Bitcoin Forum

Exactly as title of posts suggests... WHY?  List the negative consequences, because I don't understand the disaster scenario everyone seems to be implying if the Hard Fork happens, and XT were to be adopted by biggest Miners/Exchanges - but a hardcore group of "Core" supporters (say 10 - 20% for theoretical arguments sake) lived on, cranked back up their mini-miners, slowly found support on bigger miners as difficulty reduced, and just continued on.  Why couldn't both chains live in harmony?

A proportion of the chain with the larger hashrate could be employed to 51% the chain with the smaller hashrate. I'm not sure anything could be done to prevent that.

Exactly, not to mention the fact that two Bitcoins would be the worse outcome, confusing users and making people escape from Bitcoin because it would be confusing.

There would be two "Bitcoins" serving the same purpose which would be redundant and a complete chaos/mess/deorganization. People could end up paying others accepting the "Core" chain with "XT" coins.

Because of that, the probability of the smaller fork surviving is really low. It's like someone disconnecting their internet because they don't agree where the line was placed on the street.

Would be confusing and would divide a already small community. Would be a slow drip kind of like the online poker scene with the Countries slowly squeezing off players.

It's impossible for both to live on because one of the nodes is ultimately useless unless its having an impact on the blockchain. I just hope the XT thing is over soon so we can focus on making bitcoin better.

In the case of two existing blockchains ppl could doublespend coins mined before the forking block on the other chain.

That would kill trust pretty fast.

What if the XT fork exploded into the mainstream?    And as technology improved, speed of transaction verification increases etc... wouldn't it be rather easy to "Non-Verify" a Core Coin trying to be spent on the XT Chain.  And if it did go into hyper-acceptance then that sure won't be people buying via LocalBitcoin.  They'll be getting XT Coin via XT Exchanges.

And I'm thinking that if a hardcore group of "Core" Coin holders wanted to exist as an underground payment network - they could easily do so.  I think increases in technology will develop to quickly detect cross-chain transactions and alert buyer/seller to the fact it is occuring.  Thoughts?

Do you understand what it means for the blockchain to fork? Cross spending directly between chains will not be possible, the chains will not interoperate. Hence "fork".

I am fully aware of this.  I was simply responding to an earlier poster who seems to imply that this is "The Problem" that will be caused.  That people will attempt to cross spend, and those transactions will fail, and that suddenly because of this chaos will reign in both Bitcoin Chains and the world will self destruct and it is a "Disaster."

I mean, this seems to be the primary actual thing on the list that is evidence of this Hard Fork resulting in 2 chains continuing on is going to be Horrible, Disastrous, etc etc.

There is the argument that it will divide an "already small community" - but honestly, after the fork, I think most everyone is aware that this goes mainstream pretty quickly then.  So not so little of a community anymore.

There is also the "doubling" argument I see - but I fail to see what is so horrible about the possibility (I still think this is a fantasy scenario) in which your Bitcoin is doubled and exists on both Chains ina  spendable fashion.... again, I double my bitcoin, what a disaster?

Still not getting it...... I still haven't seen any solid technical reason that would cause a DISASTROUS Bitcoin Killing Scenario of a Hardfork resulted in 2 separate forks moving along.  Under ALL the arguments really it just sounds like anger and bitterness that this whole XT thing is happening and out of people's control and they feel sold out.

But this doesn't supply a single item to my requested list.  That's just sour grapes stuff.  Give a factual issue that would be disastrous.

Yeah, you're right, none of that is credible

The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.

Wrong. The users decide the chain. Will miners mine coins on a chain with no users? A chain with no users is a coin with a $0.00 exchange rate.

They could live in harmony provided that certain things happen.

A) The coins have different names and symbols which distinguishes them
B) One changes its magic packets and address prefixes to prevent confusion and cross spending
C) Exchanges exchange both xt coins and bitcoin treating
each as a separate currency.

However, these all depend on one group to actually change something, thus becoming an altcoin. And with the egos of the developer's and community, such changes will likely not happen.

