What will you do with your 'Bitcoin Cash'?

[European Central Bank]

I don't care what they do with their hashrate and the client they run as long as if there is a hardfork we keep the BTC token tag.

So this leads to my question: Who gets to keep the original "BTC" token tag? exchanges should list the original chain as BTC, I hope they don't pull an "ETC" and pretend that the altcoin isn't the forked chain.

https://twitter.com/coinbase/status/887703206435758080

coinbase doesn't even consider it worth taking a little trouble to collect for their customers. it looks doa already. i'll still be collecting mine and dumping instantly.

[deisik]

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin

And this seems to be the most dangerous part

At first I thought it was kind of joke, but then I read the twitter post by your link and the whole announcement, and it doesn't look they are kidding. So as I got it, they are going to fork off finally. ViaBTC seems to be closely affiliated with Bitmain and Jihan, and in layman terms this basically means war. I hope that I'm missing something or misinterpreted something else, but if they are really going to fork Bitcoin (making a new coin off it), they will be dumping their old bitcoins and likely trying to attack the genuine blockchain since this is the only way the chain is going to survive. Why do I not see and hear the alarms raised?

They are still gonna signal BIP91, so that is a good thing but I have no idea why they decided to start with their shenanigans now

Something is fishy here, very fishy, to say the least

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin.

If they are forking off the Bitcoin blockchain, that bodes bad for Bitcoin. The name is irrelevant (and they call it "Bitcoin Cash")

I don't care what they do with their hashrate and the client they run as long as if there is a hardfork we keep the BTC token tag.

So this leads to my question: Who gets to keep the original "BTC" token tag? exchanges should list the original chain as BTC, I hope they don't pull an "ETC" and pretend that the altcoin isn't the forked chain.

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

[d5000]

So this leads to my question: Who gets to keep the original "BTC" token tag? exchanges should list the original chain as BTC, I hope they don't pull an "ETC" and pretend that the altcoin isn't the forked chain.

For me there could be potentially different approaches, but at the end I think the BTC tag will continue to be used for the "traditional" chain.

At the exchanges related to big-blocker mining pools (e.g. ViaBTC's exchange) there is a minimal probability that they will classify the "Bitcoin Cash" chain as "BTC" and the other chain perhaps as "Classic Bitcoin" or something similar (I think I remember they have called the "old" chain "Bitcoin frozen" in their announcement).

But as the Bitcoin Cash branding, from the start, is a bit different from the Bitcoin branding (they compare themselves to "Bitcoin", so they're saying they're not Bitcoin, at least not the "pure Bitcoin") I think most big exchanges will stick with BTC for the traditional chain. As big blocker exchanges have only a small market share, I think to not confuse their users, they will rapidly switch again to use "BTC" for "old Bitcoin" - they may not even try to change it.

[Krimster]

https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/886798784348532737

So Bitmain and friends will be forking a new chain on August 1st whatever happens by the looks of things, as well as Segwitting on the main one.

I assume we'll all get some of this to play with so what will you be doing with it? Would you dump instantly or hold fire and see what happens?

Some rather deep pockets will be desperately keen to make a success of it so I may hang on to it for a bit for a lark.

Just think about it. Who wants to be part of ChinaCoin, with inferior software, when you can just stay on the legacy chain, be teamed up with all the whales which I suspect aren't going too be too happy about Bitmain's hardfork, and also get to have segwit without no hardfork? Seems pretty obvious to me. All these hardforks are dead on arrival. Im probably going to dump them for more free real Bitcoin.

None. If you ask me, the whole thing is an excuse to attack the real bitcoin blockchain with their hash rates. And, by the looks of it, they will nuke it into oblivion. There simply is no other logical explanation.

Time to shapeshift what little I have left, I guess.

[European Central Bank]

None. If you ask me, the whole thing is an excuse to attack the real bitcoin blockchain with their hash rates. And, by the looks of it, they will nuke it into oblivion. There simply is no other logical explanation.

