Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork, which chain will you stay on?

[ABCbits]

this thing has no replay protection

They added SIGHASH_UNIFIED after hard-forking.

If i understand how it works correctly, it's not complete/full replay protection. It seems, only BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX with SIGHASH_UNIFIED have replay protection. BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX without SIGHASH_UNIFIED and Bitcoin TX (that doesn't violate BIP 110) are still vulnerable to replay protection. CMIIW.

[NotATether]

If i understand how it works correctly, it's not complete/full replay protection. It seems, only BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX with SIGHASH_UNIFIED have replay protection. BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX without SIGHASH_UNIFIED and Bitcoin TX (that doesn't violate BIP 110) are still vulnerable to replay protection. CMIIW.

You're correct and that's how it's supposed to work.

So if you want to sweep, you need to sign your BIP110 txes with SIGHASH_UNIFIED.

[chriscooked]

correct, and that's what they can do. They can't add replay protection to sha256 chain, but as some ppl have claimed you can use bigger opreturn or you can first move coins on blake2b chain using replay protection if that's anyone's concern at all. But if blake2b is irrelevant to you and blake2b is worthless acc. to you then why do you care about any of this. Makes you wonder why gmax is inclined to lie and deceive everyday.

this thing has no replay protection

They added SIGHASH_UNIFIED after hard-forking.

If i understand how it works correctly, it's not complete/full replay protection. It seems, only BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX with SIGHASH_UNIFIED have replay protection. BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX without SIGHASH_UNIFIED and Bitcoin TX (that doesn't violate BIP 110) are still vulnerable to replay protection. CMIIW.

[Dogedegen]

They want to confuse people and attract buyers, cause they know no one with logical reasons will just buy their shitcoins just like that, or they want people to believe that it is Bitcoin related and then they trust it

But that's bullshit, no one with good reasoning will still buy.
I've also seen "Bitcoin coin" before like what the heck.. I expect investors to be smart enough to notice stuffs like this nevertheless

This kind of tactic does not work in the long term, it can only cause damage to individuals and that is its limit. Someone will fall for the manipulation every now and then, but this kind of trickery is not effective on a global scale. I wonder if some big institutions could now sue them for misrepresenting themselves as Bitcoin and then causing damage to potential investors to the real Bitcoin. It is obvious that decentralized solutions to such a problem are not possible, we are already applying education and try to avoid the use of websites that do this sort of thing. These measures do work work but that will still lead to a fair number of people getting hurt depending on how influential the website or platform that is doing this is. At least the benefit of this kind of activity is that we can easily recognize who is trying to harm Bitcoin.

If i understand how it works correctly, it's not complete/full replay protection. It seems, only BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX with SIGHASH_UNIFIED have replay protection. BIP 110/BTC2B coin TX without SIGHASH_UNIFIED and Bitcoin TX (that doesn't violate BIP 110) are still vulnerable to replay protection. CMIIW.

You're correct and that's how it's supposed to work.

So if you want to sweep, you need to sign your BIP110 txes with SIGHASH_UNIFIED.

I would not sweep it all, the value is too low to be worth even playing around with this. I think that users should just ignore it until it is completely gone, the risk is too high for something to go wrong and mess up what they have built over a long period of time.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5590802.msg67122313#msg67122313 had to point this out if yà aren't following that thread. St.luke has a problem with a group having sourced a lot of SiaCoin miners so are getting too many blocks... https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/pull/396

[ABCbits]

correct, and that's what they can do. They can't add replay protection to sha256 chain

FWIW, if usage of SIGHASH_UNIFIED is required on BIP 110/BTCB2 coin, both chain effectively have full replay protection.

but as some ppl have claimed you can use bigger opreturn or you can first move coins on blake2b chain using replay protection if that's anyone's concern at all.

Both are valid approach, but both also require more effort among average people. They need to either,
1. Aware of BIP 110 rule and find wallet that let them create Bitcoin TX that violate BIP 110.
2. Find legit (not stealing either coin) BIP 110/BTCB2 wallet that can or always create TX with SIGHASH_UNIFIED.

