Whats the likelihood of a coin/network split/fork come Aug 1?

[Quantus]

Anyone who tells you UASF is safe is ether a lier or doesn't know what there talking about.

Bitcoin Core developers don't openly support it and certainly don't promote it.

The Mining cartel can spin up as many nodes as they like when the time comes to prevent it; thats if they don't already control a majority. For all we know they may already operate a majority of nodes.

The vast amounts of VC money flowing into the network completely eclipses the money being used by the average user base.

I support the Core developers they are the only ones that have any scrupuls but exchanges and service providers may ultimately side with the banks if they think its in their best interests to do so.  

I don't understand where all this confidence is coming from.

People need to be told the network could split come Aug 1 into two distinct coexisting chains.  

Even if we changed the POW to something else the mining cartel has the capital and manufacturing capability to pick a winner and come out on top every time. They have the resources to be first to market with any new hardware like ASIC etc.  

[BitHodler]

It's not the best option, but it is in fact something in the way of the 'majority' that has the power to force through changes.

However, at this point it's obvious that a good number of nodes are tied to just a handful of entities, so the majority thing hasn't really that much value anymore.

At this point one thing is sure, miners don't mind current situation to last another 6 or 12 months as they generate more fee income than ever before.

But the thing is, if we go for UASF, there are chances of a chain split to happen, but if we wait much longer, then BU might initiate a hard fork resulting in again, a chain split.

Situation is critical and the closest possible way to make Bitcoin finally support larger blocks, is through UASF.

[Variogam]

The question is whether it does matter. At one point in time Clams used snapshot of Bitcoin ledger and from this point it separated from Bitcoin. So again all Bitcoin users going to own BIP148 coins for free and from this point it separates from Bitcoin. The chance for BIP148 coin to get most proof of work anytime in future and make huge Bitcoin reorg is virtually zero (big incentives for every Bitcoin user for not it happen, ever).

If it mean all the people behind BIP148 leave Bitcoin, it would be big step toward the reasonable SegWit + 2MB HF agreement, which has higher support as a way to scale Bitcoin.

[Quantus]

Your all crazy if you think you can ignore this.

[Wind_FURY]

I believe that a split is a possibility. As I understand it, the nodes will start activating Segwit through BIP148 and if there are a small group of miners going with it but the majority are not, then the split is going to happen.

Did I get that correctly?

[-ck]

Given that the actual number of nodes advertising BIP148 support is less than 12%, and less than half of those are actually uasf enforcing nodes (the rest are just using the comment functionality), the chance of a successful major split from the rest of the network is very slim. Additionally the bulk of the core devs are increasingly opposed to BIP148 as it currently stands. It's my prediction that BIP148 will die a slow painful death without ever becoming popular enough to be relevant while other UASF options are explored, though ultimately I still predict there will be a compromise of some sort and a miner activated change in the end.

[hardtime]

Your all crazy if you think you can ignore this.

Well I think it's less crazy and more people in denial that something like this could / may happen and don't want to face something like this happening head on, and it does make sense as such a shock to the entire Bitcoin community would really send ripples through the price and would probably make a hefty number of you lose money. So I'd be scared as well, and would try to ignore this for as long as possible when something like this comes up.

Though dude, I really am one who is going to ignore it for a whole nother reason, I think this just simply isn't going to happen, Ver may threaten to do stuff like this but threats are threats and I don't think anyone from BTU would simply pull the trigger on this suicide shot. They'd be hurting themselves, and the miners that they employ. Can't see it happening in the least bud, even if I gave the reasons on why people are ignoring.

[pooya87]

Though dude, I really am one who is going to ignore it for a whole nother reason, I think this just simply isn't going to happen, Ver may threaten to do stuff like this but threats are threats and I don't think anyone from BTU would simply pull the trigger on this suicide shot. They'd be hurting themselves, and the miners that they employ. Can't see it happening in the least bud, even if I gave the reasons on why people are ignoring.

you seem to have been ignoring more than you should have
this is no longer BU chain split, this time it is SegWit chain split which is being enforced by a BIP called BIP148 or UASF.
if you don't ignore the comment by -ck above you, you can read the details too.

