[Guide] Handling splits: UASFs, BIP148, etc.

[jooj]

Hi, I'm actually using BTC.com to store my Bitcoin and I'm not sure if this site is safe. Can you guys verify if that bank is good to store? or Do i need to move my coins to Bitcoin core?. I'm just worried that my coins will be split or lose, I have save some coins now and I don't want to waste my hard work from it. Thanks Guys

All you need is keep your Bitcoin in a wallet you control, and have your addresses private keys in safe place. chose the wallet that suit you at OP.

[1713960671]

1713960671

[1713960671]

1713960671

[rico666]

I do not fully agree on the

First of all, remove all bitcoins possible from banks/exchanges/"hosted wallets".

By "fully", I mean: Yes, if you are an inexperienced newbie and want to be on the totally safe side, this is what to do.

From experience with the ETH/ETC split, let me offer an alternative perspective on this, because I think it applies here very well:

At the time of the split, I had ETH at both BTC-e and at Kraken.

While at BTC-e this meant no ETC for me (of the same amount as I had ETH in there), at Kraken, I suddenly had magically <amount> ETC and the same <amount> ETH.

While the ETH/ETC split was intentional and we do not know if a similar thing will happen to BTC, it may happen and if it does, there are the following scenarios what may happen if you have your BTC at some exchange/bank:

• The Bank will only keep holding what it considers the "major" branch/split/fork of BTC. I.e. the "successor"
• The Bank will automagically provide you with both branches - read: wallets - (a.k.a. BTC and BTC-classic)
• The Bank will provide you only with the - from your perspective - "less desired branch".

It is only the 1st and 3rd scenario where the bank would f** you over and that justifies the precaution of not keeping any funds "at banks".
In the 1st one you lose potentially some assets of an alternate currency that may have quite some value, in the 3rd one you would
lose the majority of your value.

In case your Bank/Exchange will publish a handling policy in case of a non-negligible split that resembles case 2, I think it is not only safe, but also comfortable to keep the funds as is.

Executive Summary: If in doubt, go with the Theymos default. If exporting/selling BTC is a hassle and you trust your bank and it claims it would handle the split like giving you both coins: consider also "doing nothing" i.e. no moving the coins.

[Feracitus]

I do not fully agree on the

First of all, remove all bitcoins possible from banks/exchanges/"hosted wallets".

By "fully", I mean: Yes, if you are an inexperienced newbie and want to be on the totally safe side, this is what to do.

From experience with the ETH/ETC split, let me offer an alternative perspective on this, because I think it applies here very well:

At the time of the split, I had ETH at both BTC-e and at Kraken.

While at BTC-e this meant no ETC for me (of the same amount as I had ETH in there), at Kraken, I suddenly had magically <amount> ETC and the same <amount> ETH.

While the ETH/ETC split was intentional and we do not know if a similar thing will happen to BTC, it may happen and if it does, there are the following scenarios what may happen if you have your BTC at some exchange/bank:

• The Bank will only keep holding what it considers the "major" branch/split/fork of BTC. I.e. the "successor"
• The Bank will automagically provide you with both branches - read: wallets - (a.k.a. BTC and BTC-classic)
• The Bank will provide you only with the - from your perspective - "less desired branch".

It is only the 1st and 3rd scenario where the bank would f** you over and that justifies the precaution of not keeping any funds "at banks".
In the 1st one you lose potentially some assets of an alternate currency that may have quite some value, in the 3rd one you would
lose the majority of your value.

In case your Bank/Exchange will publish a handling policy in case of a non-negligible split that resembles case 2, I think it is not only safe, but also comfortable to keep the funds as is.

Executive Summary: If in doubt, go with the Theymos default. If exporting/selling BTC is a hassle and you trust your bank and it claims it would handle the split like giving you both coins: consider also "doing nothing" i.e. no moving the coins.

  Quite a winded post that in the end justifies the argument it was supposed to rebut.

[identifyuser]

Where I can see the statistics of the transition to BIP91?

[Yefet]

Where I can see the statistics of the transition to BIP91?

Coin.Dance is quite informative

[SativaDiva]

I am new to the BTC world so this post was a great guide for me. Question: anyone know the best wallet for ETH?

[identifyuser]

Where I can see the statistics of the transition to BIP91?

Coin.Dance is quite informative

Thanks!

I am new to the BTC world so this post was a great guide for me. Question: anyone know the best wallet for ETH?