[pooya87]

Here is one of their attempts at stealing bitcoin name for their shitcoin:

They want to confuse people and attract buyers, cause they know no one with logical reasons will just buy their shitcoins just like that, or they want people to believe that it is Bitcoin related and then they trust it

But that's bullshit, no one with good reasoning will still buy.
I've also seen "Bitcoin coin" before like what the heck.. I expect investors to be smart enough to notice stuffs like this nevertheless

You have to remember that the screenshot was from an old reputable website that also looked legit called bitcoin.com something newbies went to in order to purchase bitcoin. Then one day the owner of the site decided to sell them bcash calling it bitcoin. Newbies didn't know any better, it was a sour first experience for them.

[Floczy]

Here is one of their attempts at stealing bitcoin name for their shitcoin:

They want to confuse people and attract buyers, cause they know no one with logical reasons will just buy their shitcoins just like that, or they want people to believe that it is Bitcoin related and then they trust it

But that's bullshit, no one with good reasoning will still buy.
I've also seen "Bitcoin coin" before like what the heck.. I expect investors to be smart enough to notice stuffs like this nevertheless

You have to remember that the screenshot was from an old reputable website that also looked legit called bitcoin.com something newbies went to in order to purchase bitcoin. Then one day the owner of the site decided to sell them bcash calling it bitcoin. Newbies didn't know any better, it was a sour first experience for them.

I had to make some research concerning why the case is this way

And it happens to be that its more deeper than just a renaming.

It all started in 2017 where bitcoin started getting popular as a result the network was becoming too crowded. So they had to create Bitcoin cash (BCH) as a continuation of Bitcoin, but in this case BCH had larger blocks so transactions could fit and would keep Bitcoin cheap and good for everyday transactions, that was the plan in 2017..
So some thought Bitcoin should have its original form and developments should be made to achieve the goal of more blocks, easy transactions etc..
But Roger ver, the founder of Bitcoin.com actually supported BCH and expected it to be the continuation of Bitcoin because of the goal of easy transactions and so on, and as a result he labeled Bitcoin to be BCH, and BTC as the past of the whole Bitcoin situation.

But eventually bitcoin remained BTC as there were disagreements concerning the idea, they where rather willing to develop the Network and make improvements such as segWit to increase capacity and make transactions easier and cheaper..
As that was the case, Bitcoin cash then became a totally different crypto. Bitcoin still stood


But Roger ver still don't want to change the label, with reason know to him, I don't know if he still believes that vision will happen, but it will not, Bitcoin transactions have been made better, and the coin is totally independent.

So it's it might still be a challenge for new comes, they just have to be clear of that they are buying, I could probably make a topic about it in beginners and help to spread the information on knowing that Bitcoin is BCH in Bitcoin.com.

[pooya87]

It all started in 2017 where bitcoin started getting popular as a result the network was becoming too crowded.

Discussions around scaling bitcoin started around 2015 and has been going on for a while. It came to conclusion in 2017.

So they had to create Bitcoin cash (BCH) as a continuation of Bitcoin, but in this case BCH had larger blocks so transactions could fit and would keep Bitcoin cheap and good for everyday transactions, that was the plan in 2017..

There were multiple paths suggested to address the scaling issue. Some were saying we need bigger blocks, some even said we need to let the miners decide what the block size should be and be able to change it dynamically any time they wanted to!
But in the end the suggestion that was saying the capacity should be increased through a soft-fork with a proposal called SegWit gained the most support and it went through.

Bcash story is different. A small group created an altcoin out of bitcoin by copying both its code and its blockchain in order to enrich themselves. It was never about scaling Bitcoin because in order to do that, they needed to add that as a proposal to Bitcoin and require the majority of the network to signal for it instead of forking off with a small hashrate.

But Roger ver, the founder of Bitcoin.com actually supported BCH and expected it to be the continuation of Bitcoin because of the goal of easy transactions and so on, and as a result he labeled Bitcoin to be BCH, and BTC as the past of the whole Bitcoin situation.