Time to shapeshift what little I have left, I guess.

uh, that's exactly what they want you to do. do you think anyone other than them is gonna have anything to do with this? do you think they're gonna give up mining the coin with real value? this is how they get real bitcoins for less from you.

[6Asmodeus6]

I will hold it until something realy important changes my mind. Bitcoin was a realy good plus on my life and made me learn a lot of things about currencies.I didn't think that i will get rich over a night just by owning it like those news titles says.I mean it would be cool though .If I have many reasons to dump it i will do it but otherwise, I will hold it forever.

[cellard]

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin

And this seems to be the most dangerous part

At first I thought it was kind of joke, but then I read the twitter post by your link and the whole announcement, and it doesn't look they are kidding. So as I got it, they are going to fork off finally. ViaBTC seems to be closely affiliated with Bitmain and Jihan, and in layman terms this basically means war. I hope that I'm missing something or misinterpreted something else, but if they are really going to fork Bitcoin (making a new coin off it), they will be dumping their old bitcoins and likely trying to attack the genuine blockchain since this is the only way the chain is going to survive. Why do I not see and hear the alarms raised?

They are still gonna signal BIP91, so that is a good thing but I have no idea why they decided to start with their shenanigans now

Something is fishy here, very fishy, to say the least

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin.

If they are forking off the Bitcoin blockchain, that bodes bad for Bitcoin. The name is irrelevant (and they call it "Bitcoin Cash")

I don't care what they do with their hashrate and the client they run as long as if there is a hardfork we keep the BTC token tag.

So this leads to my question: Who gets to keep the original "BTC" token tag? exchanges should list the original chain as BTC, I hope they don't pull an "ETC" and pretend that the altcoin isn't the forked chain.

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

Just look at ETH/ETC, both coins can co-exist. Jihan isn't going to attack anything because nobody is going to follow his altcoin, he will not have enough hashrate to attack without lossing a lot of money.

There will be no hardfork anyway, I was just asking a theoretical question about who get to keep the BTC token in the case of a theoretical hardfork ETH/ETC style.

[deisik]

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

Just look at ETH/ETC, both coins can co-exist. Jihan isn't going to attack anything because nobody is going to follow his altcoin, he will not have enough hashrate to attack without lossing a lot of money.

There will be no hardfork anyway, I was just asking a theoretical question about who get to keep the BTC token in the case of a theoretical hardfork ETH/ETC style.

I don't think that we should look at the ETH and ETC coins

Today it is a completely different situation. The Ethereum fork was kind of spontaneous, a totally unexpected event even by those behind it. This is not the case with Bitcoin now. Further, what is this Bitcoin Cash if not a fork by any metric? If they take the existing blockchain and clone it, this is pretty much it. And in that very case the attack is inevitable, otherwise the whole idea is stillborn. Apart from that, how do you know that Jihan doesn't have enough hash rate? He might have been silently assembling a ruthless army of the top-notch asics all these months to crush Bitcoin with just one sweeping blow

[gentlemand]

I don't think that we should look at the ETH and ETC coins

Today is a completely different situation. The Ethereum fork was kind of spontaneous, a totally unexpected event event by those behind it. This is not the case with Bitcoin now. Further, what is this Bitcoin Cash if not a fork by any metric? If they take the existing blockchain and clone, this is pretty much it. And in that very case the attack is inevitable, otherwise the whole idea is stillborn. Apart from that, how do you know that Jihan doesn't have enough hash rate? He might have been silently assembling an army of asics all these months

Before anything else let's see how much of their own mining power they devote to it. The money will remain on the main chain. If they attack that I really don't think people will be inclined to switch to a chain under the control of a handful of pricks who destroyed the original one.

