
Bitcoin Fork Monitor - JoshTriplett
https://www.btcforkmonitor.info/
======
sonium
A more visual approach, but different underlying concept here:
[https://coin.dance/blocks](https://coin.dance/blocks)

------
tempay
A thread from last week with more details about why forks may be expected in
the next week or so.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14758587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14758587)

~~~
kanzure
and then
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14788663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14788663)

------
CaliforniaKarl
This web site looks like a good dashboard! Although, I'm not up on the
technical details of everything going on here, so some of it is confusing to
me, because there's not as much background as I'd like.

I've spent some time reading around, and here is my _guess_ as to what the
site is describing:

Behind the scenes, achow101
([https://github.com/achow101](https://github.com/achow101)) is running four
Bitcoin clients:

* `Bitcoin Core` is running the client from [https://bitcoin.org/en/](https://bitcoin.org/en/) ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin)) ([https://bitcoincore.org](https://bitcoincore.org)). This client does not support Segregated Witness, and it does not support larger block sizes (so blocks larger than 1 MB are ignored).

* `UASF (BIP 148)` is running the client from [https://bitcoinuasf.org](https://bitcoinuasf.org) ([https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin](https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin)). This client supports Segregated Witness. This client does not support larger block sizes (so blocks larger than 1 MB are ignored).

* `btc1 (segwit2x)` is running the client from [https://segwit2x.github.io](https://segwit2x.github.io) ([https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin](https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin)). This client supports Segregated Witness, as well as changing the block size to 2 MB (blocks larger than 2 MB are ignored).

* `Bitcoin ABC (UAHF)` is running the client from [https://www.bitcoinabc.org](https://www.bitcoinabc.org) ([https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc](https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc)). It supports blocks of <8 MB in size (initially defaulting to 2 MB). This client does not support Segregated Witness.

As I understand things, right now there are two events which have hard-coded
dates:

* At midnight UTC on August 1, the `UASF (BIP 148)` client _will_ fork, in that it will start ignoring new mined blocks which do not support Segregated Witness.

* At 12:20 UTC on August 1, the `Bitcoin ABC (UAHF)` client _might_ fork. I say _might_ because the fork will be triggered by someone mining a larger-than-1-MB block (the "trigger block") on or after 12:20 UTC. (1 MB is the largest block that the `Bitcoin Core` and `UASF (BIP 148)` clients will recognize). At that point, `Bitcoin ABC (UAHF)` nodes will treat the "trigger block" as valid, and the fork has occurred.

Also, there is another event which may take place, depending on various
conditions:

* If—sometime soon (before midnight UTC on August 1), and for a long-enough period—enough people indicate support, then the `btc1 (segwit2x)` node will fork with the `UASF (BIP 148)` node (in that both nodes will start supporting Segregated Witness). Sometime after that fork, the `btc1 (segwit2x)` node will fork off into its own fork, which will have support for 2 MB blocks.

And of course, there is one event which will happen at some point:

* `Bitcoin Core` will release a new version, adding support for Segregated Witness, or for a different block size, or both. `Bitcoin Core` nodes, when they upgrade, will then join one of the forks.

Anyway, I _think_ that's right, but this has gotten really complicated, and
I'm trying to skip over the specific details, and the rationale (since, as
tempay mentioned, that's been discussed recently).

If I misunderstood something, please let me know!

~~~
tomtomtom777
You are correct, but as it seems almost certain at this point that SegWit2X
(btc1) will reach its threshold in time, we can simplify.

SegWit2x rejects non-SegWit blocks. So with the majority it has it can't cause
a fork in the chain (until the HF 3 months later), and neither will BIP148.

So with the rather safe assumption SegWit2X reaches its threshold in the next
few days, the only expected fork in the chain by August will be Bitcoin Cash
(Bitcoin ABC/BU/big blocks) on one chain and Segwit on the other.

~~~
lz400
So to super-simplify it. Who wins with this assumed scenario, the scale on
chain/big blockers or the off chain/blockstream faction?

~~~
modeless
Segwit2x is a compromise that gives the Blockstream faction what they want
(Segwit), but ties it to a small (2x) block size increase. So they both win
some and lose some.

However, the twist is that Blockstream gets Segwit first, while the 2x block
size increase is 3 months away. During that time I expect Blockstream to be
screaming to everyone that will listen to try to stop the block size increase
from actually happening. They will likely not be successful but it will sadly
continue to be a contentious issue until at least the end of October.

~~~
nadaviv
Seriously, "the Blockstream faction"? Jesus. Nearly everyone in the bitcoin
ecosystem, myself included, want to get segwit activated for the technical
improvements it brings to the table. This has _nothing_ to do with
Blockstream.

~~~
olegkikin
"Nearly everyone" is a lie. You're probably living in a bubble of /r/bitcoin,
which is heavily censored.

Many people want larger blocks, we want on-chain transactions scaled way up.
I'm yet to hear a good argument against large blocks. Storage is dirt cheap.
Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps.

~~~
nullc
Nearly everyone.

[https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php](https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php)

> Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps

So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then...

~~~
olegkikin
Let me guess, that poll was posted on /r/bitcoin? Is that Luke-jr's website?
Ha. Not biased at all /s

That's what happens when you're in a bubble. Your echo-chamber reflects the
same ideas back to you.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against Segwit at all, as long as the blocks
are increased. So if someone wants to take their transactions off the chain,
go right ahead.

> _So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then..._

Bitcoin is not peer to peer in the traditional sense, the money goes through
the network of servers (nodes). It's called peer-to-peer, because there's no
central bank, nor any authority that can stop the money flow.

~~~
nullc
I can't think of any Bitcoin discussing venue where it hasn't been posted,
please feel free to post it to more.

------
torrent-of-ions
The layout of this page is strange. My browser window isn't wide enough to
display four boxes in a row, so it displays three in one row, and then a
fourth in its own row but at full width. At first glance I thought there was
something different about the fourth box, but it should be with the other
three.

