Bitcoin Unlimited with a new Genesis Block

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The default is they hold both, no choice necessary no matter what scenario plays out. Everyone is free to ignore the other side as they wish. From the new investors' perspective, it is as if there are two coins. From the old investors' perspective, it's as if nothing happened. Perfect.

Here's a visual illustration from the GCBU thread. As you can see, nothing is happening at all from the perspective of holders; meanwhile from the perspective of new investors they see two coins. Best of both worlds.

Effectively the Corecoin/Classiccoin distinction is invisible to disinterested hodlers, just as we'd want it to be. Meanwhile, those who wish to try to make money on arbitrage get to do so, driving a prediction market for the fork. New investors, again, see it similar to an altcoin (actually a pair of alternative coins), which is just as well. They invest accordingly, depending on what they think will have the most value, as it should be. Bitcoin hodlers win either way. No dilution of value from altcoins, no need for hodlers to stay abreast of investment climate to protect their purchasing power. True altcoins die on the vine. Ideal solution on all fronts for bitcoiners.

 

[adamstgbit]

The default is they hold both, no choice necessary no matter what scenario plays out

it would be seen as bearish news and ALOT of poeple will want to go to fiat and wait to see which sides wins out before jumping back in.

Everyone will simply HODL!?! the chain forks and its totally unclear which side will win, will they both coexist? wouldn't having to conis both pretenting to be bitcoin be confusing? omg i sent 10BTC from the other chain and now that same TX found its way to the other chain!? etc etc etc. EPIC FUD is what i see result from a Contentious HF.

months ago, when XT came out, just the thought of a split crashed the market.

 

[johnyj]

I still think starting fresh and not directly competing to be bitcoin, is preferable.

i think @Tsontar has a good point, but i am not sure how it would actually pan out in RL, it could be most poeple dont have a strong preference either way, and so they are faced with more uncertainty because they dont know which bitcoin fork to side on, i think if they are forced to choose between bitcoinC or bitcoinU they will choose to walk away rather then make a choice.

I believe starting a new altcoin offers a way for the market to value the other fork while avoiding all the controversy.

The question is which one is more bitcoin? I believe core starting a new altcoin called segwit coin can offer a way for the market to value the original bitcoin while avoiding all the controversy

 

[adamstgbit]

@johnyi

i agree with you segwit is a hell of a change and it really does break away from the original idea,
segwit is way more a fundamental shift in direction then simply bumping the block limit ( which was the intent when the damn spam limit was put in place )

but i think the majority is onboard with the idea of adding layers like LN. but this will be put to the test pretty soon, when segwit is released and we see how long it takes to get 95%.

personally i think it will never get 95% hashing power, core will be forced to lower the bar to a more reasonable 80%.

i think when you boil it down "what is bitcoin" is very simple to answer: bitcoin is whatever the majority want it to be. it has nothing to do with sticking to the original idea.

 

[johnyj]

Majority are ignorant, mining pools decide. I think currently chinese mining pools are still doing researches on the topic, I don't think the current status of unique voice from all chinese miners speak their true free will, they just want to play it safely and do more research before they have a clear vision. My guess is that none of the solutions will be adopted for the time being, and at a later time chinese miners might have their own dev teams, which makes them feel more secure

In fact I consider this to be the future trend: Large industry miners will all have their own dev teams so that they can make sure the code works at best of their interest

 

[Tsontar]

Everyone will simply HODL!?! the chain forks and its totally unclear which side will win, will they both coexist? wouldn't having to conis both pretenting to be bitcoin be confusing? omg i sent 10BTC from the other chain and now that same TX found its way to the other chain!? etc etc etc. EPIC FUD is what i see result from a Contentious HF.

No FUD needed. In a spinoff coin, once the split happens, the two chains are as different as Bitcoin and Litecoin. You simply can't accidentally mix them up. The only thing is that the new coin ("Classic Bitcoin") is like a "premine altcoin" where the initial premine distribution is every Bitcoin holder on record as of the day of the split.

So really, you wake up one day, and you're still holding all your "Core" Bitcoins, but you just happen to also have that many of this "Classic Bitcoin" too (if you choose to set up a "Classic Bitcoin" node / wallet and do something with your Bitcoins on that chain). Not bad at all for you! If you don't care about "Classic Bitcoins", you can ignore them, like they never happened - your "Core" Bitcoins are still in your current Bitcoin wallet and they are still traded on the same chain you're on today. And if you think "Classic Bitcoin" are the dumbest, worst thing in the world, then you can set up a Classic Bitcoin wallet, sell them, and buy more "Core Bitcoins." Aren't you lucky?

