I dont know the stats on the last bitcoin hardfork and how long it took for "everyone" to upgrade, but my guess is that it took a bit more than 10 minutes
James
Was the last fork as dramatic and full of emotion as this one? Did it involve this much at stake? This much accusation and handwringing about selling out to the fiat players? I mean seriously... comparing THIS fork to one in the past is like comparing getting mad at your wife because she was flirting to how you would feel if you caught your wife in bed with someone. LOTS more emotion being generated in this fork it seems to me. Am I wrong? Did as big a part of the community DIRECTLY THREATEN to intentionally split the chain forever? C'mon. Apples to Oranges. So this makes it even more likely that holdouts will keep the losing chain alive for more than 2 weeks. |
|
|
|
Therefore, there will not be a functioning market for both versions; it would only cater for those clever hackers. Malicious hackers may be able to exploit the confusion of some ordinary clients to do double spends; but payment processors and exchanges will almost certainly deal with just one "bitcoin", the one with mining majority.
instantly the moment of the fork? across all vendors across the entire world? what if they are sleeping? The XT fork will not be a "stealth fork" (like the BIP66 caper). Again: if and when the blockchain tags indicate that 75% of the miners are ready, there will be a 2 week period during which everyone running Core (or other incompatible software) will be warned of the event and urged to switch to XT (or any compatible software). If and when that happen, you may be sure that all sensible exchanges and services will upgrade, together with the sensible miners among the other 25%. Perhaps even Luke. Perhaps even Mircea. So, OK, there may be a few "rebel" exchanges left to cater for some thoroughly confused clients who did not upgrade, and the few "rebel" clients who refuse to consider bigger blocks and are willing to put up with 1 block every 2 hours... But I still don't see any great opportunity there. (After the 2 weeks period, there will still exist only one branch, and hence only one altcoin, until someone mines a block larger than 1 MB. That may not take too long. The average block size in early 2016 should still be 0.7 MB, but variable block spacings and empty blocks may create a backlog of more than 1 MB in the queue at some point.) [/quote] a forced global upgrade across thousands of independent entities, in two weeks. No problem. Logistically this is a trivial matter of coordination. After all how hard can it be to force everybody to adopt the new bitcoin, even though they dont agree with it? But even you agree that there will be an altcoin created out of this and that altcoin will have nontrivial value, probably more than LTC, certainly more than NMC. But what are a few millions of dollars when we are talking about a forced upgrade onto all the people that dont see the light. James |
|
|
|
I feel like everyone has gone full retard with this one. There will not be 2 different usable, spendable, mineable coins.
not long term, no but maybe for 20 minutes from zeroblock? or maybe a few hours or days? how many vendors are there that deal with bitcoin? how many timezones? what if it happens on a weekend? and how long will the losing coin be worth more than LTC? more than NMC? remember there are a ton of altcoins that still have value long after they are dead James |
|
|
|
Guys, the fork will NOT create two independently usable altcoins -- even if the blockchain splits into two branches that survive long enough to play with.
Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch. However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains;. Thus they will not be able to "see" the two altcoins. When one of those transactions, by accident, turns out to be valid for only one chain, the client will either not notice ever, or will get confused, and maybe end up with his wallet in an inconsistent state, maybe even lose coins.
Therefore, there will not be a functioning market for both versions; it would only cater for those clever hackers. Malicious hackers may be able to exploit the confusion of some ordinary clients to do double spends; but payment processors and exchanges will almost certainly deal with just one "bitcoin", the one with mining majority.
instantly the moment of the fork? across all vendors across the entire world? what if they are sleeping? Oh for crying out loud..... this is a complete and utter Cluster F#<K. when the majority of bitcoin core devs all work for the same profit based company, well it is not surprising that making profits for that company trumps other things In my experience it is impossible to coordinate the actions of much more than half a dozen people, especially when they are all over the world, even when they all want to do the same thing. So how on earth with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people all do the same thing at the same exact moment, especially when a significant minority is disagreeing I dont know the stats on the last bitcoin hardfork and how long it took for "everyone" to upgrade, but my guess is that it took a bit more than 10 minutes James |
|
|
|
Guys, the fork will NOT create two independently usable altcoins -- even if the blockchain splits into two branches that survive long enough to play with.
Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch. However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains;. Thus they will not be able to "see" the two altcoins. When one of those transactions, by accident, turns out to be valid for only one chain, the client will either not notice ever, or will get confused, and maybe end up with his wallet in an inconsistent state, maybe even lose coins.
