If you had to pick one, would it be the Legacy chain or BIP 148?

[Wind_FURY]

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

[TryNinja]

I would just keep my Bitcoins untouched while we have both chains to avoid losing any of my Bitcoins, and I would only use them when things calm down for one side.

If I had to choose a side, I would prefer the BIP 148, but I wouldn't have the balls to sell my Bitcoins on the legacy side if they were winning and it looks like they would become the main chain with majority of the support.

[Iranus]

The "real" Bitcoin is the majority chain.  But I wouldn't make that judgement for at least a few weeks, because it might not be completely clear how BIP 148 has done for a while.  

Obviously if there's a split it means that BIP 148 starts off as a minority chain, so I'd give it a bit of a chance to see if the economic pressure on miners ends up working.

People who sell one chain as soon as the split happens are very likely to shoot themselves in the foot and are basically gambling with their money.  If they have a large amount they'd be insane to go 100% on either chain, no matter how strongly they believe in something or how bleak it looks for one side.

[White sugar]

I would wait and pick the winning side, as always.

I'm just a microscope, my support wouldn't make any difference as always

[Wind_FURY]

The hypothetical situation I am thinking about is no side will win. It could end up with 2 chains like ETH and ETC. Then if you had to pick one chain, what would it be? This is more like a question to gather opinions than what one would actually do for real.

[Ost]

I would definitely go with the BIP 148 chain since Bitcoin really needs scaling. However I'll still keep my legacy coins just in case.

[Creepings]

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

Yeah, the more reason why many people are being scared what might happen to bitcoin. But I go for BIP 148, it's  not that I want bitcoin to fall, but because I want it to improve. Since BU times, I knew that these will happen, it really needs to improved. It's for the better.

[FlightyPouch]

The hypothetical situation I am thinking about is no side will win. It could end up with 2 chains like ETH and ETC. Then if you had to pick one chain, what would it be? This is more like a question to gather opinions than what one would actually do for real.

I think that too, the same as BU, why do we need to do a network split? They can just create another altcoin, they don't need to change the bitcoin we used to know, most of us are contented to what bitcoin is now, right? Why do we need to do such thing. I will be staying in BTC not in other altcoin.

[Qartada]

If you had to pick one

Pretty big if.  

If I had no choice but to sell one chain, I'd probably keep the legacy coins.  

It all depends on the hashrate and business support at the time.  If the hashrate was <20% for the new chain, I can't see a lot of people bothering to try and use transactions on there so I'd sell.  If nearly all pools signalling SegWit started supporting BIP 148 (seems unlikely since I don't think F2Pool would support a chain split very readily), I would consider holding the new coins as well.

It's looking like the UASF chain won't matter much when the split happens, in which case I wouldn't bother holding.  I hope exchanges list both chains for me to increase my legacy coin holdings.

[maku]

There won't be any split so we won't have to pick any sides, it is clear that we will have +80% support for USAF and eventually even USAF opponents will accept it.
I don't think that bitcoin will follow Ethereum's footsteps and there will be Bitcoin and Legacy Bitcoin coexisting at the same time.

[cellard]

It's very hard to say... if a split happens, you get the same amount of coins on both chains. The most reasonable thing to do is to hold both and see how it resolves.

A lot of people claim they are willing to dump their coin for one or another chain but let's see if they have the balls to do that, im certainly not risking it.

BIP 148 is the technologically superior coin because it has segwit, that's clear, but it's not clear to me if it will have enough hashrate support.

[Meuh6879]

BIP148 is SegWit.
I want SegWit.

Malleability fixing tool.
It's not a choice, it's a evolution.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.msg13752212#msg13752212

[Variogam]

BIP 148 has currently <1% hashrate support. With such low support, there wont be any BIP 148 chain at all.