I'm sure once you game it out, you'll realize this is the only solution that provides a totally non-coercive, economically efficient outcome, which allows all parties free range of choice including abstention.

 

[adamstgbit]

In a spinoff coin, once the split happens, the two chains are as different as Bitcoin and Litecoin.

if that was the case i wouldn't have such an issue with a spin off.
but its not true.
with a simple spinoff to 2MB you'll see that TX from one chain could be re-broadcast to the other chain.
both chains claim to be bitcoin, thats what i have a problem with.
if a fork happened i might be tempted to sell everything and wait for the dust to settle, i wouldn't have any fear of price going UP during all this.
you can down play the negative connotation if you like, i will not be so naive as to think everything is fine and dandy when some % of the community feels its necessary to split bitcoin in two.

 

[VeritasSapere]

it would be seen as bearish news and ALOT of poeple will want to go to fiat and wait to see which sides wins out before jumping back in.

Everyone will simply HODL!?! the chain forks and its totally unclear which side will win, will they both coexist? wouldn't having to conis both pretenting to be bitcoin be confusing? omg i sent 10BTC from the other chain and now that same TX found its way to the other chain!? etc etc etc. EPIC FUD is what i see result from a Contentious HF.

months ago, when XT came out, just the thought of a split crashed the market.

In regards to which chain we should consider Bitcoin, I think the Bitcoin whitepaper was pretty clear on this, it is the longest chain with the original genesis block with the SHA256 algorithm that should be considered Bitcoin. So in the scenario we are discussing, the genesis fork/spin off would have a different name. Obviously there would not be two Bitcoins that would indeed be confusing.

In regards to cross chain transactions, this is a problem that is being worked on. A solution will hopefully be found before any of these genesis forks are launched.

I do not think that people will leave cryptocurrency because they now have to choose between multiple cryptocurrencies. I do not see that as being any different compared to what we already have today, since people still need to choose between hundreds of alternative cryptocurrencies when they first enter the space. I do not see how having multiple genesis forks out there would make this any different. There will simply just be multiple cryptocurrencies to choose from, I do not perceive this situation to be as disastrous as you are making it out to be, since in reality that situation is not that different to the situation we find ourselves in today already.

 

[Tsontar]

with a simple spinoff to 2MB you'll see that TX from one chain could be re-broadcast to the other chain.

They could be, or not. Ultimately that's a design choice. Either way, both chains will continue to function normally post-split, as if the other chain isn't there.

both chains claim to be bitcoin, thats what i have a problem with.

Bitcoin is permissionless and open source. Anything can claim to be Bitcoin. Heck, as we've seen, one guy can practically speak for Bitcoin, and there's not a lot that can be done about that. Ultimately it must be a strength, not a weakness - if you want a branded, permissioned coin, use Ripple or USD.

if a fork happened i might be tempted to sell everything and wait for the dust to settle, i wouldn't have any fear of price going UP during all this

Bitcoin is permissionless, that means anyone can create a fork - literally anyone! I can create a fork today - easy-peasy - there's absolutely no way whatsoever to prevent it. So the only people who would sell because of this are people who simply don't understand fundamentals.

Permissionlessness - the ability of anyone to great a fork at any time - is the only reason anyone should be holding Bitcoin in the first place.

If the fork happens, and you aren't interested in the new coin, just ignore it, like any other crypto.

 

[adamstgbit]

I'm getting 0 likes with my doom and gloom scenario that a serious fork with a significant % backing it would produce. I feel you are all "hoping for the best".
It seems pointless to keep arguing about this, everyone here seems to have their mind made up, Contentious HF are just fine.
I disagree, but i do see the NEED to allow for the alternative( original ) scaling strategy to play out, and would much rather see a fork do a fresh start Via altcoin.
I do believe that any attempt at forking bitcoin without a huge amount of support ( >75% ) will result in either:
a) the new chain to quickly become totally irrelevant
b) be harmful to both chains.

