the idea is that the forked split never happens; either the fork is ignored or everyone and their mother moves across. The exchange then doesn't have to be concerned about any of the cross-chain issues; trading continues until one coin reaches ~$0. This may not be true at some future time when it actually would be worth it to split into two persistent chains for some reason, but for right now yeah.
This is a very smart comment. I totally agree. One coin should have a high price like $500 and the other should have a low price like less than $1. This sums up my view and why I am engaging in the debate. We want to stay on one chain. If we do a hardfork, which I have no problem with, we need to be very sure that the new chain absolutely annihilates and obliterates the existing chain, such that it is non viable.
Do you see why I am so opposed to Classic and the 75% threshold now? I have the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the XT/Classic proponents were trying to score a narrow victory over Core, to me this is unacceptable. Classic needs to achieve an absolutely resounding victory. Part of this is being confident and assuming a resounding victory and not choosing a 75% threshold. Had Classic demonstrated this confidence, it would have won. As Classic seemed to want only a narrow victory, it felt to me, like an attack.
I have no problem with a 75% miner non binding signal, or a 75% threshold as one part in a multistage activation methodology. However, in my view the point at which nodes make an irrevocable decision to accept 2MB blocks, there should be 95% miner support.
This 95% threshold is not a strict rule, its a proxy. Its part of a signal that the advocates of the hardfork put forward to demonstrate they have overwhelming consensus.
[doublepost=1465013205][/doublepost]
Can't tell whether we still disagree here. Does the market forcing every minority toward 0% and every majority toward 100% satisfy this for you? Because from your wording here it sounds like this situation might be upsetting to you
Yes a market cap of 100% to zero on the two chains would be a strong signal to me. There is the potential for a lot of strong momentum and all the signals influence each other. I will look at:
- The nodes people are running (Hopefully non binding)
- What miners are supporting (Hopefully non binding)
- Any votes with coins
- Any futures markets/prediction market prices
- What the developers are saying
- The content of the hardfork
If the hardfork starts to build momentum in these interrelated groups, such that opposition becomes insignificant. Then we can propose a binding but safe activation methodology, with a reasonable grace period to allow people to upgrade.
I do think the market idea is a good one for helping to decide to hardfork, I was one of the first people to begin advocating this, and tried to create this market, in January 2014:
Re: Fork The Blockchain And Block The Seized FBI Coins.
January 27, 2014, 07:37:16 PM
#173
I have seen that many people appear to think forking Bitcoin to seize some coins the FBI hold is a good idea. I think this is an interesting concept, however I am not sure if it is that much of a good idea. However, if you think this is a sensible move which can succeed, I am giving you the opportunity to buy this altcoin now. I will sell 10 of these coins for just 1 BTC. I own over 10 BTC in the current chain and will therefore be granted 10 coins in the new anti-FBI altcoin. I am happy to pre-sell these now, this could be an opportunity for you.
You will be able to multiply your money by 10x for free if the new chain succeeds.
Please bid at the following website
https://www.coingig.com/Shopping/10-Bitcoin-on-any-anti-FBI-fork---Guaranteed-Now---10x-your-money-9308