Bitmain announces plan to create altcoin if BIP148 succeeds

[jonald_fyookball]

go ahead and argue away. 

the fork is happening.

nothing you post here will influence miners or businesses.

who really cares?

exactly.  the decisions already have been made.  99.9% of bitcointalk is just noise to the world.

[chek2fire]

go ahead and argue away. 

the fork is happening.

nothing you post here will influence miners or businesses.

who really cares?

exactly.  the decisions already have been made.  99.9% of bitcointalk is just noise to the world.

the most noise here is you and Bitmain loved boys. The majority of nodes are still legacy chain....
just to say

[Flying Hellfish]

What's better than being a whale on 1 chain?  Being a whale on 2 chains!!!  

Maybe Bitmain really wants a HF???

[chek2fire]

What's better than being a whale on 1 chain?  Being a whale on 2 chains!!!  

Maybe Bitmain really wants a HF???

i agree with that. Is better for all of us all of this charlatans to leave bitcoin and fork off from the network. No one need them here and for sure no one will miss them

[jonald_fyookball]

What's better than being a whale on 1 chain?  Being a whale on 2 chains!!!  

Maybe Bitmain really wants a HF???

if network split then honestly i think everyone will win..we ALL get 2 coins!

You can make the argument about the network effect but i think one coin will have lion's share, even more so than Ethereum because of difficulty adjustments.

[Flying Hellfish]

What's better than being a whale on 1 chain?  Being a whale on 2 chains!!!  

Maybe Bitmain really wants a HF???

i agree with that. Is better for all of us all of this charlatans to leave bitcoin and fork off from the network. No one need them here and for sure no one will miss them

Unfortunately a HF may not get rid of Bitmain from either chain.  They have enough hash power to prop both chains as far as I can tell.

A HF for Bitmain means twice the number of coins they currently own and they can mine twice as many coins with the same hashpower, basically.

The biggest risk is obviously the combined value of all coins and future mined coins on the 2 new chains is less than what the original chain would have yielded.

It sure looks like it worked for ETH/ETC whales.

Or maybe I'm nuts...!!!!

[jonald_fyookball]

Unfortunately a HF may not get rid of Bitmain from either chain.  They have enough hash power to prop both chains as far as I can tell.
 

if they had that much hash, we would have forked already.

[Paashaas]

exactly.  the decisions already have been made.  99.9% of bitcointalk is just noise to the world.

Ok, why dont you leave Bitcointalk and join youre BU buds at reddit/btc?

B..but what happend with youre almighty BU? I thought Segwit was the worst thing could ever hapen for Bitcoin, IF i believed Jihan? And now Jihan is working with Core's disign called SEGWIT. Ha ha ha

Hypocrite? Fooled by Jihan? maybe a mix from both?

[jonald_fyookball]

exactly.  the decisions already have been made.  99.9% of bitcointalk is just noise to the world.

Ok, why dont you leave Bitcointalk and join youre BU buds at reddit/btc?

its still fun to stomp on trolls, both little and big.

B..but what happend with youre almighty BU? I thought Segwit was the worst thing could ever hapen for Bitcoin, IF i believed Jihan? And now Jihan is working with Core's disign called SEGWIT. Ha ha ha

Hypocrite? Fooled by Jihan? maybe a mix from both?

BU is a schelling point.  big blockers want diversity of clients, BU, XT, Classic , etc.

SWSF is pretty bad -- i think it won't get activated.

[coin@coin]

So long as Bitmain's shitcoin is not named Bitcoin they can and should mine it, put all their miners on it and leave them there.

Good thing is if the hashrate drops a bit, or quite a bit, we'll all have a chance to mine ourselves.
So long as it doesn't upset network stability that much we should be fine.

Mining has become impossible for most people, last time I mined (mostly for fun and to learn more about it) was with Butterfly Labs (yes I did get mine, eventually), Bit Burners, and USB Erupters LOL
Soon after that it became too costly for small players like me to have a go.

One thing I'd like is transactions to be less expensive and Bitcoin to attract more users should really be inexpensive to use.

Let's see how things pan out...

[jonald_fyookball]

So long as Bitmain's shitcoin is not named Bitcoin they can and should mine it, put all their miners on it and leave them there.

Good thing is if the hashrate drops a bit, or quite a bit, we'll all have a chance to mine ourselves.
So long as it doesn't upset network stability that much we should be fine.

Mining has become impossible for most people, last time I mined (mostly for fun and to learn more about it) was with Butterfly Labs (yes I did get mine, eventually), Bit Burners, and USB Erupters LOL
Soon after that it became too costly for small players like me to have a go.

