Quote from: Cubic Earth on February 28, 2013, 04:22:18 AM

Quote from: zebedee on February 27, 2013, 02:49:57 PM

Quote from: johnyj on February 19, 2013, 03:53:18 PM

Before, I support the change to protocol in a carefully planned way to improve the end user experience, but recently I discovered that you can double spend on both original chain and the new chain after a hard fork, then it means the promise of prevent double-spending and limited supply is all broken, that is much severe than I thought

That simply means that, after a very short period of chaos post-fork, simple economic incentives would VERY quickly force a consensus on one of the chains. The chaos would not be permitted to continue, by anyone, whichever side they personally want to "win", as it would cost them too much.

Or there could be two chains - each with its own pros and cons. While all us early investors would be able to spend on each chain, it should function like a stock split where though we have twice as many 'shares' each one is only worth 50% of the original value. It could be 90/10 or 80/20 though, or any two percentages summing to 1. If you wanted to favor one chain over the other, you could sell your coins on one and buy coins in your preferred chain.

No. It wouldn't happen. As soon as a fork occurred the fx rate of new coins mined on the "weaker" chain would collapse to a few cents as all the major businesses, websites, miners, exchanges would automatically side with the "stronger" chain. If anyone thinks that they can double-spend bitcoins on different websites, after a few hours, (some accepting one fork, some the other) then they are living in dreamland.