a contentious soft fork can easily result in a chainsplit
given the current climate its more important than ever for users to self custody
Discussion
Interesting times. 🤦 But it helps in the learning process, I guess.
Bitcoin was better before the ETFs.
Why can't they just go back to v29 until things get smoothed out?
Everyone is free to run whichever implementation they choose. I'm running 29. There's no requirement to upgrade to 30
Is this a bitcoin cash moment again?
Hi sorry to bother you guys!! Please Check out our geyser. it’s for our son 🙏🏻 thanks so much!! Have a blessed day.
🍿
Oh, but a logical soft fork won't. So we're good.
that attitude is probably why there will be a chainsplit 🤷♂️
The attitude I have is to keep Bitcoin as money. You can hide behind a shrug a billion follewers but we see you.
bitcoin is the best money
bitcoin should be very difficult to change
pushing through a rushed soft fork using legal threats is something i would never do
There's legal risk of running Bitcoin Core. Pointing this out is not a threat. Disingenuous take.
i am hoping that nobody will be sending legal threats to mining pools regarding this soft fork
that would be something i would never do
Speaking outa both sides of your mouth? That's something you do.
Would be cool if you could have tokens for each side as in 2017, but I guess that's not possible when it's a soft fork that's not guaranteed to split, right?
if there is not overwhelming consensus for a soft fork then it will likely result in a chainsplit
the end result is very similar to a hard fork, two competing chains
those holding self custody would have equivalent btc on each
Self custody for sure.
To my understanding:
The "contentiousness" has to be significantly enough for the chain split to last, so that both coins are listed at exchanges - with a market developing. This is when the concept of economic notes matters: the market decides which coin is more valuable, it will then attract hash rate. It can't occur without *the listing* / market
You say "overwhelming consensus", but by whom? If most miners chose 444, non compliant blocks would be discarded by them, and your core node would go with the longest chain, no? If that was the case you would need something like a URSF to force a split, right?
I want the tokens or a prediction market so I can see the actual consensus. Something more sybil resistant than loud twitter users/bots.
This is starting to feel a lot like the block size war, not on content, but by the type of people who support each side, and their arguments.
Back then it was.
x: bigger blocks will lower fees
y: not long term and it's a bad way to scale
x: fuck you, you want high fees.
If a chain split happens means my stack doubles, right? 😹
if you do nothing and see how it plays out then there isnt much risk
or you could attempt to trade one side against the other to ‘increase your stack’
Might risk backing the wrong horse though. My current thinking ultimately the "brand" will win, so who ever ends up with the ticker "BTC" will be the winning horse.
Interesting point, it’ll be interesting to see how the situation develops.
I'm I hearing free money?
Is this the end for bitcoin? 😩 wtf is a chainsplit
nope, anyone can fork without permission
if you are self custodying then you are in the best spot
if you are using a custodian then you will have to trust them to make decisions for you post split
So what? We would then end up with "Bitcoin" on the one hand and "Bitcoin Spam" on the other. Let the market decide. My bet would be Bitcoin.
any similiarities with stock splits and the effect to its overall market cap?
You started misguiding again without going into nuances.
Chainsplits created by contentious soft forks are not meant to be permanent.
On permanent chainsplits like bcash, sure. Not the case here.
I am not an OG like yourself but as far as I know, never in the history of Bitcoin has any exchange offered old coin and SF coin in the event of a SF. This one will be contentious and it might happen, but still one of the coins will die so it doesn't make much sense to offer the choice.
The most frustrating part about your recent tweets/comments related to core vs knots debate (& BIP 444) is 80IQ like myself gets these nuances but you don't.
I think you get the nuances too but since you have become CORECUCK, you just chose to not get into nuances.
WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY
Yup
--> "but still one of the coins will die so it doesn't make much sense to offer the choice"
How does it die?
It wont be obvious which one of the chains is *winning* without assigning real work/value to it. Hash rate driven by the market.
It dies by the market deciding which chain is more valuable.
Also, in the unlikely event of a contentious softfork leading to a split, what randos post on NOSTR or X, definitely won't matter - including you and me, and probably even ODELL
nostr:nprofile1qqsqfjg4mth7uwp307nng3z2em3ep2pxnljczzezg8j7dhf58ha7ejgprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qyvhwumn8ghj7um9dejxjapwdehhxenvv9ex2tnrdaksepv2a6 is starting to smell bad. Hope I'm wrong
Question about self custody and rewards apps like fold... When does it make sense to move rewards as well as rounded up bitcoin to self custody?
Is there an amount I should consider moving it?
I was thinking 1 million Sats, but maybe do it sooner?
100k
Just make sure your utxos aren't tiny
How do I do that? Typically I'll send to a self custody hot wallet to consolidate from various places then I'll send to cold storage when it's of sufficient size say 2 million Sats or so. How big should utxo's be?
2 million sats should be more than enough
bare minimum should be 100k sats if the goal is a 10 year plus hold imo