Poll: encumbering tx replay between majority fork BU chain and old chain?

[adamstgbit]

I question whether it would be the case that 99% of the users would be unable to create such transactions

there are about 2 million users and 5,000 full nodes
99.75% of users would be....
lol!

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The future of Bitcoin is necessarily one of nearly constant forking (most not market-supported, but could be at any time). Long term, there is no choice but to have wallet software handle this for the user in a clever, user-friendly way.

 

[dgenr8]

@painlord2k Easy is not a good description of the method you suggest for isolating transactions to one chain. Reliable would not be a very good word either

@freetrader It's likely that the minority chain will counter-fork. But it's not at all obvious that the counter-fork would be engineered to apply transactions specifically accepted by the big-block fork and meant to exclude other forks. The reason is it hurts both parties, not just one.

 

[deadalnix]

BU plan to fork with a majority hashrate. In these condition, there is an already existing anti replay mechanism: low fee transactions. Not convinced that more is needed.

 

[redmarlen]

there are about 2 million users and 5,000 full nodes
99.75% of users would be....
lol!

Regardless I just don't see why those users wouldn't update their software IF there is massive bitcoin staking behind the fork. When there is massive stake involved it wouldn't make sense to refuse. The new "forked" coin represents a community with economic potential backed up by the weight of the stake they have already committed. They are offering free "credits" by spinning off the ledger and so even those uninterested in the "fork politics" are getting something representing a % of that stake on the new fork.

For example if GE issues new stock for free to its holders why wouldn't they reply to the registration form? Free stock!? You take it.

So forks of significant stake should be facilitated so the users behind such stake at least know that it exists! Users don't want to miss a significant fork. Or if you see new coins that you don't want to keep well you can quickly sell them.

Users need tools so that new fork coins are safely managed automatically and added to their balance. Then they can inquire into the forking sectors and choose themselves rather than be dependent and blocked due to missing wallet safety features.

 

[painlord2k]

@painlord2k Easy is not a good description of the method you suggest for isolating transactions to one chain. Reliable would not be a very good word either

It is something someone interested in diverging his own balances in the two branches would do.
It works, it is just a pain in the ass. But not a big pain in the ass.
If it had 90% reliability, two attempts will have 99% reliability and three 99.9% reliability.

At least RBF would find some utility in this case.