undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBuge8y ago0 comments

If you don't share blockchain history, then you don't automatically get some of the new coin by holding some of the previous coin. So there are no issues with exchanges and shorts.

Also if you do share history, it is much much harder to start, because you start off with the previous difficulty which is very hard to mine on. If you start a new altcoin with a clean history, the difficulty starts off very low.

Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin XT have not actually forked the blockchain. So they are not separate coins yet.

0 comments

qznc8y ago

> Also if you do share history, it is much much harder to start, because you start off with the previous difficulty which is very hard to mine on.

You need to fork the code (with your changed rules) anyways and you can adapt the difficulty then. Bitcoin Cash did exactly that. They lowered the difficulty to something like 10% of Bitcoin anticipating 10% of the hashing power. They only got 1% and there was a gap of 9 hours without any new block. They seem to be at ~1h per block now. [0]

[0] http://blockdozer.com/insight/blocks

bduerst8y ago

XT and Classic did fork the blockchain and had the history though, meaning for a time they were an alt-coin with history.

That's completely counter intuitive to what you're saying about Matt's example not having a history.

DoctorBit8y ago

No. XT and Classic were code forks, not blockchain forks. If certain runtime conditions had been met, they would have become blockchain forks, but those conditions were never met.

1 more reply

Laforet8y ago

Did they? IIRC neither fork left the proposal stage.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse