Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 18, 2016, 11:14:00 AM

Quote from: The00Dustin on July 18, 2016, 10:21:12 AM

FYI, if that happened (it wouldn't), you would still control the same amount of "money" with the same private keys, it would just be divided across two chains.

Quote from: 7788bitcoin on July 18, 2016, 10:53:49 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 18, 2016, 09:54:02 AM

Therefore if you are invested in Bitcoin, your money will also be divided in half.

I think you have misunderstood the whole thing- I guess I will be richer! I can spend the same bitcoin in two different chains- double spending with confirmations! Just that the person who accepted my double spend may be poorer because the shorter chain will disappear eventually.

So we have now 15.7 million bitcoins available roughly which represent 10.6 billin $ and 670$ price

In a hardfork, we will have 31.4 million bitcoins, each of them real ones, representing 10.6 billion (- the money leaving in the panic).

Therefore the price of each coin will now be ~335$. If the the chains converge into 1, then you lose your money if you sold the winning chain, so you are exposed to 50% risk.

If both chains survive, then you have to install the new software of the 2nd chain to be able to use it, and it will severely disrupt bitcoin economy.

Imagine all the merchants and bitcoin sites now will have to decide which bitcoin to accept.

It will be total chaos. So we should try to avoid this shit.

if consensus is reached.. its reached. any attempt to cause more controversy after that point should be laughed at

LOL there wont be 31.4million bitcoins unless core starts IP banning 95% of the network to keep the 5% chain alive and waits atleast 6 months for the 5% chains difficulty to drop to allow fluid block creation at a reasonable time for that insecure chain..

core is creating the controversy and will need to create more controversy for your "second chain" survival to exist.

imagine the risk of 51% attacks on a chain with only 5% hash power.. the many issues that the 5% chain would have..

well i can think of 10 reasons why the remaining 5% would move to the 95%.. rather than pushing the controversy further.

screw it.. lets list them
1. weak insecure chain easy target for 51% attack
2. only confirming a block every 3hours 20 minutes (20 blocks average time) containing only ~2500tx
3. tx fee sky rockets with 50,000tx left in mempool (2500 per 10 minutes for 3 hours) fighting to be next in line for a space of only ~2500
4. only 5% of services accepting these delayed blocks
5. takes 6 months to sort out difficulty
6. segwit doesnt fix the capacity/bottleneck fixes everyone was hoping for (reference point 2 and 3) yet the 95% chain is
7. segwit doesnt fix the tx fee discount everyone was hoping for (reference point 3) yet the 95% chain is
8. peoples funds get accepted into blocks. but the recipient declines their existence and does not honour refunds due to wrong chain
9. node count at 250 nodes(5%) compared to 4750(95%)
10. nodes crash due to mempool overflow