One thing I'd like is transactions to be less expensive and Bitcoin to attract more users should really be inexpensive to use.

Let's see how things pan out...

Even if the hash rate got cut in half , ordinary people can't mine.

If big blockers leave , small block philosophy won't help fees.   One of your leaders , Adam Back, thinks users would be ok paying $100 / fee.

[dinofelis]

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/

Bitmain is announcing that if BIP148 succeeds, then they are essentially going to mine a new SHA-256 altcoin instead of Bitcoin. If you don't do anything, it'll be as if mining power dropped somewhat, but you'll otherwise be completely unaffected.

I feel like some people might read this statement as trying to force a decision between Bitmain's altcoin and BIP148, but you should be roughly equally unaffected whether or not you enforce BIP148. It might help BIP148's chances a little due to removing Bitmain from consideration and therefore increasing the chances of activating the traditional BIP141 SegWit deployment, though I continue to be pessimistic about BIP148's chances; I consider continuation of the status-quo and a somewhat later BIP149 UASF as the most likely outcome.

I kinda doubt that they're actually going to stick by what they say here, but if they do, it only seems like good news. If you'd like to use a currency controlled by a single company that puts its ability to use its patented Asicboost tech above all other considerations, feel free! I'll stick with Bitcoin, thank you very much.

Actually, after a dangerous *soft fork* split with a minority hash rate, there's in fact nothing else to do for the initial majority legacy chain than to protect itself by a hard fork.  I said this a few weeks ago already.  

A soft fork imposes itself onto everybody if it is majority.  As such, a soft fork that starts out as (large) majority before being activated is not a problem from a chain splitting point of view, because the minority of miners that would like to continue the legacy chain are DIRECTLY orphaned.  This was the principle behind soft forks and things like 95% majorities.  The user will not see any difference: the chain seems to continue, and has uniformly switched to the new protocol.

A bilateral hard fork is a "clean split".  Yes, the chain splits, but once you have your two new coins, they live their independent lives happily.  You can trade them on exchanges, and by doing so, you vote with your money ; hash rate will follow.  See ETC/ETH.

However, BIP148 is a major cluster fuck: it wants to instore a chain split with a soft fork, where the soft fork is a minority split.  The whole idea of BIP148 is that bitcoin splits, that two bitcoins are listed on exchanges, and that, so is the hope, users will buy 148-bitcoin, and dump their legacy bitcoins, attracting more and more hash rate to 148-bitcoin, until it gains majority.  After a while, the 148-coin chain takes over the legacy chain, and orphans them.  But that can happen after a month or so, and all people having transacted on the legacy chain (in buying/selling coins on exchanges) suddenly see their chain (and their holdings on it) disappear !

This is a clusterfuck that should be avoided: once the two coins are appearing on exchanges, one should consider them independent, to protect the holdings of people on each chain (as well as for exchanges to be able to respect their customers and let them withdraw coins of the types they bought IOU of).  This is why in such a case, the legacy chain has NO CHOICE but to hard fork, to protect itself from re-organization, and to keep the split permanent, to turn the dangerous soft fork split into a bilateral hard fork.  Note that this could be done with a very minor modification, that doesn't even alter anything to the original chain (but honestly, if one does a HF, one could take the opportunity to increase the block limit too).  It would even be wise, in this HF, to alter slightly the signature scheme, to avoid the night mare of replay attacks, which would make it almost impossible to do what 148-coin wants people to do: to sell their legacy bitcoin, and to buy 148-bitcoin.  Because with replay attacks (especially with a soft fork !) they will have a hard time NOT selling at the same time, their 148 coins.

In other words: bip 148 is such a mess if ever it gets activated, that the only way to clean it out, is to have the legacy chain HF and make the split clean.

[Amph]

i've been also wondering why bitmain is pro segwit with litecoin, but they are against segwit with bitcoin

i think the answer is clear now, with litecoin they have not all the fee because there is no delay in transactions due to the block being already 4 x before segwit

with bitcoin yes, so they are just greedy miners  that want more money and nothing more

[CryptoClown]

I think Jihan is just getting nervous and it has become personal at this point.

[Lauda]

One of your leaders , Adam Back, thinks users would be ok paying $100 / fee.

Outright lie. Then again, what to expect from someone with a history of lying and shilling for Ver?

i've been also wondering why bitmain is pro segwit with litecoin, but they are against segwit with bitcoin

i think the answer is clear now, with litecoin they have not all the fee because there is no delay in transactions due to the block being already 4 x before segwit

with bitcoin yes, so they are just greedy miners  that want more money and nothing more

If you think that is the answer, then you're just as uninformed. The main reason is covert ASICBOOST.

