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.

[dim_mak5]

Can someone ELI5 why BCH Bitcoin Cash did not get the support and consensus from the bitcoin community that caused them and Rojer Ver to hard fork? Is it because bigger block sizes in MB megabytes mean more centralization because for example poor people or people from poverty cities cannot afford the bigger hard drives SSDs to store the bigger blockchain on their old slow computers that prob still have old 20-40GB mechanical 3.5 Hard drives and only the rich corporations and governments have the fast computers and bigger faster SSD's sizes like PB Petabytes drives that can store the BCH blockchain meaning centralization by these rich entities?

Isn't BIP110 Blake BTC bringing up the same argument saying non limited OP returns require more storage and faster computers that will be out of reach by the general retail public and only the rich entities can handle this bloated btc blockchain and the the rich Epstein class like to store their csam on the btc blockchain because they see the bitcoin blockchain as most reliable best cloud storage till the end of time. More reliable than Google drive and Microsoft OneDrive that cannot guarantee they will last till the end of time?

Im trying to make sense of this after watching youtube vids and asking Ai.

[joker_josue]

Isn't BIP110 Blake BTC bringing up the same argument saying non limited OP returns require more storage and faster computers that will be out of reach by the general retail public and only the rich entities can handle this bloated btc blockchain and the the rich Epstein class like to store their csam on the btc blockchain because they see the bitcoin blockchain as most reliable best cloud storage till the end of time. More reliable than Google drive and Microsoft OneDrive that cannot guarantee they will last till the end of time?

What? Does the story that the Bitcoin blockchain is for storing illegal content continue to be sold?

It's really amazing...

It is easier to catch a crook who uses Bitcoin blockchain, than the darkweb.

[d5000]

Can someone ELI5 why BCH Bitcoin Cash did not get the support and consensus from the bitcoin community that caused them and Rojer Ver to hard fork?

In the "big block" model BCH propagates, every full node has to store every single small payment anybody on Earth makes. Every coffee somebody pays with BTC. (Coffees are a bad example, because almost nobody uses it for that. But every domain or hosting / cloud services some nerd buys, every transaction to an exchange because "price looks good to sell now", etc.)

Even if the blocks are increased to 100 times the current size, it is still too small to accomodate large parts of the world population.

The alternative, which was propagated by Core back then (and continues to be propagated), is to use second "layers" for these smaller payments. Like Lightning and sidechains. With this, you can accomodate a large user base with MUCH lower requirements for full nodes.

Storage (HDD/SDD) is NOT the main problem. The main problem is Internet bandwidth and CPU/RAM requirements. Solana for example is a successful "big block" coin and you need to rent a dedicated server in a datacenter to run a full node. A Bitcoin with big blocks would have the same problem.

And the argument for Lukecoin is just ridiculous. Images and videos do not occupy even 5% of Bitcoin's block space, so there would be next to no effect to storage efficiency. Memecoins do occupy some space (Runes/Ordinals/BRC-20), but they are possible on Lukecoin like I showed in earlier posts - just use fake private keys.

[athanred]

why BCH Bitcoin Cash did not get the support

Because they hard-forked without any reason, just like BIP-110. Increasing block size in a soft-fork way is possible, and it happened, which is why we have up to 4 MB blocks now.

bigger block sizes in MB megabytes mean more centralization

This also happened anyway. Currently, it is more likely, that you will find someone asking "how to make it in Electrum", rather than "how to make it in Bitcoin Core". There are many users with SPV wallets, using block explorers, exchanges, and getting fully or partially custodial, banking-like experience, where they don't verify everything, and just check some simple things, while trusting that everything else is fine.

Isn't BIP110 Blake BTC bringing up the same argument

Their current consensus doesn't use double SHA-256 for block headers. They could skip the first 961,639 blocks, set 00000000000000000001bbc439e13f749dca850d32c7a2834165338713027e65 as the permanent previous block hash, preload UTXO set from this point, and remove hundreds of GBs from their chain, because reorging beyond this hard-forking point would make their chain useless anyway, so there is no need to validate these blocks, if they consider SHA-256 to be obsolete, captured by pools, attacked, or whatever (while also using it in transaction IDs, and a lot of other places, because replaying as many transactions as possible is beneficial for them, because they can get more coins in this way).

Im trying to make sense of this after watching youtube vids and asking Ai.

Good luck. Meanwhile, their chain contains some data pushes, and it seems they won't block all ways of pushing it anyway.

Some examples: https://bitfiles.io/btcb2

This transaction is considered as valid by BIP-110: https://mempool.guide/tx/898c9c3e8bad6604e7be8b9d8c0dabbf4a6e7e3853b0354484d8ce19176b199d
And it contains this image: https://bitfiles.io/btcb2/898c9c3e8bad6604e7be8b9d8c0dabbf4a6e7e3853b0354484d8ce19176b199d

While this one is rejected by BIP-110: https://mempool.space/tx/909b486928dc415d9b6613fcc70ccdbfb4d2f88516a040522365b95794774608
Even though accepted BIP-110-equivalent pushed more data: https://mempool.guide/tx/61ff0a1070b084d2601245056946480917a5f3efcb30fde082e7dafbd2b17158

non-BIP-110: sending to P2PK + spending it: 204 bytes + 305 bytes = 509 bytes
BIP-110: sending to P2WPKH + spending it: 191 bytes + 339 bytes = 530 bytes

So, by blocking P2PK, they actually increased data consumption in historical blocks, for absolutely no reason. And OP_RETURNs up to 80 bytes are still allowed by BIP-110, even though all valid P2PKs are smaller than that, even for uncompressed keys.

