but you are effectively making an altcoin

And how are they going to attack it?

When they would (should) be busy mining their new longer chain to keep it longer? As soon as they start attacking the shorter chain their own chain may become shorter in a very short time, and then their attack is set to lose while their efforts ultimately wasted. You seem to look at only one factor while in reality you should consider all relevant factors and take into account all possible combinations of them as well as their interdependence. This is not to say that my assumption is right, I just point out where yours has gaping flaws

it depend if they have 76% they can direct 26 % which is higher than the remaining 24% and do a 51% to the short chain while maintaining a 50% on the longest which is more tha enough to avoid any counter 51% attack

[lurker10]

I totally agree that BU is dead, it was not set up to succeed initially and more light has been shed on this but to block SegWit, the code is outdated and no strong coder on the team

Probably. Nevetheless there are a lot of big block supporters and this isn't going to vanish as simple as that.