What if the UASF creates 2 BTC chains and BTC has a bastard step child?

Uasf chain afaik cannot get reorganized back into the legacy chain. So what may happen is if there is serious miner resistance to uasf (who the fk knows ) they may hardfork themselves off 1mb. If this a question of segwit vs 1mb, there won't be a bastard child that grows into Jon snow.

Using the "bastard child" analogy, all the altcoins are bastard children of Bitcoin, and there are hundreds of them already, with many more to come. Any clown with a modem and a heart of greed can create a new altcoin. Some of them (like Bytecoin) are worth half a billion dollars already, eating into Bitcoin's inheritance.

Try drawing a venn diagram of the utility of Ethereum and Bitcoin and let Ethereum superset Bitcoin. Is the Area of Bitcoin zero now?

TS, with all due respect, it's obvious you have no idea about what's going on in crypto.

I read about crypto everyday on Twitter, Medium, 2+2, Reddit etc and your post above is the most useless drivel I've read in a very long time. And, as anyone who follows crypto knows, that's saying a lot!

If BTC splits, I would support the Core-backed coin, but would also expect the fair value of it to drop drastically due to the reduced hashpower backing it and thus the reduced security of the chain. If hashrate drops 80%, then there should be a corresponding price drop, and I would have no problem with that. I would not sell any BTC and would expect the hashrate to recover over that.

If one day, BTC splits to fix an error because we held a Rootstock Dao that had a bug in it and lost investors a ton of money, I would sell all my BTC.

MVP,
I'm using aggo's analogy against him. He's claiming that Ethereum is this:
And I'm pointing out that Bitcoin is this as well. Whether something forks or makes a new coin, the asset base is still being diluted in the long run. Which is all that matters. You don't notice that now because everything is going up, but you will.

In fact, Bitcoin's loss is worse, since Ethereum forking is more like a stock split, and no real value is lost for coin holders. On the other hand, Bitcoin rivals are like rival companies in which you have no stake and have to purchase at an extra cost, and behind other investors. All being equal, you're way better off holding something that will spawn into multiple experimental chains via something akin to stock splits, than something which is rigid and for which separate blockchains are being created in which you have no stake.

aggo's analysis is backwards. Just pointing that out, my friend.

Yes, the vast majority of these cryptos are iterative of bitcoin, and quite ironically a lot of them depend on development of bitcoin for their own benefit because all they do is rip the code and splice t into their altcoin. Just look at segwit on the other coins.

Until I see a coin that kicks out all the excess data that the blockchain stores (e.g. Input/output data) where the entire blockchain is rewritten every block as opposed to constantly building on top of legacy data that is useless, I don't agree with this idea that bitcoin's lunch is being eaten. That coin doesn't exist because the technology and programming required doesn't exist yet (I'm talking specifically about mimblewimble coin, which combines elements of btc, xmr, zcash on top of a new blockchain architecture)

Altcoins outside of ltc, dcr, eth, etc, xmr are all just pump and dumps.

If you are good at marketing I definitely think you should launch an altcoin, you'd be highly successful because crypto is full of ******s looking for the free 100x.

Yeah, I'm surprised there's been no discussion about creating new coins as a profit-making enterprise. A good idea, marketed by enough people in the gambling world, could easily see a billion dollar market cap.

We should convince Mason to create a PokerCoin. He can pre-mine 10%, give 10% to 2p2 members above a certain number of posts, another 5% to 2p2 affiliates/sites, and partner with gambling sites. 2p2 would be very good at promoting it for their own wealth. It could become the de facto gambling standard.

That's essentially what Ethereum did. Getting strategic partners by giving them startup coin was a clever early move by Ethereum management.

I'm open to financing this if some genius in here wants to create a coin that will have a billion cap

Just a quick comment on splits:

The developers/the community (most of them)/stakeholders all followed ETH. If anything, ETC is the bastard child because no one is developing on it/no one actually cares about it and its been cast aside left to die. Its core value proposition is to allow Pro-Bitcoin actors to troll the Ethereum community and have dumb money pour in and buy it not yet knowing ETC is not ETH.

When PoS/Sharding happens, it's highly unlikely it will split for the following reasons:

1) PoS/Sharding has been in the developer roadmap since the beginning; this was the vision and they will be implementing it. When this takes place, there won't be an uproar. It already has the communities support and blessing.

2) Ice Age with mining will curb mining profitability; and therefore

3) All the miners that mine Eth, their equipment is compatible with other cryptocurrencies. They'll just switch to the most profitable crypto to mine.