~~~
barrkel
There's only width for two rows of two boxes each on my viewport.

I keep my browser viewport in a portrait aspect ratio for readability and
usability. Few websites look good or are easy to read in a maximized browser
window.

------
Tepix
What marketplaces enable trading of bitcoin forks as soon as they occur?

~~~
tsukaisute
Looks like GDAX for one is _not_ participating in case of a hard fork:
[https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115](https://blog.gdax.com/uahf-a703b6a13115)

~~~
JoshTriplett
Coinbase isn't either, judging by the mail they sent to all their customers,
and by
[https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/284421...](https://support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/articles/2844217-uahf-
uasf-faq) .

~~~
philfrasty
Makes sense. (as far as I know) GDAX = formerly Coinbase Exchange

~~~
jameskegel
Formerly would be incorrect. While owned by Coinbase, GDAX is a different
project, not a continuation of the original CB exchange.

------
corobo
Is there a resource out there that explains all of this simply? Is this
something like a computer network split brain situation?

~~~
jcahill
try this infographic:
[https://i.imgur.com/RjTkcdQ.png](https://i.imgur.com/RjTkcdQ.png)

~~~
jstanley
That's a little misleading because it makes it look like each decision point
is a chain split.

This one is better: [https://media.coindesk.com/uploads/2017/07/Screen-
Shot-2017-...](https://media.coindesk.com/uploads/2017/07/Screen-
Shot-2017-07-18-at-8.59.38-PM.png)

~~~
jcahill
Different audiences. Most friends & acquaintances asking me for explanations
about august 1

⒈ get repeatedly caught up on basic blockchain concepts (i.e. go in circles w/
terminology)

⒉ know absolutely nothing about the politics of the decision-making up to now

⒊ yet have already been exposed to somebody's propaganda and half-internalized
the wrongthink

So i'm not sure that a flowchart of just the proposals w/o entities serves
much purpose. Its audience is essentially limited to devs who just need to be
caught up on current events.

Coin Dance already has this information available, but across two dashboard-
style pages⁽¹⁾⁽²⁾ — not quite arranged efficiently enough for an interactive
infographic.

Starting from "know your hardforks" and adding the missing bits from the
flowchart as tooltip or on-hover information could work.

____________________

¹ [https://coin.dance/blocks](https://coin.dance/blocks)

² [https://coin.dance/poli](https://coin.dance/poli)

------
tiku
I was wondering, why the bitcoin owners themself cant't decide. Because a
bitcoin can be seen as a SHARE, as well as money. So someone who has a lot of
bitcoins is a bigger shareholder and should have more to say about it. The how
etc to show how much coins you have etc is another issue, but i believe this
should be the way to go.

~~~
thinkloop
There are 3 groups that have influence over Bitcoin:

\- miners: they bear the biggest costs and are responsible for the security of
the network. Without miners there would be no bitcoin.

\- economic nodes: nodes that have real activity going through them that relay
transactions and accept or reject blocks that miners provide them. Coinbase's
nodes are significantly more valuable than my personal node for my wallet.

\- core dev team: their power is soft but integral, no-one wants a chain that
can't be updated over time.

Owners of coins currently have little to no influence.

~~~
rmc
> Without miners there would be no bitcoin.

If all/lots of the miners pulled out, then wouldn't the work factor decrease
so that regular people could run it on their desktop machines? That is what
happened at the start of bitcoin, right? Are miners _that_ required?

~~~
foodie_
Without miners wouldn't the problem just be no more new bitcoins, so while the
total would never grow we could still trade them?

~~~
rtkwe
No not at all. Miners are the ones generating blocks and validating them
though the giant distributed work they each do. Without miners there would be
no new blocks which means no verified transactions. The only place trades
could still happen is on exchanges because they all happen off block and don't
rely on the blockchain to track who owns what but it'd be impossible to move
more coins onto or out of an exchange so you'd be stuck.

~~~
yks
what happens when all possible bitcoins are mined then?

~~~
rtkwe
Miners will be paid with transaction fees. Already if you don't include a fee
in your transaction you can expect much longer transaction confirmation times
or to never receive confirmation because miners already try to pack the most
fees into each single block to maximize their payout.

------
randyrand
Is it correct to say that if you have BTC pre-fork, then you can spend it
twice post-fork? Once on each fork?

~~~
Obi_Juan_Kenobi
Yes, anything in place before the fork will be recognized by both chains. You
can then make transactions on either chain, and the other will go on as if
nothing has changed, still recognizing the coins in their original address.

Realistically, the total value of these coins may change or it may not. One
chain will likely dominate and have most of the value. But the total value may
increase, decrease, or (unlikely) stay the same.

Total value could decrease if e.g. people feel that the fork demonstrates a
weakness in cryptos. It could increase if the disagreeing parties are both
satisfied with their forked chains and both have utility.

------
kbody
You should add SEGSIGNAL/BIP91
[https://github.com/segsignal/bitcoin](https://github.com/segsignal/bitcoin)
which is at the moment the lead for starting the activation.

~~~
jstanley
You mean like:

> bip91: 178/223 (79.82% signalling) (269/336 Threshold)

?

~~~
kbody
Signalling and node software are not coupled. The point of this is to see how
each node software behaves, there are miners that don't run Segwit2x/BTC1 but
rather Segsignal.

------
free_everybody
Very cool! I'll be using this as a resource

------
baalimago
might be very useful in handling valuable documents which can't get lost

------
dm319
Anyone know how much energy is created from the chain splitting?

------
mbloom1915
xbt.eu much better monitor