[deisik]

I don't think that we should look at the ETH and ETC coins

Today is a completely different situation. The Ethereum fork was kind of spontaneous, a totally unexpected event event by those behind it. This is not the case with Bitcoin now. Further, what is this Bitcoin Cash if not a fork by any metric? If they take the existing blockchain and clone, this is pretty much it. And in that very case the attack is inevitable, otherwise the whole idea is stillborn. Apart from that, how do you know that Jihan doesn't have enough hash rate? He might have been silently assembling an army of asics all these months

Before anything else let's see how much of their own mining power they devote to it. The money will remain on the main chain. If they attack that I really don't think people will be inclined to switch to a chain under the control of a handful of pricks who destroyed the original one

You seem to heavily underestimate these dudes

If you don't think of them as complete idiots (which they ain't), you should expect that they have calculated everything well enough to be certain of success. Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed? Further, they are not going to attack Bitcoin directly, they have artfully managed to make users pay insane fees before, so what makes you think that they won't be able to tacitly beat Bitcoin into oblivion, which is what they will certainly do? Many if not most people here are exclusively for profits, and if they see the original Bitcoin crashing, they will be eager to sell their coins for this new Bitcoin (whatever name it might have)

[gentlemand]

You seem to heavily underestimate these dudes

If you don't think of them as complete idiots (which they ain't), you should expect that they have calculated everything well enough to be certain of success. Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed? Further, they are not going to attack Bitcoin directly, they have artfully managed to make users pay insane fees, so what makes you think that they won't be able to beat Bitcoin into oblivion, which is what they will do? Many if not most people here are exclusively for profits, and if they see the original Bitcoin crashing, they will be eager to sell their coins for this new Bitcoin (whatever name it might have)

Maybe I am, but China is basically a Bitcoin desert outside mining. The actual usage is taking place in areas where the economic players have nothing to do with mining and Coinbase at least is having nothing to do with this fork. I assume most others will follow.

They've consistently proven their code isn't good enough. No one other than themselves wants to follow them.

The big block advocates, or rather this strain of them as I don't really have a problem with larger blocks, seem to operate in something of an echo chamber of their own construction.

I think they rather radically underestimate the utter contempt most others have for them or there's some weird blindness to it. Check the average Roger Ver tweet. There's a list of abuse about four metres long beneath it.

[Iranus]

Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed?

Because they'd like to see a chain with larger blocks.  Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC have all basically failed, despite all the hype they each had for doing the same thing as last time, so the only solution is to fork off without a majority of hash rate.

Major groups backing BU/EC have decided that a compromise is necessary, but they've decided that they want their own chain to play with.
You could equally argue "why did they start Clamcoin if they weren't going to take over BTC?"

The big block advocates, or rather this strain of them as I don't really have a problem with larger blocks, seem to operate in something of an echo chamber of their own construction.

I'm not sure I subscribe to this rhetoric of just bashing the people.

This is absolutely a self-fulfilling prophecy, because Roger Ver is not a coder.  He's just an opinionated public figure.  So by bashing Roger Ver rather than big blocks, you're keeping yourself from joining the "big block" side.  And by doing that, you're stopping any "good" people from moving over to that side, and keeping the majority of people annoying.  It's like when people avoid going vegan because they don't like vegans, or avoid using BTC because it's used on the dark net.

So more than anything it's an echo chamber of everyone else's construction.

[Roccker]

Argh.
I wanna keep my bitcoin just on the exchange.

I see myself fucking up something and sending it to a wrong adress or something and lose my whole life-savings. 20bc


It's not clear if you get your money if you are on exchange?
A few months ago when BU was a danger, they said they will give all costumers also the BU funds

[deisik]

Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed?

Because they'd like to see a chain with larger blocks

This is not an explanation

What is the purpose of seeing Bitcoin with larger blocks if no one is going to use it anyway? As to me, it makes sense to start this coin only if they really intend to come out as winners. Regarding the Bitcoins you mentioned, I guess that they hadn't enough support by the mining cartel. Anyway, the failure or success would greatly depend on the hash power but indirectly. Hash rate itself is meaningless if you don't have users, but it may make all the difference if you are going to take down the competing chain in a really ingenious and sophisticated way

[Iranus]

I see myself fucking up something and sending it to a wrong adress or something and lose my whole life-savings. 20bc

Considering what's already happened on Cryptsy and Mt. Gox, I'd say that keeping it on the exchange is about a million times riskier than just sending out to a safer wallet at any time at all, not just near forks.  Sending it to the wrong address has happened but it's a negligible risk if you triple check.

