Quote from: Richy_T on Today at 04:26:07 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 04:14:29 AM

I am not sure, exactly what you mean, but I am NOT completely out of the loop that some attacks on bitcoin could come from within and about differing opinions that will end up causing the market to choose - while at the same time could well have a decent amount of division - and not just normies.. so if there is a battle, there can be pissed of people on both sides who vary in their technical expertise and their OG status or whatever (assuming that there might only be two sides when there could end up being more than two sides to make matters even more confusing)... I am not going to act like that those scenarios might not develop in bitcoin, but at the same time, I am not going to let my speculation about such scenarios to stop me from continuing to invest in bitcoin.. and to wait and see in some regards.. and even continue to recommend that others better fucking get a stake in bitcoin.. sooner rather than waiting around.,. hahahahaha

Simply put, if some large segment of the network became disconnected (probably China) each side of the split would continue building on whichever piece of the fork was closest to it, adding new transactions, confirming new blocks. This happens regularly for a block or two but if the split was protracted, many blocks could be "confirmed". When the net rejoins, the fork with the least hashrate gets evaporated and all the transactions undone. Some (most) of those transactions will get incorporated later in the winning chain but if it happens (less likely every year but who knows with what's going on), it could be the kind of thing that top English scientists would describe as a "brouhaha"

Indeed, I believe there was some fuss a little while back and that was only two-or-three blocks.

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-double-spend-that-never-happened

Jeez, that was just one block.

Your scenario is much more of a creature of accident - rather than the one that I described, surely even seems to be quite speculative - and not something that we would get worked up about - even though it could happen and surely would affect those with transactions during that period whether it is 3-10 blocks or even quite higher numbers of blocks to make matters even more challenging in terms of whether any recourse would come to those on the shorter chain.. or however it should be described.

I think that in then end, even though those are good technical and developer topics, they really do not seem to be too helpful to discuss in threads like this because they seem to be focusing on pie in the sky scenarios that had about a snow balls chance in hell of happening, so we should not be giving them any more emphasis than that. I recall dicktwat Jorge Stolfi focusing on such nonsense for seemingly years in this thread, and it did not tend to be very helpful in terms of understanding more important and more likely scenarios... such as number goes up while he was presenting 1001 ways that bitcoin would die and number would go down (but did not happen in any way even close to his ongoing speculation and attention to such nonsense - even though sometimes theoretically possible).