Quote from: citronick on March 19, 2017, 03:35:42 AM

Quote from: kano on March 18, 2017, 07:20:22 AM

Quote from: QBblock on March 18, 2017, 07:12:41 AM

Not sure if asked already, but in case of network split, which chain will this pool mine on?

There's no sign of a network split to decide about yet

So far it's just scaremongering.

A real network split would require more than 50% of pools/miners to decide to change away from the current protocol, otherwise they're just making an altcoin ...

Hi Kano -- I think you will be best person to give some insights on this.

I am a bit worried about this hard fork thing, mainly because a large portion of my group's mining operations on the BTC farm. The rest is alts mining.

I see Antpool and several Chinese pools... already signalling BU and Poloniex has also issued a statement on any pending hard-fork https://poloniex.com/press-releases/2017.03.17-Hard-Fork/

While, I understand and appreciate your position on the Segwit matter and Core team's politicus... I now need to advise my team on how to manage the BTC wallets. We use Bitcoin Core wallet latest version v0.14, Coinbase and Poloniex. My question is how bad can this get. ie. managing BTC in which wallets vs putting everything in Coinbase and let them handle the risks. I am assuming that if BU is the way forward, we probably need to to use a BU BTC wallet.

If this request for insight is off topic please do advise so that I can take offline. But I am sure everyone will be interested on how to manage any pending risks and changes in their offline/online wallets.

Thanks

The core wallet is fine to use unless BU tries to force an early fork.
Although, in my opinion, segwit is unlikely to activate, until it (never) does, it doesn't matter to use core wallet, unless BU actually activates.

The BU change is a hard fork, so you'd need a BU enabled wallet to use the new protocol BU network, if it happens, since core's centralisation wouldn't allow a BU option.
The reason is that although both the unactivated-segwit and the BU networks would allow the same transactions, the transaction confirms are decided when transactions get into a block, and not before, and the two networks would expect to have different transactions in their blocks.

If BU occurs at the ridiculous level some people are suggesting, 51%, then your wallet will be the last thing you'd have to worry about, coz BTC price will fall badly on both sides of the fork (worse than it has already)

If the network did do a ~50/50 split, then your coins would have value on both sides of the network and could be spent on both sides.
It's the actual private key that would work in "both" networks, the wallet is just a tool to generate transactions to put out on the network it understands.

What needs to happen is for proper transition from one protocol to the next using 95% as core does (yes they do some things right Tongue

)
Really, once an actual change gets enough of a following, it should get a run up to high % and everyone else should switch to it, those not switching will be the direct blame for any problems that occur.

So the vagaries of my reply are that we all need to hope that no one is stupid enough to force a fork at 50%, and then once a network fork gets high support, you know what you will need to switch to for when it activates.

If it happens at 50% then your probably best to stop using your Bitcoins until the problems die down and there's a definite winner.

Edit: 'sources' say BU requires 75% for 2 weeks, so I guess all the talk around about lower %s is probably trying to scare people into making decisions.
But anyway, if BU ever does reach 75%, that means you should have 2 weeks to sort things out.
... and the 2 weeks is probably 2016 blocks, which if there is a fork of any sort would mean more than 2 weeks.