Therefore, there will not be a functioning market for both versions; it would only cater for those clever hackers. Malicious hackers may be able to exploit the confusion of some ordinary clients to do double spends; but payment processors and exchanges will almost certainly deal with just one "bitcoin", the one with mining majority.
instantly the moment of the fork? across all vendors across the entire world? what if they are sleeping? |
|
|
|
The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is above 1MB, the network still works well
That does not work when you are trying to revolutionize sectors ... we do not want to stay in the stone ages Banks stayed in stone age for hundreds of years and that's the reason they become the master slaveholder. Value is all about stability and integrity Aint that the truth. Right now bitcoin is truly looking like amateur hour to the financial world. And just when it could be getting a huge boost as a safe haven in the current increasing perception of a global meltdown. Shame and this raises the possibility that it is all an intentional thing... to create the very real possibility of splitting the bitcoin |
|
|
|
Something else came to my mind:
If both chains continue to exist, would it be possible to do 'merged mining' on both blockchains,
similar to merged mining of BTC and NMC today ?
No one has answered this. The answer must be yes, it would be possible with a modified client. Another scenario comes up when you consider the shadow miners, all the at-home ASIC owners who turned off their machines as they lost out to the mega-miners. They'd surely consider turning them back onto mining on the "losing" fork at reduced value, because the difficulty will drop dramatically as well. Shadow miners are mostly from the idealistic phase of Bitcoin, so their incentive to continue on Core if XT wins out will be great. Both forks continue, one will not die to zero. One may become sub $1 again, but that's OK for some people. OK - this actually made me think of something I haven't seen elsewhere..... Let's assume the above scenario does occur - a fork where both chains survive. What happens to the "finite number" of Bitcoin. I mean, say you have 15 million Bitcoin at Zero Hour. Then say XT Fork wins, and the vast majority of Bitcoins choose that chain. But say 1 Million of those Bitcoin Holders choose the Core Chain. Does that mean that the New Finite number of bitcoins that will ever exist on XT will now be 20 million?NOTE: I also still can't understand what is going to drive people to stay on Core IF XT Chain wins and takes off. Because in that scenario there is almost a 100% chance that Bitcoin XT will start moving up in value, and Bitcoin-Core will start devaluing massively in the immediate aftermath. I just am trying to imagine sitting there looking at my wallet with a Bitcoin in it, and saying if I take the right hand path I get $200+ and if I go left I get $20 - and then deciding to do the STUPID thing. I mean - why wouldn't I just go to XT for a lot more value, then sell for dollars, then go back and buy TEN (10) Bitcoin-Core (now a minor fork altcoin). I mean - I am thinking that is the path people would take??? I would. No, it doesn't. That's like saying "Will LiteCoin reduce the amount of Bitcoin?" If there is a fork, it doesn't care about the other fork, it's really just as easy as that. This is right. Don't think of a fork as dividing bitcoin into two pieces. Think of it as creating a parallel universe. (The fiat money invested would divide though.) I'm still absorbing all of this - but I do want to say that I am still not convinced that the doubling / dual fork parallel universes is fact or theory. I really think this is a pretty big deal that is not being widely discussed - so that makes me wonder if it is a Real deal. I think something like this would deserve a public comment from one of the Core Devs or Gavin/Mike. But assuming it is possible.... 1) This raises really big issues with future Hard Forks. For example - what happens if the China Miners/Exchanges decide to go a different route from Western Miner/Exchanges. Could the Bitcoin Supply split again? Because once things get more globally accepted and Bitcoin a more global currency - I can see potential future politically motivated Hard Fork divergencies. I mean - if Gavin & Mike can do it - surely China or the U.S. or Europe could do it?? As pointed out earlier - kind of blows the whole fixed supply concept. 2) OP posted a few posts up something about the Bitcoin Price could be driven down, even on both chains, as cross attacks/dumping occurs. Eh - maybe. But I think that is taking a limited perspective of looking at Bitcoin with the current currency marketshare it has NOW. What happened to the whole 1 Bitcoin will equal $1 Million in a endstage game. It could just as easily be that an event happens after the fork to make everyone run/be driven into Bitcoin, and price will go up so fast that Buyers will outnumber sellers 10's of thousand to 1. Not that farfetched actually. 