Quote from: deisik on July 19, 2017, 05:36:35 PM

Quote from: cellard on July 19, 2017, 05:28:56 PM

Quote from: deisik on July 19, 2017, 05:04:36 PM

Quote from: gentlemand on July 18, 2017, 12:41:24 PM

Quote from: malata on July 18, 2017, 12:39:44 PM

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin

And this seems to be the most dangerous part

At first I thought it was kind of joke, but then I read the twitter post by your link and the whole announcement, and it doesn't look they are kidding. So as I got it, they are going to fork off finally. ViaBTC seems to be closely affiliated with Bitmain and Jihan, and in layman terms this basically means war. I hope that I'm missing something or misinterpreted something else, but if they are really going to fork Bitcoin (making a new coin off it), they will be dumping their old bitcoins and likely trying to attack the genuine blockchain since this is the only way the chain is going to survive. Why do I not see and hear the alarms raised?

Quote from: maku on July 18, 2017, 08:29:43 PM

They are still gonna signal BIP91, so that is a good thing but I have no idea why they decided to start with their shenanigans now

Something is fishy here, very fishy, to say the least

Quote from: gentlemand on July 18, 2017, 12:41:24 PM

Quote from: malata on July 18, 2017, 12:39:44 PM

Everyone in this thread is spreading FUD, BIP91 is compatible with UASF so there won't be any chain split. Besides segwitx2 has over 90% support now.

It's not a chain split. It's a fork into a new coin. They're making no attempt to claim it's Bitcoin.

If they are forking off the Bitcoin blockchain, that bodes bad for Bitcoin. The name is irrelevant (and they call it "Bitcoin Cash")

I don't care what they do with their hashrate and the client they run as long as if there is a hardfork we keep the BTC token tag.

So this leads to my question: Who gets to keep the original "BTC" token tag? exchanges should list the original chain as BTC, I hope they don't pull an "ETC" and pretend that the altcoin isn't the forked chain.

Why do you care for things which are utterly inconsequential?

As to me, we should care about what they can and are actually going to do to the original blockchain. Why doesn't anyone ask this question? If they are attack Bitcoin under whatever name, the outcome will be essentially the same, and it won't be good for Bitcoin given their hashrates. This is what I've been telling all this time, and this is the most dangerous thing that might come out of the current showdown. Or do you really think they are going to coexist with Bitcoin peacefully? That seems next to impossible to me. The whole shebang is designed to kill or, at least, heavily hurt Bitcoin. Am I paranoid, or am I not enough paranoid?

Just look at ETH/ETC, both coins can co-exist. Jihan isn't going to attack anything because nobody is going to follow his altcoin, he will not have enough hashrate to attack without lossing a lot of money.

There will be no hardfork anyway, I was just asking a theoretical question about who get to keep the BTC token in the case of a theoretical hardfork ETH/ETC style.