[Quantus]

"UASFers are playing chicken to win and they just threw their steering wheels out of the window and cut their brake lines." --reddit/r/bitcoin

And /r/bitcoin is all...



SEGWITNESS ME! lol get it? *cricket*  
*sigh* I fucking hate every last one of you. Will not Lauda of course.

I hate analogues but this really does sum up my fear of the current situation.

[Viscount]

UASF is getting propulsion and Core devs back it up if there'll be vast nodes' support. I doubt very much that jihan dare to split without community he's nothing 

[Nagadota]

UASF is getting propulsion and Core devs back it up if there'll be vast nodes' support. I doubt very much that jihan dare to split without community he's nothing  

"I hate Jihan Wu for agreeing with a chain split"

"I think the solution is to do this chain split"

And then there's Quantus busy not being a hypocrite.  UASF, at least BIP148, is very risky, and not only does it not have miner support (of course), it doesn't have node support yet either.  There's still under one thousand nodes signalling for it.

[dinofelis]

UASF is yet another illogical argument to propagate the illusion that full nodes have anything to say.  I would like the trigger to be pulled because it is an interesting experiment that will settle the question for good.

In all this "UASF" thing, there's one sort of entities that doesn't matter a shit, and that's the number of nodes signalling it.  Because what is the idea of this "UASF" ?

In fact, the simple idea is that >51% hash rate on a soft fork, IMPOSES the soft fork on everybody.  Note that this is a MINER decision.  It is a property of a soft fork that any hash rate majority is imposed upon the rest.  Core never actually wrote software that did this, because they wanted consensus, and hence raised the limit artificially to 95%, but any >51% can do.  Users, nor nodes, have anything to do with this: if a majority of miners implements a soft fork, it is AUTOMATICALLY imposed upon all.  ==> nothing to do with full nodes or users.  In fact, to do this, you only need normal Core software for miners, but lower the activation threshold from 95% to 51%.

However, UASF proponents think that they won't even get miner majority at first sight.  So what is needed then ?

1) that a non-negligible MINORITY of miners decide to apply the hard fork, and hence INDUCE A CHAIN SPLIT, with a minority chain applying the soft fork, and a majority chain continuing to use the legacy chain (the short chain will grow at a slower pace).

2) that there is some piece of software around that can read this new chain and not get confused by the longest chain -> this  is where UASF come in: to be able to have TWO WALLETS: one with the new coin, and one with the old coin.

3) that exchanges will LIST the two coins (hence needing both chains, and both types of nodes/wallets)

4) that USERS will dump the majority coin (legacy bitcoin) and buy massively the minority UASF coin

5) that miners will follow the money, now that this is done on exchanges

6) that in doing so, the minority chain can attract the majority of HASH RATE

7) that the old chain is overtaken, or has to HF to protect itself so that the two coins remain forever.

Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role.   The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.


The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen.  In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority". 

It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.

[Quantus]

It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.

We could be related.

[krishnapramod]

"UASFers are playing chicken to win and they just threw their steering wheels out of the window and cut their brake lines." --reddit/r/bitcoin

And /r/bitcoin is all...



SEGWITNESS ME! lol get it? *cricket*  
*sigh* I fucking hate every last one of you. Will not Lauda of course.

I hate analogues but this really does sum up my fear of the current situation.

A split cannot be ignored completely.

1. UASF might become the only chain if it gets more PoW.

2. Two chains (most plausible scenario, might be more) UASF and Legacy BTC, users would end up having coins on both sides of the fork.

3. Spending coins on one chain would become impossible without accidentally spending coins on the other. Exchanges would start working as coin splitting services. Different wallets for different chains.

Get hold of your private keys, transfer any coins from online wallets or exchanges to desktop wallets, better be safe.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-beginners-guide-surviving-bip-148-uasf/

[Itty Bitty]

A split seems inevitable, the main question is which side gets to keep the name Bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role.   The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.


The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen.  In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority".  

It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.

A little speculation. Do you think the miners that are signaling for Segwit activation would support UASF? Segwit - BIP 9 right now is at 30%. If all that starts signaling BIP 148 we will see the blockchain split. With that much support would that split become permanent?

I have asked the same question before but no one gives a straight answer.

[iluvpie60]

I say it is a 100% chance of having a split from a hard fork.