3) Interestingly, if the whole Doubling / Dual Universe Coin theory is viable, then it most likely will be known by everyone as Zero Hour approaches, and only an idiot won't be making plans to double coins into both universes. And so I would imagine you actually would end up with 2 Bitcoin Currencies. Core would most like be the favored "underground currency" and would be treated/seen sort of like physical Gold is today. XT would become the Fiat Bitcoin obviously. BOTH would probably skyrocket in value eventually - although because of the huge insider Miner/Exchange infrastructure probably following XT - XT-Fiat would indeed probably shoot the moon fastest. BUT - like I said, if this is real, then EVERYOE will know about it soon enough,a nd plans being made - as a defense against the XT Fork if nothing else. 4) I'd still like to hear more on the technical issues involved in "tainting" coins. Again, assuming that this is even possible. Because it is really sounding a lot like an untested theory - but with potentially huge consequences. If you understand about bitcoin tx using inputs and making outputs, then you can see that this is not any theory. Just also remember that bitcoin protocol will reject any invalid input, otherwise people could just make up random inputs and spend them. with me so far? ok, so now we assume that XT will get a block that core cant use, ie it exceeds its capacity. Now what do we have? A block with unspent outputs that is perfectly valid in the XT universe, but totally invalid in the core universe. there is no theory, uncertainity or any doubt that there will be outputs that are valid in XT but invalid in core. Now, we take these XT only outputs and combine it with existing corecoins that were there before the fork. no magic required, just a matter to create a transaction that uses an XT only input and an old input that existed prefork. what happens? In XT chain, this is a perfectly valid tx and it can be spent wherever XT is accepted. However, remember about the part of the protocol rejecting tx with invalid inputs? In core chain, this tx is rejected. As in it never happened! So you have just spawned an XT only bitcoin, but you still have the original bitcoin! As to why this is not discussed by the others, I have no idea. Maybe they just assume that overnight thousands of decentralized entities with simulteneously flip the same switch in the same direction so this is not anything to worry about? James |
|
|
|
How hard is it to mergemine?
I dont think miners will have to choose.
How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two.
I think they can not mergemine since they are mining on different chain by that time The coins are doubled, however the ecosystem can not double over night, if suddenly the money supply increased by 100% but there is no increased demand, we will get a zimbabwe coin Isnt NMC mergemined with BTC since they both use SHA256? isnt NMC a different chain than BTC? Mergemining is to just use the same calcs you use as you are randomly searching for the winning hash against multiple chains. The extra overhead of adding another chain is much less than double, so you basically get to mint extra coins for very little extra work. Based on this, the whole XT controversy could well be something FULLY backed by the miners Follow the money Due to the inertia of markets, this creates non-attack methods of double spending that isnt really double spending because we are all knowing that there will be two flavors of bitcoin. so by following the protocol, we can split our bitcoins. by knowing that markets dont do discontinuities, we can protect against the massive drop in BTC price this whole inventory explosion will create. Do you really believe that the BTC whales wont take the time to split their dualcoins? And then they wont bother to make a ton of money by trading both coins? James They can only merge mine if the protocol is specifically changed for that purpose There are huge risk from existing coin holders: We often talk about Satoshi's 1 million coins, many are afraid that those coin will come out one day and crash the market, and several days ago we have witnessed that a 80K sell order will knock down the exchange rate by 10% Imagine that you are a large bitcoin holder, when there is only one chain, the motivation to sell your coin is low, since they are all valuable. But once the coin forked, it is possible that core miners who controlls 25% of hash power are controlling 70% of the existing coins. They will dump the coins on the XT chain and destroy its value (Remember what Peter Todd have threatened with selling all his coins?). When XT coin worth nothing, miner will move their hash power back to core chain. Similarly, XT developers will dump their core coins, cause large damage there. A Mutual Assured Destruction fired up when XT went online 1.Jan. 2016, the end of bitcoin  So things will get really ugly if we allow a fork to happen please explain what protocol change is needed to allow merge mining XTcoin and corecoin? please estimate what percentage of the chinese mining pools will not merge mine to make extra money, if merge mining is possible Merge mining after the fork will be impossible as soon as atleast one different block is found. You need to include the merkle tree in the block you are mining. and the merkle trees will differ after the first block after the fork. If the losing form decides to allow merge mining, yeah maybe it can be implemented. But I'd wager heavy money against two existing significant chains anyway. Will just not happen Technically if I have found a winning hash for a chain, how will you prevent me from submitting it? It is the mining equipment that just needs to be changed. as far as the coin protocol is concerned it cannot monitor if you are submitting to other chains. How will the corechain know that the node that submitted the winning hash is also submitting winning hashes to the XT chain. Maybe there is something about the mining process that you know that I totally missed. James P.S. i shouldnt call this merged mining that means specific things, think of it as parallel mining. will require some mods to silicon to do, so depending on the relative values, maybe it is not so practical. then again if you can make custom silicon... |
|
|
|
How hard is it to mergemine?