It's not clear if you get your money if you are on exchange?

It's not clear because it's essentially the exchange's decision.  Coinbase, for example, has already said that they will not be giving their customers the Bitcoin Cash/UAHF coins and that their users should withdraw if they want those. 

It's important to understand that when storing coins in an exchange the exchange is holding them for you, and all you have is a promise that you'll get them back.  That promise didn't include "in the case of any chain splits, we'll give you all of the different coins through a lovely interface and you can do what you like with them".  So to avoid shady or confusing activity from exchanges, you should withdraw.

Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed?

Because they'd like to see a chain with larger blocks

This is not an explanation

Pretty sure it is.

What is the purpose of seeing Bitcoin with larger blocks if no one is going to use it anyway?

Anyone could create a fork of BTC.  Anyone can also create an altcoin.  Does that mean that the 995 coins listed on coinmarketcap are all going to become the biggest cryptocurrency?

[deisik]

Why would they want to fork off if they weren't going to succeed?

Because they'd like to see a chain with larger blocks

This is not an explanation

Pretty sure it is

You may want to learn what the word explanation means

As well as some other words, for that matter. It is not about what you think it is, it is what the party which you explain something to thinks about your words and whether they consider it as an explanation. So far I don't see how you can coherently explain why the mining cartel is going for Bitcoin Cash (or whatever) unless they want to outcompete Bitcoin. And this addressees your next question regarding other altcoins. They are there to earn profits for their developers (let's assume that for a moment). But in case of Bitcoin Cash this is only possible if it manages to bring down the "regular" Bitcoin. Otherwise, it will fail itself. As simple as that. And that specifically poses the question before you why they (the mining cartel) would deliberately want to create a coin which is set to fail. In other words, if you want to explain something, you should make the ends meet in your "explanation" (which you don't)

[cellard]

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

Just look at ETH/ETC, both coins can co-exist. Jihan isn't going to attack anything because nobody is going to follow his altcoin, he will not have enough hashrate to attack without lossing a lot of money.

There will be no hardfork anyway, I was just asking a theoretical question about who get to keep the BTC token in the case of a theoretical hardfork ETH/ETC style.

I don't think that we should look at the ETH and ETC coins

Today it is a completely different situation. The Ethereum fork was kind of spontaneous, a totally unexpected event even by those behind it. This is not the case with Bitcoin now. Further, what is this Bitcoin Cash if not a fork by any metric? If they take the existing blockchain and clone it, this is pretty much it. And in that very case the attack is inevitable, otherwise the whole idea is stillborn. Apart from that, how do you know that Jihan doesn't have enough hash rate? He might have been silently assembling a ruthless army of the top-notch asics all these months to crush Bitcoin with just one sweeping blow

Doesn't matter. Whales have more BTC than Jihan. In a hardfork, you vote with your BTC, not with hashrate. If they are stupid enough to hardfork the approval of the whales, then the whales will jump on BitmainCoin's chain, creating a massive crash, potentially selling the entire orderbook all the way down to 0, so they would need to move their hashrate back to the legacy chain. You can't hardfork Bitcoin just because you got miners.

Not to mention, who would be stupid enough to be on a blockchain that is basically centralized with Jihan's hashrate?

[deisik]

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

Just look at ETH/ETC, both coins can co-exist. Jihan isn't going to attack anything because nobody is going to follow his altcoin, he will not have enough hashrate to attack without lossing a lot of money.

There will be no hardfork anyway, I was just asking a theoretical question about who get to keep the BTC token in the case of a theoretical hardfork ETH/ETC style.