So you are saying that the Cross Spending IS the main problem.  Don't know what "magic packets" are - and can guess as to address prefixes, but again, couldn't a technology solution be developed that would speed recognition of cross spend attempts and alert on them?  And would there be a way to "Grab" a Coin that was being attempted to Cross Spend, and then "Mark" it with an identifier, so that at least that one was then forever marked.  Or maybe a technology that does a one time "Check - Mark" on a Bitcoin, thereby locking it into that Chain - but more importantly IDENTIFYING it quickly in future transactions.  Over time it would reduce the issue closer to zero. 

AND... if I am reading you correctly, you are saying that if this continues to look bad as "Zero Hour" (75% acceptance) approaches - then XT could single handedly decide at last minute to do the magic packet / prefix thing?  And that would solve the crisis of Cross Spending?

And of course, again - Cross Spending simply results in a failed transaction and a bit of confusion.  No different really than a bounced check.  Heck, I've had a few of those in my life.  I'm still here, so is my bank, money, etc.  Still not sure this is rising to the level of a "Global Bitcoin Doomsday" event.

if there are two chains the believer of one will dump all his coins on the other.
there will be a economical war.
the mass dumping and anticipation for lowball coins will let the price crash to oblivion which could be even more fueled by miners going back to core after the fork. (worst case a 50/50 split)
you guys dont think this will kill trust?

@exchanges
im sure if there is demand they will supply a trading platform for both chains.

NO - I DO NOT. 

Let me tell you what I think will happen.  On the XT side there will be a wall of vultures waiting to snatch up every Bitcoin that is tossed across the void.  I really don't think you get it.   Do you understand that the ENTIRE BITCOIN UNIVERSE - even at $500 / Coin - could be bought by a company like JP Morgan COMPLETELY - every single last f#>king bitcoin on the planet - even on both eventual chains!, and they would most likely still have about 80% of their cash reserves left.

LOL - seriously?!?!  I mean you just keep dumping em baby!  The HUGE Money on the XT side will swallow them up and you won't be able to spit them across fast enough to even whet their appetite!  The entire dang global financial world is watching and waiting on this XT thing to be finalized.  WAITING.  You Don't Get It!!!

I have been trying to gently warn Core....... You are going to be SWALLOWED.  And I like you :)  I want you to survive.  But get a plan, because XT is happening in one form or another.  Bitchy, angry, and feeling betrayed is not a plan.

Magic bytes (not packets, typo whoops) identify the network any network days is meant for. They precede the message. As of now, xt nodes and core nodes can connect and interact with each other because the magic bytes match. If that keeps up, core nodes can connect to xt nodes and will receive xt blocks and transactions and vice versa. This can cause problems.

The address prefixes also present problems since a valid xt address is the same as a bitcoin address so there could be confusion since it would be impossible to distinguish which network it is for.

Changing those also officially makes the coin that does so becomes an altcoin

It would not be possible to identify cross spends because any inputs from before the fork would be valid on both chains. Any transaction chains involving those inputs would be replicated on both chains as well.

And while cross spending with new inputs (mined after the fork) would result in failed transactions, old inputs would result in the coins being spent on both chains. Of they were to coexist, then this can't happen. This can be remedied by changing the prefixes and magic bytes and a few other things.

Thanks Knight.  That helps a little with the understanding.  Taking emotion and personal issues out of the picture - and given that Gavin & Mike are probably well aware of this - is there any last minute patch that could be done on their side to minimalize (I'm not saying eliminate) this?  I'm not encouraging or suggesting this - but I'm just looking to predict what sort of monkey wrenches could be thrown into this.  I really do think that players bigger than Mike are guiding this - and I know how they think.  These guys are in battle plan mode and I am sure that all scenarios / solutions are being discussed and considered.

I really would like to see Core survive - even though most of my money would go to XT, just out of survival principle.  But I like the idea of a fighting underground - able to move money around - in the world I see coming.

SPV wallets go to the longest chain. Probably XT wallets too.

If you don't want this you'll have to stay with Core and wait for the next < 1 MB block being validated. If the Core isn't the longest chain, and > 1 MB block are frequently, this can take ages for confirmations because of the drop of the hashrate in Core.