I dont think miners will have to choose.
How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two.
I think they can not mergemine since they are mining on different chain by that time The coins are doubled, however the ecosystem can not double over night, if suddenly the money supply increased by 100% but there is no increased demand, we will get a zimbabwe coin Isnt NMC mergemined with BTC since they both use SHA256? isnt NMC a different chain than BTC? Mergemining is to just use the same calcs you use as you are randomly searching for the winning hash against multiple chains. The extra overhead of adding another chain is much less than double, so you basically get to mint extra coins for very little extra work. Based on this, the whole XT controversy could well be something FULLY backed by the miners Follow the money Due to the inertia of markets, this creates non-attack methods of double spending that isnt really double spending because we are all knowing that there will be two flavors of bitcoin. so by following the protocol, we can split our bitcoins. by knowing that markets dont do discontinuities, we can protect against the massive drop in BTC price this whole inventory explosion will create. Do you really believe that the BTC whales wont take the time to split their dualcoins? And then they wont bother to make a ton of money by trading both coins? James They can only merge mine if the protocol is specifically changed for that purpose There are huge risk from existing coin holders: We often talk about Satoshi's 1 million coins, many are afraid that those coin will come out one day and crash the market, and several days ago we have witnessed that a 80K sell order will knock down the exchange rate by 10% Imagine that you are a large bitcoin holder, when there is only one chain, the motivation to sell your coin is low, since they are all valuable. But once the coin forked, it is possible that core miners who controlls 25% of hash power are controlling 70% of the existing coins. They will dump the coins on the XT chain and destroy its value (Remember what Peter Todd have threatened with selling all his coins?). When XT coin worth nothing, miner will move their hash power back to core chain. Similarly, XT developers will dump their core coins, cause large damage there. A Mutual Assured Destruction fired up when XT went online 1.Jan. 2016, the end of bitcoin So things will get really ugly if we allow a fork to happen please explain what protocol change is needed to allow merge mining XTcoin and corecoin? please estimate what percentage of the chinese mining pools will not merge mine to make extra money, if merge mining is possible |
|
|
|
The old wisdom is don't fix it if it ain't broken. I guest majority of the miners will take a wait and see stance. Recent stress test already showed that even every block is above 1MB, the network still works well
That does not work when you are trying to revolutionize sectors ... we do not want to stay in the stone ages Banks stayed in stone age for hundreds of years and that's the reason they become the master slaveholder. Value is all about stability and integrity So basically it will become another piece of worthless technology that could have been awesome but never made it because a group of grown ass intelligent men AKA self proclaimed core developers spent more time throwing their toys out of the pram than working together to find a common way forward. Sounds legit  well the margins on mining was getting pretty low and this is a good way to boost revenues 50% by merge mining |
|
|
|
How hard is it to mergemine?
I dont think miners will have to choose.
How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two.
I think they can not mergemine since they are mining on different chain by that time The coins are doubled, however the ecosystem can not double over night, if suddenly the money supply increased by 100% but there is no increased demand, we will get a zimbabwe coin Isnt NMC mergemined with BTC since they both use SHA256? isnt NMC a different chain than BTC? Mergemining is to just use the same calcs you use as you are randomly searching for the winning hash against multiple chains. The extra overhead of adding another chain is much less than double, so you basically get to mint extra coins for very little extra work. Based on this, the whole XT controversy could well be something FULLY backed by the miners Follow the money Due to the inertia of markets, this creates non-attack methods of double spending that isnt really double spending because we are all knowing that there will be two flavors of bitcoin. so by following the protocol, we can split our bitcoins. by knowing that markets dont do discontinuities, we can protect against the massive drop in BTC price this whole inventory explosion will create. Do you really believe that the BTC whales wont take the time to split their dualcoins? And then they wont bother to make a ton of money by trading both coins? James |
|
|
|
You can then decide to:
a. sell only your XTcoins
b. sell only your traditional bitcoins
c. sell both of them
d. sell none of them
Should there be demand for both kinds of coins (and it's looking like there will be), then the risk comes when you make the choice to economically back one side. You may sell all your XTcoins and traditional bitcoins become worth far more, or you may decide to sell all your traditional bitcoins and XTcoins become worth far more. Perhaps the community is divided enough that both chains will continue to exist far into the future and they will reach valuations based on the demand for either coin. Perhaps the split will cause a loss of trust in Bitcoin entirely and neither fork will hold their value. No one knows.
