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

[DragonBites]

Stay with non-BIP110 or NOT?

Your coins, your choice. I splitted my coins, and now just waiting, if BIP-110 chain will move, and if anyone will want to buy these BIP-110 coins, even for a single non-BIP-110 satoshi.

Casual miner and I'm not in the mood to become a BIP expert today LOL

If you make a regular transaction, and your use case is unaffected by BIP-110, then your coins will move on both chains, assuming that BIP-110 chain will start moving at all.

Thanks! I'm going to sit where I am for now.  Got the other 3 miners back to original.

[PrivacyG]

I would not want to do any thing at all with a stuck Blockchain with out replay protection.  Particularly when their community is THIS toxic and malicious.  This is playing with fire for what.  A few dozen Dollars at the very most?

Their Blockchain is currently worth nothing.  Because other than the delusional them selves, no one is going to pay any thing for a transaction that will most likely not even go through.  Exchanges look like they do not even see the BIP-110 Fork as existing.  There are too many reasons no one should even think about claiming those.  BIP-110 is a failed Bitcoin attack and right now they are only humiliating them selves.

[athanred]

a stuck Blockchain with out replay protection

BIP-110 blocks many kinds of transactions on relay level, so you can use it to split coins, if you need it.

Also, because mining pools reached over 100 confirmations on a non-BIP-110 chain, these coins will start splitting through coinbase transactions anyway, when miners will start moving their coins between exchanges. No replay protection is needed.

Another thing is locktime: if you use for example 961,732, then it won't confirm on BIP-110 chain, until they will produce at least 100 blocks.

This is playing with fire for what.

Of course. Which is why I splitted my coins, to not worry, that they will move on the chain, where I don't want them to move. You can use the same method to split yours, or include any already splitted coin into your transaction, and then you can be sure, what will be moved on which chain.

Or, you can always don't care, and see your coins moving on both chains. Or wait a bit. Your coins, your choices. That's what being your own bank means in practice.

no one is going to pay any thing for a transaction that will most likely not even go through

Well, I can sign a transaction valid only on a BIP-110 chain. It is up to a buyer to get it confirmed properly, it is not my problem, if it stays unconfirmed for too long. If Knots developers are lagging behind, it is not my fault. They delivered what they promised: their chain successfully blocks any spam through a big Proof of Work filter on consensus level.

BIP-110 is a failed Bitcoin attack and right now they are only humiliating them selves.

It is summer time. Just let people have some fun, after all that months of discussions they wasted talking about BIP-110.

[dim_mak5]

How much you guys think the Bitcoin BIP110 coins will be worth on AirDrop? Surely they are more valuable than Bitcoin Cash because BIP110 btc coins claim to be spam/junk free.

[bitbollo]

previous forks (notables one):
BCH was around a 15% of original BTC price
BSV was more or less 1%...
Other forks was in the order of 0.X % like bitcoin gold or bitcoin pizza, bitcoin nano (there are at least 30-40 different...)

How much you guys think the Bitcoin BIP110 coins will be worth on AirDrop? Surely they are more valuable than Bitcoin Cash because BIP110 btc coins claim to be spam/junk free.

They had to make a consensus change because they can't move any single block with this hashpower (only 2 blocks mined - 170+ blocks behind).
Hence, any kind of action would just introduce an HARD FORK since this would definetely change bitcoin itself.
You can introduce less difficulty arbitrarly? You can change to PoW ?
Hence the value should be followed accordingly, I guess few % of original price (0.X % ) ...

Even if they are rejecting spam/junk inscriptions and so on (lovely initiative), there are other coins that are already offering similar solutions... So this is not "bitcoin"...
I would not see a reason to give any kind of premium. It was planned as soft fork, it becomes immediately an hard fork.
To survive they had to become... a shitcoin (likewise changing rules and so on...)

[MoparMiningLLC]

previous forks (notables one):

BSV was more or less 1%...

BSV is not a fork of Bitcoin.

It is a fork of BCH


this is very evident by looking at bitcoin addresses that had Bitcoin at the time of the BCH fork - they then had BCH - if they sould the BCH and had zero BCH at the time of BSV fork they did not get the BSV.

[BlackBoss_]

BSV is not a fork of Bitcoin.

It is a fork of BCH


this is very evident by looking at bitcoin addresses that had Bitcoin at the time of the BCH fork - they then had BCH - if they sould the BCH and had zero BCH at the time of BSV fork they did not get the BSV.