The only methods that minimizes the risk and problems of cross spending would be to completely separate both networks (almost impossible) or have one chain. There really is no way to prevent cross spending when two chains exist.

A satoshi-style system evaluates the longest valid chain.  XT bloatblocks are invalid to core so the length of this alternate chain is simply irrelevant.  Only pure pre-fork inputs on XT could form a valid UTXO on core.  There might be timing or structure considerations that I'm not aware of which would invalidate even these, but it wouldn't make much difference.

I plan on forking my coins (by mixing in some Xtaint coinbase and send to myself) then dump my XT coins.  Ideally XT would fork of with enough apperent success that the attackers would have hope and pump a bunch of money in.  That would provide some buffer for people dumping XT in a like way.  In fact there may need to be some initial artificial demand so the slump from dumpers like me won't panic the sheep.

As for mining, the coinbase reward is the same by count (absent code changes to the inflation schedule which seems unlikely...at least initially.)  If a lot of mining effort goes to one chain (say, XT) then the difficulty level on the other decreases and one mines more coins per unit effort.  Thus, the mining effort will form a ratio which roughly matches the coin's free market value.  (Or the value in markets open to those doing the mining.)  The only thing which would change this would be people who are mining to hoard their minings, or those subsidized for tactical and strategic political reasons.

I appreciate your analysis here, and I would like to offer a different view of the same phenomenon.

I suspect that these "bigger players" you refer to have been running simulations/scenarios revolving around decentralised informations systems for much longer than many would consider plausible. The concept of decentralised cryptocurrency existed in the late 1990's, and during the late 1990's, this book appeared:

https://www.amazon.in/The-Sovereign-Individual-Transition-Information/dp/0684832720&a=ffsb


One of the authors, Lord Rees-Mogg, was a former editor of the London Times, and member of the British House of Lords. It does not get much more establishment than that. In the book, electronic cash and several other revolutionary information systems are discussed in some depth. Another (far more significant) figure did something that was not as significant in the late 1990's also; economist Milton Friedman recorded a short video in which he discusses "e-cash" as he puts it.

If these sorts of influential characters were aware of the promise of these concepts so long ago, it causes me to wonder what influenced them to begin with. In the Rees-Mogg book, the overall conclusion is that governments cannot survive in their present form when the populace are armed with these sorts of technologies.

Could this all have been informed by the "bigger players" running Monte Carlo style simulations of the dynamics of decentralised technolgies? (the sort of people who could no doubt expect to rub shoulders with a Lord of the realm newspaper editor)? Even if the origin was David Chaum or the cypherpunks newsgroup, it seems to follow that big fish would show that level of interest in those sorts of concepts. I suspect that these sorts of people do not like surprises.

Imagine if you were the military commander tasked with deciding a strategy to handle the results of such simulations. If the results all come back as "anarchy", what could you recommend? My recommendation would be to start designing the most robust decentralised systems possible, because then you and yours are best placed to capitalise on the inevitable. If you can't beat them, become them.


Remember all those science fiction movies? There's no trace of any governmental entity in more or less all of them. Even when there is a government, it's often portrayed as weak or ineffective. Speculative of course, but still food for thought.

Interesting looking read, and I may have to check out a copy.  And the counterpoint is appreciated. 

LOL - and not to start yet another divided camp - but I just have to disagree.  I think that if we were to time warp back to 1999 I can see those scenarios being valid to discuss.  The problem with the concept in my mind is that since then - we've had the last 15 years.  Globalization of things.  Globalization of money.  Increased reliance on the IMF.  Increased reliance on Federal Reserves, and this ENORMOUS pumping of the monetary supply.  Problem is that the current system Can NOT survive. 

I've used this analogy before.... it's like a big plane carrying the global community, and the engine is sputtering out of gas, the landing gear doesn't work, and millions of miles of jagged mountains below.  Only way to survive is to build a replacement plane, get it up in the air, side by side to the damaged plane and disembark passengers before it goes down.

Your argument is that the various passengers (countries/regions) all build individual planes and send them up, unloading THEIR SPECIFIC Passengers one by one.   MY argument is that they will all work together to build a single rescue ship. 