Very well said, I think we should hold a poll for these 4 options to increase people's understanding of the fork and its consequence In fact that means the amount of coin doubles, which broke the promise of limited money supply - the biggest advantage of bitcoin. People will understand that when core devs have a conflict of interest, there will be 100% inflation in bitcoin monetary system... And people will start to drop the game. I guess miners would try their best to avoid that extinction level events by sticking to one side, which is what they are currently running. It does not matter how advanced XT is, a fork will kill bitcoin, so that is to be avoided at all costs How hard is it to mergemine? I dont think miners will have to choose. How hard is it to choose not to go bankrupt? I dont think many businesses will drop one coin over the other, they will just pretend they are both normal bitcoins. we will just have some growing percentage of bitcoins that are split and thus dramatically increasing the coin supply. not overnight, but over a period of 6 months, we will probably get to where the majority of dualcoins are split, just via normal transactions tainting the dualcoins into two. The people that understand this will be making a ton of money. the people that dont will be complaining about why bitcoin price keeps dropping James |
|
|
|
So I see the thread growing, so I would like to ask for a summary please. What have we concluded so far? Will it be, or will it not be possible to double your bitcoins if the fork happens and we end up with 2 chains?
well you wont be able to directly double your bitcoins, but you can split all your bitcoins into winnercoins and losercoins. By trading them close to zerohour, you should be able to get roughly the same amount for each. Good traders will be able to sell winnercoin for more than losercoin and losercoin for more than winner coin by taking advantage of the market chaos. Now your single dualcoin is split into winnercoin and losercoin due to the fact that there are XT outputs that will invalidated a tx in the eyes of corecoin. The problem here is that we will end up with miners mergemining both (unlike normal merge mining where they are getting some sillycoin, they get losercoin) and there will be double the volume of sales so the price of both will be hammered. I would recommend to split your bitcoins into winnercoin and losercoin as soon as possible after zerohour, sell them (via limit orders) into something that will hold its value. then when one side reaches more than 50% value of the other in a stable way (ie not a spike) to purchase them. if you have the time, just make a ladder so that as one side gets worth more and more against the other you are shifting more and more capital into it. Done right you should end up with 50%+ more of winnercoin vs the number of dualcoins you have James |
|
|
|
If the fork occurs when there are 15 million coins, there will be 15 million XTcoins and 15 million traditional bitcoins.
In order for you to control both of your coins, you need to first be the sole controller of your private keys when the fork occurs.
I hope this clears things up for you.
Yes and No. That does indeed fill in a very large part of the info gap I was unclear about. But I am not sure that I trust the premise yet that the possibility that the coins can co-exist in both dimensions. It seems to me that as soon as you spend a prefork bitcoin in a post fork world, it automatically vaporizes it's alter ego. I understand that OP is theorizing about a way to allow a bitcoin to both exist and operate in both forks simultaneously - but I surely haven't seen enough other opinions to know whether this is simply science fiction fantasy, or real technological science. It is indeed an interesting concept IF true. Does bitcoin (both flavors) accept a transaction if it is invalid? If a transaction has an unknown input, is it valid? If that unknown input is actually a known input to one of the flavors, then we have a case where a transaction is valid on one chain and invalid on the other. Meaning you can use it on one chain, but not the other. It also means that on the chain it was rejected, the coin is still valid. There is no magic, nothing other than the fact that there will be inputs that XT accepts and corecoin rejects and approx equal value to both. See. You taint your dualcoin and now you have corecoin and XTcoin. The market is paying about the same for both, so just sell both, wait for the market to decide, ie winnercoin is 50% more than losercoin (that seems a safe enough threshold), then buy back at a 50% premium. Still you are ahead by a lot James |
|
|
|
I mean, in that scenario, you are simply gambling. Not a smart one either it seems, because if your Bitcoin is worth $200 prefork, and non-XT chain flash crashes to $10 - I hardly see the value in taking $200 Bitcoin, that will probably start soaring in the XT Chain once the drama is over, and trying to "Double" your Bitcoin by moving it to a Chain that has a $10 value - and you double it $10 x2 to $20. Now that is investment genius.
OK - this actually made me think of something I haven't seen elsewhere.....