Not really though. When the majority of Bitcoin network ignored bcash, it was clear that what this centralized group had created was a shitcoin. The only reason Ver started selling bcash as bitcoin to the newbies who visited his website was because he wanted to rip them off.

But eventually bitcoin remained BTC ~
As that was the case, Bitcoin cash then became a totally different crypto.

Bitcoin remained bitcoin just like before and bcash remained bcash the moment they forked off not later on.
You see, at any time anybody can create a fork. You can do it right now and call it "bitcoin" but it won't become bitcoin just because you said so. Bitcoin is what the majority say it is and majority rejected the bcash fork, so it was a shitcoin from the start not later on.

So it's it might still be a challenge for new comes, they just have to be clear of that they are buying, I could probably make a topic about it in beginners and help to spread the information on knowing that Bitcoin is BCH in Bitcoin.com.

I believe they stopped running that scam on bitcoin.com shortly after they started it because the complaints were on the rise. Newbies went to bitcoin.com to buy bitcoin and bought what the site was telling them is bitcoin but never received it in their wallets (they received bcash on bcash chain) so they had to put an end to it.

[Leon Zimmer]

It all started in 2017 where bitcoin started getting popular as a result the network was becoming too crowded.

Discussions around scaling bitcoin started around 2015 and has been going on for a while. It came to conclusion in 2017.

So they had to create Bitcoin cash (BCH) as a continuation of Bitcoin, but in this case BCH had larger blocks so transactions could fit and would keep Bitcoin cheap and good for everyday transactions, that was the plan in 2017..

There were multiple paths suggested to address the scaling issue. Some were saying we need bigger blocks, some even said we need to let the miners decide what the block size should be and be able to change it dynamically any time they wanted to!
But in the end the suggestion that was saying the capacity should be increased through a soft-fork with a proposal called SegWit gained the most support and it went through.

Bcash story is different. A small group created an altcoin out of bitcoin by copying both its code and its blockchain in order to enrich themselves. It was never about scaling Bitcoin because in order to do that, they needed to add that as a proposal to Bitcoin and require the majority of the network to signal for it instead of forking off with a small hashrate.

But Roger ver, the founder of Bitcoin.com actually supported BCH and expected it to be the continuation of Bitcoin because of the goal of easy transactions and so on, and as a result he labeled Bitcoin to be BCH, and BTC as the past of the whole Bitcoin situation.

Not really though. When the majority of Bitcoin network ignored bcash, it was clear that what this centralized group had created was a shitcoin. The only reason Ver started selling bcash as bitcoin to the newbies who visited his website was because he wanted to rip them off.

But eventually bitcoin remained BTC ~
As that was the case, Bitcoin cash then became a totally different crypto.

Bitcoin remained bitcoin just like before and bcash remained bcash the moment they forked off not later on.
You see, at any time anybody can create a fork. You can do it right now and call it "bitcoin" but it won't become bitcoin just because you said so. Bitcoin is what the majority say it is and majority rejected the bcash fork, so it was a shitcoin from the start not later on.

So it's it might still be a challenge for new comes, they just have to be clear of that they are buying, I could probably make a topic about it in beginners and help to spread the information on knowing that Bitcoin is BCH in Bitcoin.com.

I believe they stopped running that scam on bitcoin.com shortly after they started it because the complaints were on the rise. Newbies went to bitcoin.com to buy bitcoin and bought what the site was telling them is bitcoin but never received it in their wallets (they received bcash on bcash chain) so they had to put an end to it.

The bitcoin.com naming is not really just about the incorrect naming, it is also about using huge domain value together with SEO trust. Users often visited that site while they were typing in “buy bitcoin”, and without knowing they were pulled down a garden path, Ver was heavily promoting the bcash. This was no small error; before the split had been performed, Ver had been a longtime supporter of bigger blocks and he promoted bcash through a domain that held no official power over Bitcoin consensus or rules.