But we may or may not get the benefit of having both currencies(as happened with ETH and ETC).

Depending on how it goes down or what happens, if you have your coins in an exchange and a hardfork happens they don't have to let you have both. Some exchanges were nice and did let you withdraw both ETH and ETC or whatever it was(was just recently reading about it). Very interesting because you can make some money from it obviously in the short term.

Best to have all of your coins out of exchanges before August 1st, so you can control your own private keys.

[digaran]

Just wait and facking watch this porn movie of Bitcoin chromosomes split in half for the anti-Satoshi to be born.
One thing many of people tend to ignore, money is delicious and tastes so good, it makes you fat & bald & ugly yet chicks will dig you, just see how it has made Wu to appear for some people, an idol to worship.
They have seen the results of ETH/ETC split and they want more money, they know people are invested deep in that they will go along with everything to avoid losing money.

Imagine we would have 2 Bitcoins 2*21M=42M and then keep one of them as a retarded chain as before with small blocks and high fees for the higher class investors trying to transact not a few bucks but millions with every single transaction and paying $40-$80 as a fee won't hurt them.

Second coin/chain being as a secondary layer network the fast low fee transactions and micro transactions, entirely a new platform for developers to explore and experiment.

[dinofelis]

Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role.   The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.


The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen.  In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority".  

It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.

A little speculation. Do you think the miners that are signaling for Segwit activation would support UASF? Segwit - BIP 9 right now is at 30%. If all that starts signaling BIP 148 we will see the blockchain split. With that much support would that split become permanent?

I have asked the same question before but no one gives a straight answer.

It is very hard to say, because signalling for segwit is one thing ; wanting bitcoin to split is another.  I can imagine that there are many miners that would like segwit, but not so much as to want to fork bitcoin into two coins ; so maybe certain miners would like *consensus* over segwit, but don't want a non-consensual split. 

In fact, it is illogical to want a non-consensual split and desire a soft fork (unless you're just a power-hungry dictator).  Core has always been against hard forks, because without huge majority, they MIGHT induce a chain split.  Now, the funny thing is that one is CALLING for a chain split to impose a soft fork.  The only reason why Core abhors hard forks is that they are terribly afraid (or so they say) that the chain might split, and people wanting to push their solution are proposing a chain split to get Core's stuff in. 

Also, "signalling" doesn't cost anything.  You're free to set that bit or not.  Your blocks are still on the unique chain.  However, going on the fork means that you apply your hash rate to a minority fork, and you might very well waste your blocks if it doesn't get traction.  In other words, the difference between signalling segwit and going on a UASF fork, is "putting your money where your mouth is".

[krishnapramod]

Note that in all of this, any "majority of UASF nodes" is never needed or doesn't play any role.   The "user interaction" only comes in the market, after the miners decided to split, and the exchanges decided to list both coins.


The secret hope of UASF is that this scenario is such a night mare to all miners, that they would suddenly be converted to go majority to the new coin before even letting this happen.  In other words, it is a kind of silly hostage taking: "if you don't do it the way I say, I might have enough hash rate to fuck up bitcoin into two coins even though for the moment I'm largely minority".  

It's a kind of game of chicken, but with a motor cycle heading against a tank.

A little speculation. Do you think the miners that are signaling for Segwit activation would support UASF? Segwit - BIP 9 right now is at 30%. If all that starts signaling BIP 148 we will see the blockchain split. With that much support would that split become permanent?

I have asked the same question before but no one gives a straight answer.

A chain split could be avoided if:

1. BIP 148 gets enough support, if 51% of miners activate BIP 148 before or after August 1.

2. If 95% of miners lock in Segwit before August 1.

If BIP 148 has a minority hashrate support then there obviously would be a chain split. There would be two bitcoins and that would indeed be a messy situation, double-spends, a single transaction getting tied to two different chains. But even after chain split, segwit activated BIP 148 should have upper hand and as this chain gets longer it should replace/wipe out the legacy chain. If I am right at the end there would be only one chain.

The best scenario for the bitcoin community is to avoid chain split. But I guess it would not going to be easy with retards like Jihan Wu and his allies who own 51% of hashrate.

For the time being it is a good idea to make some investments in litecoin. Let the dust settle down after August 1.