(As an aside: Bitcoin miners can't do the same)

4) Even if some Eth miners wanted to be bad actors 'just cuz.' Here's what would happen:

Vitalik/the community/developers will all follow what is the best vision (which will be PoS/Sharding providing the most utility & performance for all stakeholders). Let's say X% are bad actors and want to split and somehow manage that fork (highly unlikely but let's pretend), it's no long-term loss to Ethereum. Somehow the fork gets through, well then they can start mining their soon-to-be worthless bastard coin and no one else will follow because why would they? Do you think the EEA corporations, soon to be 100s of them, are going to switch because some miners are like 'Oh yeah make me more rich follow me even though it's not nearly as good as the other side in every conceivable metric'. No, they're not that stupid and they're definitely not going to do so because there is zero business case or economic incentive for them to even give it serious thought. Also, it'll be too late anyhow because Ethereum will have too much momentum and Ice Age will now be too far along for miners to even have that much centralized power.

To be completely fair, the most likeliest way for something like a FML scenario (bastard child pulling Eth apart) to be brewing in the distance would be to look towards August when Metropolis comes out. There should be a stronger Ice Age built in due to all the explosive growth Ethereum has had the last while. If it's somehow greatly neutered, or unaccounted for then that could be a distant red flag for splits down the road.

I'm not really interested in arguing the semantics of bastard children, but your arguments are revisionist history through a false lens.

ETC is the original chain and ETH hardforked off of it. If everyone left ETC to die on the side of the road, please explain to me why the ETC chain never actually died at any point? More than just miners kept the chain active: exchanges and web developers immediately recognized that the ETC chain was alive and supported it. Today it is alive and there are people who are pledging immense developmental support.

As for your other arguments against chain splitting, I just dont think they are camped in reality.

THIS is the same developmental team that had to execute 2 hardforks to fix the same problem: someone figured out a way to stall node validation by contract spamming the network. The first hardfork fixed 1 function in ethereums EVM, only to have the attacker literally laugh his ass off because he knew that tehre were more OP codes he could use to resume his attack. They didnt even bother to go through every OP code in the EVM for a massive zeroday attack on a hardfork. It was literally that simple. These are the same people responsible for deploying light client Mist, POS, shart ting.

It's not easy to create a million or billion dollar coin. There are thousands of coins out there. Most have no value.

Like the market determines the values of coins, the market also determines the value of forks. If btc forks the market will decide the value of fork a vs fork b. The same thing happened when eth forked last year. The market values eth at about 15x etc. I don't see why you should consider anything beyond this. Who cares if the fork was to fix a bug, improve the protocol, or for a bad actor to freeze everyone's coins. The market will decide the price of each 'bastard child' going forward.

this might be what you're looking for: https://hodlethereum.com/

I'm not a coder so can't tell if it's legit and hack-proof, but it's only 18 lines to digest.

I'll look into it. I have issues understanding the event functions but it seems promising. Thanks!

On the reddit thread respected eth devs say it's good.

This is a crypto issue generally and not ethereum-specific but I gotta say the landmines you're required to traverse in order to move currencies to someone else or to a hardware wallet may be, at least to a guy who isn't super tech saavy, a pretty significant barrier to entry for the general public

Every time I'm sending to someone i have to triple check the receipt address

Later today I'm moving everything over to my nano s ledger and I'm sure I'll need instructions + a YouTube video and it'll be stressful etc etc

Maybe you're all just futuristic mastermen but I feel like it really shouldn't be this complicated and stressful

And if you do screw up you're done for. There's no calling Bank of America to get it sorted out. It's hard to imagine another context where such a vast amount of wealth could vanish instantly, accidentally, with zero recourse

ENS is already helping with that but I don't think it will be enough. I'm thinking things will be transparent to the end user. You will only go to the blockchain when there is a problem and you need to proof to show the police, judge, lawyers etc..

Think of turning the light on and off, you don't need to understand they are photons and how the energy is produced by nuclear fission etc.. It just works.

This is true if you send from your cold storage. But for normal users like noobs using QR codes in jaxx is pretty easy for daily expenses. I have friends with very little computer knowledge who have sent ETH using jaxx on their iPhones without too much difficulty. But yes, investing and having substantial wealth in crypto requires a bit of skills and experience.

This is something that will eventually be overcome. I picture it similar to a bank or a more regulated version of today's exchanges. You can buy/sell crypto at it and they will hold your funds. You will have a debit card that accesses those funds. That will make it very easy for the average person to use. There will be banking fees but the banks will also provide some level of insurance in case of theft.

Of course if you want to hold coins yourself you can do that, but risk messing up.

Crypto users right now are similar to early 90s Internet users. Actually crypto is probably easier to use than that, but more at risk if you make a mistake.

So true and also contributes to why legitimate businesses that start accepting bitcoin stop accepting bitcoin.

Has there ever been a QR code scan error? I always double check with the first couple and last couple letters both when using qr or copy/paste but never come close to having an issue.

*expects issue soon now

Ledger nano transition wasn't too bad but definitely a pain in the ass

Think I'm all set tho

https://hackernoon.com/the-fundament...m-408c420849f0

Lol that's garbage. What about the elephant in the room in that the processing power of bitcoin is like 80% located in China and bitmain supplies 80% of the asic chips?