BSV was forked from BCH when the initial BCH team conflicted with each other.

It is shown here in the diagram and there are descriptions for some Bitcoin forks too.
Infographic map of Bitcoin forks.
Mapping the Major Bitcoin Forks.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!

[MoparMiningLLC]

BSV is not a fork of Bitcoin.

It is a fork of BCH


this is very evident by looking at bitcoin addresses that had Bitcoin at the time of the BCH fork - they then had BCH - if they sould the BCH and had zero BCH at the time of BSV fork they did not get the BSV.

BSV was forked from BCH when the initial BCH team conflicted with each other.

It is shown here in the diagram and there are descriptions for some Bitcoin forks too.
Infographic map of Bitcoin forks.
Mapping the Major Bitcoin Forks.
How Many Bitcoin Forks Are There? You will be surprised!!!

Glad you agree with me too many call BSV a Bitcoin fork and it isnt

though I look at your chart and I am confused at the Bitcoin knots line. They are claiming that knots now forked way back? before any other forks?

[athanred]

They are claiming that knots now forked way back?

Back then, they forked the code, but not the chain. You can use any implementation you want. As long as you stay on the same chain, then you are safe. You can even manually craft signatures, just like I did with my P2PK coins, to split them into BIP-110, and non-BIP-110 coins. If you can guess k-value, then you can read my 32-byte ASCII message inside this public key, or even try to double-spend my BIP-110 coins.

And now, BIP-110 people simply decided, that the spam problem is so important for them, that they prefer a chain with no blocks, than a chain with spammy and non-spammy transactions. Their coins, their choice, they can use any software they want to handle them in any way they want; as I said: using altcoins is not a crime.

I guess if they would implement P2Pool-like handling of weak blocks, and fractional confirmations, then they would be fine. But now, it is up to them, how they want to move their chain forward. Because old testnets hit exactly the same problem, and solved it by allowing any blocks after 20 minutes. However, testnet solution was a hard-fork, but it can be turned into a soft-fork, if you know, how P2Pool works.

[ABCbits]

How much you guys think the Bitcoin BIP110 coins will be worth on AirDrop? Surely they are more valuable than Bitcoin Cash because BIP110 btc coins claim to be spam/junk free.

0 (zero), because so far i don't see any exchange claim it let you buy/sell coin on BIP 110 chain. But whoever make such claim is lying. Even BIP 110 itself make this claim.

Does this proposal solve spam completely?

No. It is impossible to solve spam completely, and typically spam is best fought with policy/filters, not consensus. What this softfork does is require users wanting to store large unencrypted files in the blockchain to disguise the data as financial data and/or break it up into multiple data pushes. Obviously doing so is considered an abuse of bitcoin and should be avoided, but if it does happen, this BIP strengthens the argument that data storage is not a supported use case.

But the author is either lying or not competent enough to foresaw other near-effective approach to add arbitrary data. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5586638.msg67022609#msg67022609.

[Itty Bitty]

My heart is with Satoshi, who I'm sure didn't imagine his wonderful gift to the world would be partially hijacked by those wanting to  forever encode non-financial data simultaneously on tens of thousands of nodes, mostly non-financial and not time sensitive, which is what bitcoin as money was designed for.

However, the 55% threshold would have been a pretty awful precedent imo. Using the USA's way of enacting new laws as an example, when you want to pass a new law the House of Rep. and the Senate have to pass independently (simple majority in most cases), POTUS needs to sign it into law, and the courts can overturn if determined that the law is unconstitutional. That's a pretty good amount of checks and balances to make sure no garbage laws survive in the wild.

But without any checks or balances, to pass changes in bitcoin with barely majority rules 55%, that's really opening the door for some horrible changes to get enacted. This was bitcoins first test to that as far as I know, and the masses have decided  that majority rules changes with no checking and no balancing, to be absolutely and totally out of the question. Bitcoin may try other governance schemes in the future, but for now replacing the House, the senate. potus veto ability, and the legal system, is the (for the most part) bitcoin requirement for 90-95% approval before changes can be made. The bitcoin ecosystem has spoken loud and clear, and has said it's it and that's that regarding majority rules level changes, so keep them the H-E-double hockey stick away, have yourself some super duper majority consensus or gtfo (i'm just interpreting the ecosystems response not intending to be mean or unkind or insensitive to peoples woo woo feelings).