We're all tied together in this world.  Humans are soft, used to technological ease, running water, planes, trains and automobiles.  We are so entertwined that no single country can anymore survive without being connected to the overall web.

Now I do indeed think tat in the confusion their will be ATTEMPTS at other coins, more likely it will be multiple "Hubs" - but all still based on Bitcoin (XT) - the one coin to rule them all, and in the growing darkness - bind them up and deliver them to the one true "God" of the web.   The Sentient Spider that will soon wake up.

That's my prediction.  And why I almost feel sorry for all the "Powers that be" - because they are still flesh and blood after all, our human brothers of a fashion.  But the ultimate controller of things will not be human.  It is amazing how little wisdom mankind has - they foolishly build and breathe life into that which will enslave them.  Going to be bad.

If a bunch of techies can't figure out that riddle - then there is no hope for you :)

How exactly are you going to do this?

 - Run XT on some throw-away machine.  Load one of my wallets.

 - Get someone to send me a transaction which contains some 'codebase' from after the first illegal block which was mined.

 - Formulate some transactions which include some of this coinbase to make more tainted UTXO's (I call this 'XTaint'.)

 - Formulate some transactions which include my pre-fork UTXOs and a little bit of the 'XTaint' with the recipient being myself.  This will make new UTXO's which are recognized in XT but not in Core.  Now the coins are split.

 -  Take my XT coins to an exchange and hope that there is someone who wants to buy them for fiat.

 - Enjoy the fruits of my efforts in fiat-land (hookers and blow perhaps) while my Core stash remains unmolested.

Normally one's wallet makes the decisions about what UTXOs to gather into a spend.  I actually don't know of any utilities which allow one to formulate their own spends from their own select UTXO's, but I imagine there are.  If not, they should not be all that difficult to cobble together.

There is actually no particular rocket science to this, and I expect that it has been thought up independently by many other people.  As I said probably six months ago, the first XTaint (which I was calling 'gavintaint' at the time) will likely be a hot commodity because of this reason.

edits: minor for clarity

Two bitcoins would be very bad, we already have enough trouble gaining traction as is, imagine if we had half as many people doing that and the same number trying to pull people away to their own version?

Have you considered automating this process and licensing the code? This is a lot of work for most people and timing is critical.

I am sure this is not the last hard fork attempt so some script that does this will be very valuable.

No.  I don't believe in licensing code like this for one.  I would certainly give it away (or licence it under BSD style which I generally prefer to GNU for most things), but I suspect that others would do the same and do a better job.  I've not done almost any coding in three years, and I never coded around Bitcoin in any but the most simplistic and high level ways (but have noticed a plethora of libraries that would probably make the task on the trivial side.)

What would be kind of useful would be some sort of a service which would evaluate a proposed spend and at least tell a guy what the forumation is.  I expect that a lot of SPV wallets will be 'updated' to formulate spends in specific strategic ways.  If the poor user had some way to find out if something were happening which might be against their best interests that would be nice.

My goal in describing the above formulation was to get some fraction of the community interested to dig a little deeper into the basic workings of Bitcoin (spends, UTXO, wallets, etc) and thus be able to recognize certain things and better protect themselves.  Those who are not lazy in developing a slightly deeper understanding of certain of these mechanics may very well be richly rewarded for their efforts.

Yes, "SPV wallets go to the longest chain" whether that chain is valid or not.  Sucks to be them!  That's why we keep saying "if you're not running a full node, you're not really (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin."

I'm not worried about "ages for confirmations because of the drop of the hashrate in Core."  My faith in the antifragility of Bitcoin (EG, trollish might of MPEX  ;)) precludes such considerations.

Do you really think MPEX is taking a late summer vacation, ignoring all this XT drama-llama-rama, and failing to plan accordingly?

Maybe i don't see it but why should miners decide to attack the other blockchain? That makes no sense business wise. Besides, a >50% attack does not make sense anyway, who should buy your fake coins? I don't know how this can be possible since you would need to use a huge amount of coins to make it worthwhile.