There is zero reason to support BIP 148 anymore because SegWit2x got a real support (over 80% of miners, and key Bitcoin companies like BitPay and Coinbase) and delivers SegWit as well. SegWit2x code should be ready in about one month - there is also no significant oposition to the 2 MB basesize part of SegWit2x anymore, it seems almost everyone realizes its better to have both SegWit and 2 MB and unify most Bitcoiners again than fight forever and give altcoins a chance.

[European Central Bank]

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

[cellard]

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

Im checking the bitcoin dev maillist daily hoping for an agreement that guarantees no possible split to happen:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/thread.html#14554

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

[mimblewimble]

no one has to pick one. they'll have both.

i like the spirit of bip 148 but i don't think it's realistic or practical.

at the same time the legacy chain's fate has been decided by a few people in a room in new york. that's not really what i signed up for. they also have zero code so far and there've been hardly any further comments about it. for such a tumultuous change i expect some communication.

i assume both proposals will drive enough people into a middle ground. if it doesn't then i think we're in a little bit of trouble.

but what if whales dump BIP148 on the market?

or any other split of bitcoin for that matter

doesn't this basically mean bitcoin is on a perpetual stalemate where it can never be upgraded?

how do you get past the whales?

[Variogam]

Nobody seems to be on board with the NYC agreement so that is out of the picture. If NYC-group hard forks, they claim to have 80%+ of hashrate, but no Core dev is on board with that, and 95% of the network is running Core software, so it would be nonsense if they actually hardfork and ask people to trust some group of non-Core coders paid by Bitmain.

Core stance was they wont propose consensus rule changes, thats why there has to be agreement between Bitcoin companies and individuas for such change, which NYC agreement accomplished. Code is written and reviewed from few Core developers as well, although not by many or the most active ones. The code change is very small, so it is not a big issue, though much more support/review from the most developers could end the Bitcoin scalling problem pretty quickly.

[deisik]

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

I prefer the US dollar at the moment

And a little bit of Litecoin. If Litecoin goes down I will buy more of it. As to me, Bitcoin may quickly turn into the lame horse (which you might have to shoot down eventually) as the deadline approaches. We will likely see a lot of manipulation and extreme volatility as we come closer to August 1st. Apart from the usual hysteria, though, I don't see BIP148 as a major threat since it is pretty innocent on its own. If it doesn't get enough support, it will just vanish. On the other hand, miners will have no other option but bite the bullet and accept it (or go home) unless some of them get infuriated and pissed off, and thus may choose to wreak havoc in Bitcoin as revenge (that's what I'm afraid of)

[BrewMaster]

it is not a simple choice between the two!
and unlike many around here i like a smooth fork not a risky one. which is why i say BIP 148 only if it has a high enough support. no other way around. the risks are high enough already without the support factor, and if it has a low support things will get unpredictable and i don't like that.

[Wind_FURY]

You all know the story. BIP 148 or the UASF will commence on August 1. The risk is a blockchain split that could permanently divide it in theory.

I am interested in knowing what everyone here prefers to hold and what you consider as the "real" Bitcoin is. The Legacy chain or the BIP 148 chain?

I prefer the US dollar at the moment

And a little bit of Litecoin. If Litecoin goes down I will buy more of it. As to me, Bitcoin may quickly turn into the lame horse (which you might have to shoot down eventually) as the deadline approaches. We will likely see a lot of manipulation and extreme volatility as we come closer to August 1st. Apart from the usual hysteria, though, I don't see BIP148 as a major threat since it is pretty innocent on its own. If it doesn't get enough support, it will just vanish. On the other hand, miners will have no other option but bite the bullet and accept it (or go home) unless some of them get infuriated and pissed off, and thus may choose to wreak havoc in Bitcoin as revenge (that's what I'm afraid of)

Hehehe, that is a practical move. Yeah, I am thinking of doing the same but holding US dollars in an exchange is very risky. But I might follow you in holding some Litecoin by August 1 and also some Monero. Then I am leaving some Bitcoins just in case there is a split.