I think Jihan is just getting nervous and it has become personal at this point.

It doesn't even matter anyway. Aside from turbulence in the price, I couldn't care less what he wants to do with JihadChain. I have no idea how any rational mind, who joined the ecosystem for the ideas laid down by Satoshi, would want to participate in JihadCoin. The mining monopoly/cartel is the true cancer to Bitcoin, and the worst thing to happen to it since Mt. Gox (arguably).
Update: Correct somewhat misleading sentence.

[The One]

i've been also wondering why bitmain is pro segwit with litecoin, but they are against segwit with bitcoin

i think the answer is clear now, with litecoin they have not all the fee because there is no delay in transactions due to the block being already 4 x before segwit

with bitcoin yes, so they are just greedy miners  that want more money and nothing more

If Bitmain want bigger blocks, Jihan said many times he wants bigger blocks, then why do people go on about bigger fees, greedy, etc. Bigger blocks will result in lower fees but more transactions. The increases in transaction means more accumulation of lower fees. This is a win win for miners and users. Presently miners are the winners and the users are the losers due to 1mb limit.

[FiendCoin]

i've been also wondering why bitmain is pro segwit with litecoin, but they are against segwit with bitcoin

i think the answer is clear now, with litecoin they have not all the fee because there is no delay in transactions due to the block being already 4 x before segwit

with bitcoin yes, so they are just greedy miners  that want more money and nothing more

If Bitmain want bigger blocks, Jihan said many times he wants bigger blocks, then why do people go on about bigger fees, greedy, etc. Bigger blocks will result in lower fees but more transactions. The increases in transaction means more accumulation of lower fees. This is a win win for miners and users. Presently miners are the winners and the users are the losers due to 1mb limit.

Jihan can say he wants to take a bite out of the moon because its made of green cheese, that don't mean he really wants to do that or that he really believes it. What Jihan really wants is control over Bitcoin so he can make more money. All of his actions have been to this effect.

[deisik]

There's an argument to be made that there could be a BTC supply shortage on exchanges prior to August 1st, due to a larger percentage of people pulling their bitcoins off into wallets they control. If that happens, but demand remains constant, you could see the price go higher. I'm currently bearish, but there might be an opportunity there for people willing to take the risk of keeping their bitcoins for sale on the exchanges nearer to August 1st.

Keeping your coins on an exchange may be your only chance to capitalise on multiple chains. It's quite possible one or more will be so painfully slow until a difficulty change that you won't be able to move them quickly enough. By that point it may all be over.

That's true, too, as long as the exchange provides you with virtual bitcoins on both sides of the fork. It's not clear to me that every exchange will do so

Coinbase will certainly refrain from that

As I got it, they basically stole Ethereum Classic from their users after the Ethereum split, so there shouldn't be any doubts that they will do it again with Bitcoin (though they may have hard time this time given they are going to support the hardfork). Major exchanges (like Bitfinex) will likely create wallets for the new coin when the dust settles a little. Regarding moving coins from exchanges to personal wallets, I'm more inclined to think that most traders will just sell their stashes for fiat or other coins such as Litecoin or Ethereum (I opted for Litecoin myself), and that will likely crash the prices on its own (this might be what we already see commencing)

[deisik]

i've been also wondering why bitmain is pro segwit with litecoin, but they are against segwit with bitcoin

i think the answer is clear now, with litecoin they have not all the fee because there is no delay in transactions due to the block being already 4 x before segwit

with bitcoin yes, so they are just greedy miners  that want more money and nothing more

If Bitmain want bigger blocks, Jihan said many times he wants bigger blocks, then why do people go on about bigger fees, greedy, etc. Bigger blocks will result in lower fees but more transactions. The increases in transaction means more accumulation of lower fees. This is a win win for miners and users. Presently miners are the winners and the users are the losers due to 1mb limit

This is a very superficial logic

In reality, things are more complicated than that. In other words, we shouldn't take anything at its face value when we are told something ("believe half of what you hear..."). If Jihan said something, it doesn't mean he was really going to do that. Do you really believe that he is going to hard fork Bitcoin and create a Wucoin? Further, you seem to erroneously assume that the block size increase will actually increase the number of transactions. It may in fact increase them somewhat, but not as dramatically as to offset the decline in fees. This is where things get complicated, and miners are the ones who have the first hand info in this department. But that doesn't mean they will share it with us, of course

[forevernoob]

Can we please stop with the "I was in Bitcoin before you and therefore I'm an expert in scaling Bitcoin" & "Satoshis vision"?
These are not arguments!

Please describe how Jihancoin is decentralized? It will be mined by one company only.