ONLY myetherwallet

[sunny163]

Does it will change anything if this is above 50 % ?

http://segwit.co/

[coinmania]

I am new to the BTC world so this post was a great guide for me. Question: anyone know the best wallet for ETH?

I recommend Electrum!

[Yefet]

Does it will change anything if this is above 50 % ?

http://segwit.co/

Nope, 95% are needed for Segwit to lock in

[mdnajir]

Thanks of lot your full Gide. i l ikke it .
again thanks

[Quickseller]

I do not fully agree on the

First of all, remove all bitcoins possible from banks/exchanges/"hosted wallets".

By "fully", I mean: Yes, if you are an inexperienced newbie and want to be on the totally safe side, this is what to do.

From experience with the ETH/ETC split, let me offer an alternative perspective on this, because I think it applies here very well:

At the time of the split, I had ETH at both BTC-e and at Kraken.

While at BTC-e this meant no ETC for me (of the same amount as I had ETH in there), at Kraken, I suddenly had magically <amount> ETC and the same <amount> ETH.

While the ETH/ETC split was intentional and we do not know if a similar thing will happen to BTC, it may happen and if it does, there are the following scenarios what may happen if you have your BTC at some exchange/bank:

• The Bank will only keep holding what it considers the "major" branch/split/fork of BTC. I.e. the "successor"
• The Bank will automagically provide you with both branches - read: wallets - (a.k.a. BTC and BTC-classic)
• The Bank will provide you only with the - from your perspective - "less desired branch".

It is only the 1st and 3rd scenario where the bank would f** you over and that justifies the precaution of not keeping any funds "at banks".
In the 1st one you lose potentially some assets of an alternate currency that may have quite some value, in the 3rd one you would
lose the majority of your value.

In case your Bank/Exchange will publish a handling policy in case of a non-negligible split that resembles case 2, I think it is not only safe, but also comfortable to keep the funds as is.

Executive Summary: If in doubt, go with the Theymos default. If exporting/selling BTC is a hassle and you trust your bank and it claims it would handle the split like giving you both coins: consider also "doing nothing" i.e. no moving the coins.

  Quite a winded post that in the end justifies the argument it was supposed to rebut.

I disagree. If an exchange wants to maintain credibility with its customers then it will need to develop and publish a policy regarding what they will do with coins from each side of anticipated splits that are expected to have any value and act accordingly. Most exchanges have already done this. 

If exchanges do not do this then customers will not have confidence in their ability to protect their money. If this happens then exchanges will have difficulty attracting customers to trade on their platform, which would be detrimental to their business.

[MyMoneyShark]

So, now BIP 91 is locked in.
Does it meant that all danger (about split) is already behind?

[achow101]

So, now BIP 91 is locked in.
Does it meant that all danger (about split) is already behind?

No. There is still potential for a split with BIP 91 as many miners may be false signaling or spy mining thus end up mining a BIP 91 invalid fork. This would be reorged out later once they notice/the other side of the fork catches up and becomes longer. The likelihood of a persistent chain split is low, but there may be many non-persistent forks.

[KNK]

Once again - it is no different from having orphaned blocks, which happens all the time (see https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks ) and does not do any harm.

For a spy mining on invalid blocks to succeed one will need 51+% of the hashpower.
At best we will have few blocks of transactions to reconfirm and the miner working on invalid blocks will loose income when they get orphaned, so very unlikely they'l even try.
At worst there will be some panic after few consecutive blocks in an invalid fork, which will drop the price a bit, but just until they get orphaned and will quickly rebound (and even rise higher)

[Gyrsur]

what about the BitcoinCash split? a fork to >1MB blocks will happen with BitcoinCash on 08/01/2017 right?

Code:

       --> BTC
BTC --
       --> BCC

[torrentco]

hope the prices will sky rocket after aug 1st.

[KNK]

what about the BitcoinCash split? a fork to >1MB blocks will happen with BitcoinCash on 08/01/2017 right?

Code:

       --> BTC
BTC --
       --> BCC

IMHO that's a new altcoin being born not a Bitcoin split. You will just start with some altcoins on that chain (if you own your private keys), which you may sell for profit or simply ignore.
Bitcoin will also fork to 2MB blocks later, but it will happen smoothly the same way we saw now with BIP91

[Kazan]

Many thanks for clarifying all this stuff for new . bee to understand whats going on

[Vishnu.Reang]

As I could see from the Coin Dance website, one of the blocks mined yesterday (block number 476909, relayed by CANOE) was not BIP 141 compatible. So what will happen to this block?