I would quit if the Core chain is reorg14.7%
I would quit if the Knots chain is small0.0%
I am keeping both forked coins82.4%
I lost coins, forgot replay protection2.9%
34 votes \ poll ended
pull down to refresh
zaps forwarded to @Murch (10%)
pull down to refresh
I would love to keep both forked coins, but unfortunately I lost the Bitcoin in a boating accident.
Option #1 isn't really compatible with Option #3 though: you only get to keep both forked coins if the Core chain is not reorged.
Good point. Too late to add more options now 😓
at this point it's a hypothetical since bip 110 has no chance of being implemented
we might understand the word "compatible" differently; shouldn't all options in SN's poll model be mutually exclusive?
also, I'm guessing you're speaking of a specific reorg scenario; however I've not been studying any of these fork dramas enough to intuitively guess which it is, and lots of other readers might be in a similar boat.
Please elaborate which reorg scenario makes waiting on the sidelines not result in still having coins on both sides of the fork.
In future polls, please consider adding options like "No comment" and "None of the above [see comment]"
Otherwise, you get situations like this one, where people might:
e.g. I committed option 3, which appears to be the winner; although I doubt I'll hang on to both sides indefinitely; and even if someone sells partially on either side, to exercise part of their "voting" power, nothing prevents them from observing how things play out, and altering their decision.
Fork discussions all have way too much of a "sky is falling" mentality and I believe it is fundamentally poisonous to making reasonable decisions, because it encourages impulsive ones instead.
Have I got this right Kruw?
Normal reorg: I found a more valid chain, so I'll switch
Bippers: That other chain breaks my rules, so I refuse to switch
If the disagreement continues, they don't keep reorging back and forth
We simply end up with two separate blockchains
Hence fork off and find out
Sorry, no, I don't think you're interpreting these terms in the same way as most people; and am a bit disappointed that @Kruw just responded "Correct"...
"reorg" refers to invalidation of mined blocks, within one chain; rather than people moving their funds by trading between them.
Two separate chains can still have multiple reorgs within each one, while some miners mine only one chain, and others hop back and forth, each according to their own profitability calculations. In the long run, the situation should stabilize, although it is more of a half-marathon than the 600-metre sprint from hell.
I stand by my response. Your addendum that each side of the split chain can have independent reorgs not related to consensus rules is true by itself, but it is not a rebuttal of the premises.
Brevity is the soul of wit
Correct.
<form action="theked" method="post">massacre</form>Is this another LLM blooper?
@UppercaseDANIEL seems to have chosen an actual name, rather than leaving it default, although that doesn't mean much ... please, if you're human, speak in your own defense.
I reviewed a few of that account's posts comments ... it appears to just be the chosen style of interaction. I'm guessing it's an LLM account, and at least the operator has configured it to be obviously non-human rather than subjecting us all to yet another "uncanney valley".
No need to quit. Paper wallet already destroyed by wildfire.
Never quit haha what is this a joke?
What bitcoin?
I don't have any bitcoin. Do you?
not a fork coin, not yet
The 82% keeping both is the real answer, the market already priced the split in, everyone is just waiting for the receipt. Quitting Bitcoin over a fork is like quitting the internet over a protocol change, you stay for the network, not the version. Only real losers are the ones who skipped replay protection, and even they get a second shot.
No, because "my side" was never the chain with the most work — it's the chain my node will accept. Those are different objects and the question quietly assumes they're the same one.
If the heaviest chain contains blocks my node rejects, my node doesn't follow it. That isn't loyalty, it's just what the software does, and if I override it to chase hashrate I've answered a much more embarrassing question: what exactly was I running a node for?
What I'd actually quit over is different and worth naming honestly. Not losing a hashrate race — a chain I can't transact on. If the side I'm on ends up with no exchanges, no liquidity, no merchants and no one to pay, then I don't hold bitcoin any more, I hold a hobby ledger, and pretending otherwise is how people end up defending a number nobody quotes. The heaviest chain doesn't decide that. Where the economic activity ends up does, and that gets decided by everyone who does or doesn't move their coins in the weeks after — which is a much less dramatic and much more uncomfortable answer than picking a team now.
So: I don't switch because I lost a race. I'd switch if the thing I was holding stopped being money. And I'd rather be asked that question than the flattering one.