Bitcoin Forum

Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible to know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute the fork.

Could there be, to counteract this, a more verifiable way developed to know that the version string being displayed *actually* matches the code that is being run underneath all the nodes?

One respondent to that fake Satoshi message from the other day brought up the concept of a potential "node war" by way of spoofed version strings.
- snip -
I doubt Core would actually do something like this, but, if the version string actually has no bearing on the actual code running on a said node
- snip -

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".
- snip -
This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision.

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Well that will not cause premature >1mb blocks, as they are scheduled no earlier than 11 Jan 2016.

However it could cause the fork to occur on 11 jan 2016 without consensus. If for example 50% of the miners were XT, 25% NotBitcoinXT and the rest Core, then the fork could happen and spawn two chains with equal hash power. This could be detrimental to Bitcoin has we have previously established that such a fork is not a good thing.

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision. 

And, to me, that means the consensus decision (the real one) has already been made and now there's nothing left for them but this kind of screaming and FUD tactics and trying to prevent people from accurately seeing what the decision is. 

I must be missing something, but I thought the fork depended on blocks
mined, not on number of nodes.

So maybe the anti-XT party could spend some electricity to
mine "fake" XT blocks in order to produce illusion of 75% goal
reached. But would that really accomplish anything? Undecided miners might
still jump on the bandwagon.

Ever heard How Reddit Got Huge?
I do expect that NotXT will backfire.

Mining fake XT blocks generates the same reward as real XT or plain old 1MB blocks, so it's not a waste of power.

But would that really accomplish anything?  We don't know!  That's the point of NotXT.   ;D

Even with perfectly accurate metrics, being the first to defect from Bitcoin consensus (IE accept XTcoins) is risky.

In this fog of war, with its weaponized version strings, such first mover defections are an extremely brave leap of faith.

Also wouldn't you need some big pool operators to collaborate?
Ok, I can think of one  ;) who might be up for this kind of thing but
even he'd have to think how his miners feel about it (well, maybe).

Yes, the XT's fork is triggered by 750/1000 last blocks self-reporting their version as XT.

Mining fake XT blocks generates the same reward as real XT or plain old 1MB blocks, so it's not a waste of power.

But would that really accomplish anything?  We don't know!  That's the point of NotXT.   ;D

Even with perfectly accurate metrics, being the first to defect from Bitcoin consensus (IE accept XTcoins) is risky.

In this fog of war, with its weaponized version strings, such first mover defections are an extremely brave leap of faith.

An attempt to sabotage the process is a sure sign that the anti-BitcoinXT people fully understand that they would lose in a fair consensus decision.  

And, to me, that means the consensus decision (the real one) has already been made and now there's nothing left for them but this kind of screaming and FUD tactics and trying to prevent people from accurately seeing what the decision is.  

“the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”

[f2pool's] Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.

“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.

BitFury CEO Valery Vavilov told Bitcoin Magazine: “The Bitcoin Blockchain is not an amateur project anymore – it is becoming a platform for the Global Economy of Things. Changing the base rules can affect a lot of things, thus, any changes should be done very carefully, gradually, and with tests.”

He added: “The proposed transition to the alternative client raises some concerns about its security: It is well known that key parts of the default Bitcoin Core client were thoroughly checked and sometimes formally verified, which cannot be said about alternative clients – including Bitcoin XT.”

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, BTCChina’s Mikael Wang made it clear that his mining pool is not prepared to make a switch to Bitcoin XT. The Chinese pool that contributes 13 percent of hashing power to the network maintains that a consensus should be found among Bitcoin Core developers on how and when to raise the block-size limit.

“We will not support Bitcoin XT,” Wang said. “What the Bitcoin community needs now is stability and growth, and we will not do anything to jeopardize this further.”

U.S.-based Eligius, accounting for 5 percent of hashing power on the Bitcoin network, is another fierce opponent of Bitcoin XT and has no plans to make a switch. Much like F2Pool, Eligius’ owner who goes by the pseudonym “wizkid057” does not even consider Bitcoin XT a Bitcoin implementation – rather an altcoin.

Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, wizkid057 said, “I see no reason to mine yet another altcoin: ‘Bitcoin XT’ is not Bitcoin.”

I am not a fan of XT, and I don't like how the devs are fighting.
However I do expect that NotXT will backfire.

So much for your expectation that NotXT will backfire.

It worked like a charm!  XT is deader than disco.

The devs were right to fight the Gavinista attempted governance coup, regardless of your sanctimonious disapproval.

The only thing that backfired was your crystal-ball gazing.   ;D

Are you sure that it worked? Just because XT is pretty much dead doesn't mean that NotXT did its job. Can you provide proof that XT died due to this? And NotXT didn't necessarily do its job either.

tsoPANos' claim was "NotXT will backfire."

Where is the evidence NotXT backfired?

If NotXT backfired, wouldn't XT still be alive?

I'm sorry you missed the memorable spectacle of NotXT completely demoralizing the already beleaguered Gavinistas (in their hour of greatest need).

It was hilarious.   8)

While NotXT didn't backfire, you cannot say that just because XT died that that was due to NotXT. You cannot substantiate that claim. XT could have died for a number of other reasons, not  because if NotXT

Thanks for admitting you were wrong about NotXT backfiring.

Yes, I do admit that I was wrong (I am not an egotistic bastard who thinks he's always right  :P). But of course, things didn't happen the way that I though they would when I made that assumption. I figured that it would backfire if a large number of people began running NotXT, which didn't happen.