I don't think that we should look at the ETH and ETC coins

Today it is a completely different situation. The Ethereum fork was kind of spontaneous, a totally unexpected event even by those behind it. This is not the case with Bitcoin now. Further, what is this Bitcoin Cash if not a fork by any metric? If they take the existing blockchain and clone it, this is pretty much it. And in that very case the attack is inevitable, otherwise the whole idea is stillborn. Apart from that, how do you know that Jihan doesn't have enough hash rate? He might have been silently assembling a ruthless army of the top-notch asics all these months to crush Bitcoin with just one sweeping blow

Doesn't matter. Whales have more BTC than Jihan. In a hardfork, you vote with your BTC, not with hashrate. If they are stupid enough to hardfork the approval of the whales, then the whales will jump on BitmainCoin's chain, creating a massive crash, potentially selling the entire orderbook all the way down to 0, so they would need to move their hashrate back to the legacy chain. You can't hardfork Bitcoin just because you got miners.

Not to mention, who would be stupid enough to be on a blockchain that is basically centralized with Jihan's hashrate?

The current blockchain is only slightly less centralized

Apart from that, most people basically don't care whether Bitcoin is centralized or not. All they care for are profits and nothing else but profits. If Jihan in some ingenious way makes them choose between losing the value of the coins on the "regular" blockchain and acquiring that value on his blockchain, they won't think twice (you can be dead sure of that). Further, what makes you think, first, that Jihan and his goons (who are collectively known as the mining cartel) have less coins than some obscure "whales", and, second, that some of these whales (say, Roger Ver) won't in fact prefer JihanCoin?

[European Central Bank]

The current blockchain is only slightly less centralized

Apart from that, most people basically don't care whether Bitcoin is centralized or not. All they care for are profits and nothing else but profits. If Jihan in some ingenious way makes them choose between losing the value of the coins on the "regular" blockchain and acquiring that value on his blockchain, they won't think twice (you can be dead sure of that). Further, what makes you think, first, that Jihan and his goons (who are collectively known as the mining cartel) have less coins than some obscure "whales", and, second, that some of these whales (say, Roger Ver) won't in fact prefer JihanCoin?

the current state of centralisation is kind of the elephant in the room. if it breaks out and starts smashing things like a bitmain controlled coin would i think enough people would start to object.

right now it's just about bearable enough but it's kind of a fragile precipice.

yeah, i think enough people would be lured by the money to stick around, but it would only take one demonstration of their power to make things falter.

crypto has got to have something to look to when it comes to its principles. bitcoin is it.

[deisik]

The current blockchain is only slightly less centralized

Apart from that, most people basically don't care whether Bitcoin is centralized or not. All they care for are profits and nothing else but profits. If Jihan in some ingenious way makes them choose between losing the value of the coins on the "regular" blockchain and acquiring that value on his blockchain, they won't think twice (you can be dead sure of that). Further, what makes you think, first, that Jihan and his goons (who are collectively known as the mining cartel) have less coins than some obscure "whales", and, second, that some of these whales (say, Roger Ver) won't in fact prefer JihanCoin?

the current state of centralisation is kind of the elephant in the room. if it breaks out and starts smashing things like a bitmain controlled coin would i think enough people would start to object.

right now it's just about bearable enough but it's kind of a fragile precipice.

yeah, i think enough people would be lured by the money to stick around, but it would only take one demonstration of their power to make things falter

There are quite a few centralized coins out there

For example, Ripple or Ethereum (and even Litecoin, to a certain degree, via Charlie Lee intervention), and the "controllers" have been exerting their power on a pretty regular basis. The famous Ethereum rollback is just one glaring example of that, and the hard fork that ensued doesn't seem to prosper, which it should according to your reasoning ("only one demonstration to make things falter"). But as I said it already, people won't care as long as the price will be rising. If it won't be rising, they will walk away even if this power is in fact NOT exerted at all. As no less famous saying goes, profits always trump prophets