Chain A splits into Chain A (1 MB) and Chain B (2 MB). If you had coins on Chain A now you will have coins on both chains. The problem with the minority chain is the huge difficulty that the remaining miners will be faced with.
It will be, but that won't matter in the case of a hard fork if you're stuck on an old version.

You can't transact from chain C2 to C1 or vice versa. C1 chain should not accept C2 transactions.

If the hard fork was done properly it would not cause a split but rather an upgrade, that's how the system evolves. With a high and reachable consensus threshold (e.g. 95%) and a long time period for upgrading, essentially almost everyone would be on the chain and there is a minimum risk of damage. In this scenario miners on the 2 MB chain would not risk anything since everyone else is mining it too (unless some impose soft limits again).

But what about the prediction of exchanges stopping trades? That would affect every user, since price would take a serious impact, no?

+1. As Lauda pointed out, exchanges can halt trading for no reason at all. I mean, look at Mt.Gox. This is all part and parcel of being on the bleeding edge of disruptive technology known as Bitcoin. I believe it was Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises who said "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

but then the flip side is that the whole second doomsday scenario lauda and ciyam suggest, which is that bigger blocks take longer to process.
(yep im using their own disaster theories against them)
and so the smaller miners would by default produce more blocks and so they would gain the blockheight, just by having less data to validate.
2mb miners would need to be ALOT more powerful than 1mb to gain the lead if there was not consensus
so as you said its all about the consensus and hashing power. and not a simple "2mb are evil doomsday".


exactly only in a change to the 'forking mechanism'(your words) to ignore older clients. and where the new 2mb miners have sufficiently more hash power to get ahead of the other miners with less processing time... and enough of the community of nodes not orphaning it. would we see the 2mb blocks win..

so as i said its not a doomsday event as soon as 2mb blocks hit the network. it requires extra things to occur, some nefarious some involving dominance in hashing power and some involving enough node acceptance..

otherwise miners are just wasting more than 10 minutes making blocks that get orphaned if they basically dont get consensus or have enough power to stay ahead of the other miners every time.

i do see exchanges halting their service because orphans can make so called 1confirmed transactions suddenly become unconfirmed again. so they wont want to risk it.. or atleast raise the threshold to a higher number of confirmations before crediting customers with funds.

(sidenote: which is another reason not to trust 0 confirms or 1 confirms if your buying a porsche or a house. the risk of that exact block being an orphan today is about 2%(3 orphans a day(144 blocks) at the moment) the risk of orphans during a blocksize battle could be as much as <insert high number here>)

and lastly.. i think that if we ignore the nefarious miner doomsday scenario's..
and stick with logic and greed, miners wont be making 1.005mb blocks until they know consensus has been reached, to protect their revenues from becoming unspendable. .. which is another factor to take into account that its not a doomsday scenario. but more like paranoid hypothesis of nefarious factors all colluding into one targetted agenda

Did you buy this account? Your recent posts don't strike me as the CIYAM of old.

For one, why do you think 'two weeks' is in any way relevant?

Would it help if I point out that, if the 75% threshold is reached, then 75% of miners (+/-) would have already upgraded?

Why do you claim that soft forks deploy with 95%?

If the Bitcoin Classic was going to use 95% then I wouldn't have a problem but unfortunately they have stated that they are going to enforce their new rules at 75%.

The reason that this is so dangerous is that for certain there will be an equivalent of NoXT appearing (meaning that they don't actually have 75% of nodes but maybe not even 50%).

So if you have enough resources then you create a few thousand nodes (not too hard to believe possible) then prepare to sell all your BTC on the fork and once you have removed the fiat you "switch back" and then you sell it all again.