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

[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)

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

It is not any more risky than just holding your coins there

If you are actively trading you still have to keep your coins in your exchange account, so it is basically the same. Further, if Bitcoin crashes, it is unlikely that the dollars in your account will get affected, so you can just watch the events unfold as the Judgment day gets closer. If you move your wealth to Litecoin and are going to just wait out idly, then it makes sense to withdraw the coins from exchange, of course. You won't have to pay hefty transaction fees, anyway

[1714898546]

1714898546

[1714898546]

1714898546

[1714898546]

1714898546

[1714898546]

1714898546

[cellard]

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.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

[classicsucks]

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

Bingo.

Short BTC in late July, and sell your 148Coins to some greater fool on August 1. You still have all of your original BTC and 148Coin will become essentially worthless within a few days.

[franky1]

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.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

Barry coin IS the same as corecoin..

they are all the same BS cartel
its just a bait and switch to gather more momentum to push through segwit.. the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

all it is is to have 4 different implementations of segwit to FAKE free choice.. where all the choices still end up being segwit

[d5000]

I would closely follow which actors are supporting every chain.

For me, there would be two crucial factors:

- payment processors like BitPay: These are, in my opinion, the services that have to be strengthened for Bitcoin to have a future as a currency.  So I will give them more weight than to exchanges;
- the exchanges of my country. Most of them backed the Barry Silbert agreement, but I don't know how their stance on BIP148 and the newer "COOP" proposal is.

I think in mid-July we will have a better panorama for that what is going to come. So I will delay my decision until then. For me, particularly BIP148 is doomed to fail if it doesn't achieve a supermajority of support in all areas - from payment processors to miners. (For me, the important thing now is Segwit being activated; 2MB is not so important but would be not bad.)

[Iranus]

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.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Alternative implementations make up more like 15%.  But Core is still the reference client, yes. 

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

[franky1]

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

if

but even these very new proposals that just this last month are 'promising' such... are still being coded as segwit.

a few people jumped onto the githubs and plop in code for the 2mb to be activated at X .. and those requests get deleted.. so even in these new proposals they are so far just empty promises.. only really coding different times to activate segwit sooner than november

60%+ of the mining network and many nodes are waiting for there to be some real code of a real coded implementation that includes a legacy block increase..

[Iranus]

the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

I thought BITMAIN and many other miners/large block supporters would agree with SegWit if it involved an increase in block size and a hard fork?

What changed?

a few people jumped onto the githubs and plop in code for the 2mb to be activated at X .. and those requests get deleted.. so even in these new proposals they are so far just empty promises.. only really coding different times to activate segwit sooner than november

60%+ of the mining network and many nodes are waiting for there to be some real code of a real coded implementation that includes a legacy block increase..

True, but it's mainly to do with a consensus.  If a large majority of hashrate and a lot of businesses start supporting a new proposal, it's fine for it to take some time before the code is actually developed.

It's not really an "empty promise" this time, because it's DCG actually telling everyone about who has now agreed on something.

Obviously time is always needed to peer review code etc, but I don't think that any of these companies will be saying "nah, this line of code is wrong, guess we can't support that anymore", when the points are all there.

[kaijialex]

I wouldn't touch my Bitcoin no matter who wins at the end, very risky to end up with the wrong chain.

[U2]

The Blockchain won't divide. There will be two seperate chains where every day before Aug 1st is the exact same. You'll own both coins if you have bitcoins before then. Fix the OP.

[wxa7115]

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.

It is hypothetical, but I do not think that is going to happen, there is going to be one chain, there is no room for two bitcoins only one will survive, I will choose BIP 148 but if the legacy chain wins, then we will have to accept it since we will have no choice.

[franky1]

True, but it's mainly to do with a consensus.  If a large majority of hashrate and a lot of businesses start supporting a new proposal, it's fine for it to take some time before the code is actually developed.

It's not really an "empty promise" this time, because it's DCG actually telling everyone about who has now agreed on something.

Obviously time is always needed to peer review code etc, but I don't think that any of these companies will be saying "nah, this line of code is wrong, guess we can't support that anymore", when the points are all there.

until the code is developed there is no consensus. any "flagging" done before there is code is just propaganda.
real consensus is about actually using an implementation that can do the job actually announcing it can do the job and wants the job
wasting months flagging for something that has no code available to actually do the function is an empty promise.

EG
imagine people al flag 2mb+segwit.. it gets the threshold needed. and then at the grace period. some a-hole in the BScartel releases 'the 2mb+segwit' but it has a 2mb activates in 2018 'as promised' ... but then(luke Jr style of bait and switch) drops to 500kb by 2019

..
so until there is actual CODE. a promise is meaningless

[Wind_FURY]

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.

The 95% of the network trusts Bitcoin Core's software. The rest of the nodes is an irrelevant amount so nobody cares about those.

Calling an agreement "an agreement" while leaving behind the dev team that is responsible for the code that's being run by 95% of the network is laughable.

There will be no hardfork for Barrycoin, it's DOA.

Barry coin IS the same as corecoin..

they are all the same BS cartel
its just a bait and switch to gather more momentum to push through segwit.. the other stuff of promises of 2mb is the same empty promise being mentioned since 2015..

all it is is to have 4 different implementations of segwit to FAKE free choice.. where all the choices still end up being segwit

franky1, besides the hate for Segwit as a scaling solution, what else do you hate about it? Do you not agree with the benefits stated in here? https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/