Potential Bitcoin Fork

[xeroc]

I talked to a lot of people about this "issue" .. IMHO bitcoin has an immense issue.. namely:

If they cannot reach consensus they need to "fork"
if they for, they will "kill" bitcoin (or at least, bitcoin will suffer greatly from the fork)
however, bitcoin cannot reach consensus because you cannot cast a vote (per-stake)

It may sound rude, but IMHO chains that do not allows for (per-stake) voted protocol upgrade will be screwed eventually.
BM again figured out a solution for this "in time" .. !

[santaclause102]

This is a good intreview: https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/

Mike also mentions that regardless of what miners choose they could be forced to go along with xt. I can summarize it properly anymore... but listen yourself...

[julian1]

Wow what's going on at the bitcoin reddit?

The mods delete all the posts in support of increasing the block size. And the posters downvote to hell arguments in support of leaving it unchanged. Its horrible.

The way I see it, everything hinges on what fork the miners choose to base their code.

And miners have a profit incentive to keep the status quo to put upwards pressure on fees by making users compete to have their transactions included in blocks.

[Akado]

Its amazing how long its taking Bitcoin to do a simple capacity upgrade, given how much rapid innovation there is going on in BitShares.

Indeed. I'm quite amazed at how things have gone this bad. At the same time I'm excited every time like something like this happens because it can bring change and new stuff.

[speedy]

Its amazing how long its taking Bitcoin to do a simple capacity upgrade, given how much rapid innovation there is going on in BitShares.

[Akado]

Wow what's going on at the bitcoin reddit? I'm truly sorry for the legit people who try to get a proper discussion going on, but the Bitcoin community seems more and more rotten. All the talk about decentralization is completely fake, people are so greedy they even jeopardize on the the few nice things they have, their own freedom.

[Akado]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I'm not inclined at all into thinking that mail was legit

[julian1]

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

[Akado]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h424p/why_is_bitcoin_forking/

This seems a controversial topic and people seem to just win the argument. Quoting the top comment:

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other, but eventually they will diverge due to different coinbases (mining rewards).

Do you think this will have any negative impact on Bitcoin? I assume miners would switch automatically to the largest chain, but there's just so many arguments around this.. What about potential double spends after the fork?