I can't be reasoned with on these beliefs, so dont try, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[adamstgbit]

IF the spin off, makes it impossible to do cross chain TX and makes it clear that they are not directly competing to BE bitcoin, i might have less issues.

 

[VeritasSapere]

That is exactly the intention, the cross chain transaction problem has not been solved yet, but we intend to solve it. The genesis fork would go under a different name as well of course. As others have mentioned, it is the perfect solution, since it allows everyone to have the "Bitcoin" they want, it is freedom.

But you are right, the cross chain transaction problem has to be solved, there are ways to avoid it now, but it is not practical and easy enough for most people, ideally it should be automated, that is if another solution is not found.

The solution I am referring to is simply creating several public addresses which would exist in all of the chains under your control. Simply sending the same Bitcoin in all of the different chains to different public addresses under your control would effectively split the Bitcoin, making further cross chain transactions impossible, while guarantee that you will not lose any coins from any chain.

To be clear a cross chain transaction is not any type of double spend. It is when you send a transaction on one network and that same transaction data can be taken by someone else around the same time in order to make that same transaction on the alternative network. This is only possible if the coin history is identical, which is why what I have suggested does eliminate this problem. It is not particularly user friendly however and it needs to be either automated, or another solution needs to be found, to somehow make these transactions invalid.

Obviously any pre-fork coins in storage would remain unaffected, since they can choose whether to take advantage of these alternatives when they first move their coins out of storage.

 

[adamstgbit]

you could solve the cross chain problem by adding a new thingy to the TX_ID hash.
all XBTC now hash every TX with 0xFFFFFF to get the TX_ID
i think this would make the TX invalid on the BTC chain, but on XBTC the TX_ID is valid.

 

[adamstgbit]

not sure if nodes check TX_ID, and nothing is stopping someone from recomputing the hash so it works with the BTC chain again. unless the TX_ID is part of the signature. is it? and do nodes validate TX_ID?

 

[freetrader]

@adamstgbit : what 0xFFFFFF are you referring to above?

Could you point it out in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification#tx or in some code reference?

 

[adamstgbit]

i can't point to the code i cant read it properly i have never studied it.

i'm saying just throw somthing into the hashing function of the new fork so that TX_ID ends up looking invalid for the BTC chain.

 

[freetrader]

just throw somthing into the hashing function of the new fork so that TX_ID ends up looking invalid for the BTC chain

Yeah, that's pretty much what is being considered at this stage.

 

[priestc]

I think an altcoin based off Bitcoin Unlimited but with a new genesis block is a great idea.

It should keep everything the same as Bitcoin, including address version byte and sha256 hashing algorithm. The only difference should be the blocksize limit is removed. I would not sell *all*my bitcoins, but I would sell about 5% of my bitcoin to buy this new unlimited altcoin. Also, the launch should be fair, much like Litecoin's launch.

 

[johnyj]

HF is QE, definitely hurt the deflative monetary properties of bitcoin. But the current question is which is worse: Centralized control of bitcoin or QE. I think the former is more dangerous, a centralized bitcoin just become a liberty reserve and has no future, its value will reset to zero sooner or later, just a matter of time. While HF e.g. QE just make some short term impact on monetary value but eventually can get rid of centralized control

There must be a way to prevent centralized control of bitcoin, and so far a hard fork is the only possible measure. Is there any other better solutions?

 

[Tsontar]

IF the spin off, makes it impossible to do cross chain TX and makes it clear that they are not directly competing to BE bitcoin, i might have less issues.

Why? Who has the right to be Bitcoin? Who has the right to deny others to say they are the One True Coin? Where did this idea that some group gets to control or define Bitcoin come from?

Why would anyone see permissionlessness as a threat?

The longer this goes on the more I come to believe that my error was resisting in the first place. While this fork shouldn't be pitched as an "attack" but a "parting of ways" there must be zero bowing down to the needs or desires of those with whom we do not agree.

I'm sorry if you are afraid that permissionlessness might harm your coin value. Nobody asked me what I thought about the value of my coins when I was being railroaded into a cartel. You are free to go along, or not go along. Non-coercion is a beautiful thing if practiced properly.
[doublepost=1461578573][/doublepost]

I think an altcoin based off Bitcoin Unlimited but with a new genesis block is a great idea.

The great thing about Bitcoin is that you are free to make one.

I think an altcoin based on BU but with an initial distribution of millions of existing holders is much more interesting.