[athanred]

0 (zero), because so far i don't see any exchange claim it let you buy/sell coin on BIP 110 chain. But whoever make such claim is lying.

Well, I have splitted coins in both chains. Obviously, I can make a transaction, which would be valid only on BIP-110 chain, but it is up to the buyer to confirm it properly, because of a giant Proof of Work filter, equally preventing all spammy transactions from being confirmed. No new BIP-110 blocks means no spam on their chain, it is as simple as that.

But I think it is not an issue, because nobody wanted to buy any of my BIP-110 coins yet, even for a single non-BIP-110 satoshi. Now, their chain seems to be something like a broken testnet, or a warnet, where people accumulate coins mainly to show BIP-110 community, that their changes cannot prevent spam effectively. I guess at least people could learn, how to deal with censorship, when their chain will start moving forward. Because now, the cat and mouse game will be played: some users will want to use their creativity to make a transaction, compatible with their rules, and they will try to make next BIPs, to stop these users.

So far, we had only testnets, now it seems we will also have a warnet, where people could play these cat and mouse games, and learn, why information is "easy to spread but hard to stifle".

[MoparMiningLLC]

They are claiming that knots now forked way back?

Back then, they forked the code, but not the chain. You can use any implementation you want. As long as you stay on the same chain, then you are safe. You can even manually craft signatures, just like I did with my P2PK coins, to split them into BIP-110, and non-BIP-110 coins. If you can guess k-value, then you can read my 32-byte ASCII message inside this public key, or even try to double-spend my BIP-110 coins.

And now, BIP-110 people simply decided, that the spam problem is so important for them, that they prefer a chain with no blocks, than a chain with spammy and non-spammy transactions. Their coins, their choice, they can use any software they want to handle them in any way they want; as I said: using altcoins is not a crime.

I guess if they would implement P2Pool-like handling of weak blocks, and fractional confirmations, then they would be fine. But now, it is up to them, how they want to move their chain forward. Because old testnets hit exactly the same problem, and solved it by allowing any blocks after 20 minutes. However, testnet solution was a hard-fork, but it can be turned into a soft-fork, if you know, how P2Pool works.

how did it fork prior to the BCH fork though? when their oldest version on github is like 4 years old - were the older versions never on github?

[athanred]

how did it fork prior to the BCH fork though?

You can find forum posts about Bitcoin Knots from 2016:

Miners who are solo mining must upgrade bitcoind to Bitcoin Knots 0.12.1.knots20160629.rc2, which has just been released.

[Pakistani Shaheen]

Back then, they forked the code, but not the chain. You can use any implementation you want. As long as you stay on the same chain, then you are safe. You can even manually craft signatures, just like I did with my P2PK coins, to split them into BIP-110, and non-BIP-110 coins. If you can guess k-value, then you can read my 32-byte ASCII message inside this public key, or even try to double-spend my BIP-110 coins.

And now, BIP-110 people simply decided, that the spam problem is so important for them, that they prefer a chain with no blocks, than a chain with spammy and non-spammy transactions. Their coins, their choice, they can use any software they want to handle them in any way they want; as I said: using altcoins is not a crime.

I guess if they would implement P2Pool-like handling of weak blocks, and fractional confirmations, then they would be fine. But now, it is up to them, how they want to move their chain forward. Because old testnets hit exactly the same problem, and solved it by allowing any blocks after 20 minutes. However, testnet solution was a hard-fork, but it can be turned into a soft-fork, if you know, how P2Pool works.

The hand-done signature splitting between BIP-110 and non-BIP-110, seems like a good step to take considering that the fork has now failed and the 2 blocks mined on it make up of only about 0.15% of the mining power.

Yes, the spam issue is really a problem, but it is clear that selecting empty blocks over spammy ones did not appeal to the majority and 99.85% of the mining power remained on the main chain. That says everything.

The P2Pool weak blocks idea is noteworthy, but really the lesson here is that Bitcoin is almost impossible to change, and no amount of effort will probably succeed if most of the world's mining resources fight it. There is a clear message from the market.

[MoparMiningLLC]

how did it fork prior to the BCH fork though?

You can find forum posts about Bitcoin Knots from 2016:

Miners who are solo mining must upgrade bitcoind to Bitcoin Knots 0.12.1.knots20160629.rc2, which has just been released.

ok so they just didnt put them on the github page then