Images and videos do not occupy even 5% of Bitcoin's block space, so there would be next to no effect to storage efficiency.

Even if they do, then it still doesn't matter. All historical block data are spammy from the current users' perspective. Would people care in 2110, if some transaction from 2010 used P2PK or P2PKH? They probably won't. Even today, there are many SPV users. And even in early days, people decided to grandfather in some bugs, instead of reorging the chain, so blocks 91812 and 91842 are using identical coinbase transactions. Guess what: nobody decided to reorg the chain around that time to fix it. And nobody will do it now, after so many years.

Most people care mainly about 288 or so recent blocks. Reorging anything beyond it will break some pruned nodes. Reorging things beyond 100 confirmations will affect coins spent by miners. Historical data are important for users, but network doesn't care that much about it, and nodes could stop providing it in the future, if it would be too difficult. Because any weird bugs will be simply grandfathered in, just like transaction d5d27987d2a3dfc724e359870c6644b40e497bdc0589a033220fe15429d88599 was added as a permanent exception.

[pooya87]

Is it because bigger block sizes in MB megabytes mean more centralization because for example poor people or people from poverty cities cannot afford the bigger hard drives SSDs to store the bigger blockchain on their old slow computers that prob still have old 20-40GB mechanical 3.5 Hard drives and only the rich corporations and governments have the fast computers and bigger faster SSD's sizes like PB Petabytes drives that can store the BCH blockchain meaning centralization by these rich entities?

Bitcoin blockchain is not arbitrary data to be downloaded and stored. It contains transactions that need to be downloaded, processed (verified) and stored. The verification is also computationally costly and the idea is to keep all these costs low.
Additionally it is not about keeping it so cheap so that someone with a crappy PC can run it or keep it so expensive so that running a node costs a lot of money! They both are two sides of the same coin. We want a more balanced approach, something in the middle. Something that someone with an average PC can run.

Isn't BIP110 Blake BTC bringing up the same argument saying non limited OP returns require more storage and faster computers that will be out of reach by the general retail public and only the rich entities can handle this bloated btc blockchain and the the rich Epstein class like to store their csam on the btc blockchain because they see the bitcoin blockchain as most reliable best cloud storage till the end of time. More reliable than Google drive and Microsoft OneDrive that cannot guarantee they will last till the end of time?

BIP-110 is different from BCash but the idea that started each is valid and respectable.

The core idea behind BCash is that we needed a solution for scaling while the core idea behind BLuke is that we needed to limit the ability of spammers who want to use bitcoin as a cloud storage. Both are valid concerns that needed to be addressed.
However, their approaches were flawed and neither cared about one of the most important principles of bitcoin which is decentralization and the need to reach consensus for each change you want to push.

[GEMIN_M4]

I feel ashamed with the question, what chain do you expect me to stay on if not the original Bitcoin? Wouldn't you call me crazy if I choose forks over Bitcoin itself? The latest fork of Bitcoin, are you seeing it's performance right now? People are just dumping that trash on the limited exchange place that they can find.

It's already forgotten as we speak, some people were hailing the profits from the fork mining after it went live like it's the next big thing, and today things have suddenly changed,  the only Bitcoin fork that still looks okish is BitcoinCash, everything else including BitcoinCash itself are trashes, Bitcoin is the king.

[Cleanshit]

Additionally it is not about keeping it so cheap so that someone with a crappy PC can run it or keep it so expensive so that running a node costs a lot of money! They both are two sides of the same coin. We want a more balanced approach, something in the middle. Something that someone with an average PC can run.

The point about decentralization is very important here, it shouldn’t be about that making Bitcoin cheap that any computer can handle it. And also not making the requirements high that it only large companies can realistically run a full node.
Finding a reasonable balance between network capacity and the cost of having to verify and store the chain is what really matters. If to run a node now becomes too demanding. Few independent individuals will be able to verify network by themselves, and which can affect how decentralized the system is going to remain.

[pooya87]

I feel ashamed with the question, what chain do you expect me to stay on if not the original Bitcoin? Wouldn't you call me crazy if I choose forks over Bitcoin itself? The latest fork of Bitcoin, are you seeing it's performance right now? People are just dumping that trash on the limited exchange place that they can find.

That's the beauty of a truly decentralized network, nobody can force others to choose a certain chain/consensus rules or blame them when they make a choice. At the end of the day, the rules are crystal clear: the chain with the most work is correct chain. And it is clear where the majority are...

It's already forgotten as we speak, some people were hailing the profits from the fork mining after it went live like it's the next big thing, and today things have suddenly changed, 

It's not forgotten, it still receives pretty much the same tiny attention that it was when they forked off. They even tried pumping it a little last week (from 0.0015BTC to 0.0080BTC) but it got dumped down again.

the only Bitcoin fork that still looks okish is BitcoinCash, everything else including BitcoinCash itself are trashes, Bitcoin is the king.

BCash only had more centralized power behind it which helped it survive longer than other useless copycoins. But you are right, they are trash.