Let's assume the above scenario does occur - a fork where both chains survive. What happens to the "finite number" of Bitcoin. I mean, say you have 15 million Bitcoin at Zero Hour. Then say XT Fork wins, and the vast majority of Bitcoins choose that chain.
But say 1 Million of those Bitcoin Holders choose the Core Chain. Does that mean that the New Finite number of bitcoins that will ever exist on XT will now be 20 million?
NOTE: I also still can't understand what is going to drive people to stay on Core IF XT Chain wins and takes off. Because in that scenario there is almost a 100% chance that Bitcoin XT will start moving up in value, and Bitcoin-Core will start devaluing massively in the immediate aftermath. I just am trying to imagine sitting there looking at my wallet with a Bitcoin in it, and saying if I take the right hand path I get $200+ and if I go left I get $20 - and then deciding to do the STUPID thing. I mean - why wouldn't I just go to XT for a lot more value, then sell for dollars, then go back and buy TEN (10) Bitcoin-Core (now a minor fork altcoin). I mean - I am thinking that is the path people would take??? I would.
Well, this doesn't make sense to me in the way I think about things.
If HYPOTHETICALLY at "Zero Hour" the hardfork occurs, and XT wins, but I subsequently choose to run my 1 million Bitcoins onto the old Core Chain - and if everyone seems pretty clear that those Bitcoins can NEVER EVER EVER go back onto the XT Chain - then it seems to me that the XT Chain just lost 1 million bitcoins.
So is my understanding of this flawed? Or are you saying that my Core-Forked Bitcoin are still counted in the 21 Million XT Bitcoins - but just "lost".
Some of your comments lead me to believe that you don't really understand what the OP is talking about. It's simple. If you have bitcoins now (pre-fork), and a fork occurs, and there is a market for XTcoins and bitcoins post-fork, you will have XTcoins AND traditional bitcoins equal to the amount of pre-fork coins you had. Let's say you own 1 bitcoin now (pre-fork). A fork occurs. There is demand for coins (and mining occurring) on both chains. So, we have two surviving block chains (for whatever period of time). You will then have 1 XTcoin and 1 traditional bitcoin. You can then taint one of your coins with coins which only exist on one of the forks. Let's say you get a few satoshis from block reward which occurred in a XT 8mb block (thus is not valid and does not exist on the 1mb chain). You can combine those satoshis with your 1 XTcoin by sending them to a new address under your control. This means your XTcoins can be safely moved separately from your traditional bitcoins. If you don't taint your coins first, any transaction you make will be valid on both chains, so if you send your coins to an address which is not under your control, the holder of the private keys for that address will be able to get both your XTcoins and traditional bitcoins. There is no risk for you, until you make the decision to taint your coins on one chain, and then exchange them for something of value. You will hold coins on BOTH chains until you take these actions. Even the tainting itself does not incur any risk for you. It simply allows you to craft transactions on each chain which is no longer valid on the other chain. You can then decide to: a. sell only your XTcoins b. sell only your traditional bitcoins c. sell both of them d. sell none of them Should there be demand for both kinds of coins (and it's looking like there will be), then the risk comes when you make the choice to economically back one side. You may sell all your XTcoins and traditional bitcoins become worth far more, or you may decide to sell all your traditional bitcoins and XTcoins become worth far more. Perhaps the community is divided enough that both chains will continue to exist far into the future and they will reach valuations based on the demand for either coin. No one knows. If the fork occurs when there are 15 million coins, there will be 15 million XTcoins and 15 million traditional bitcoins. In order for you to control both of your coins, you need to first be the sole controller of your private keys when the fork occurs. I hope this clears things up for you. Thank you! The concept of tainting the XTcoins (and corecoins) is the key. It transforms the bitcoins you have from dualcoins to an XTcoin and a corecoin, so there is some risk, but realistically both will trade at very close to the same value at the fork and diverging (noisily) from there Now by splitting all your coins, you have to take some action, but this is a matter to just sell them for market price into something immune from the XT/core price. So let us assume an impossible, but simplified future price post-fork. we will have winnercoin and losercoin, I have no idea which will be the XT vs core, lets avoid that debate and just call it winnercoin and losercoin. So we reach the block of the fork. Now all miners, exchanges, merchants, they are following this in realtime and immediately stop accepting/mining/using losercoin and at the next block the price/hashrate/usage for losercoin is $0/0/0. If you believe this, well, you are not familiar with the nature of markets. What will happen instead is some sort of decay. From the split the losercoin will gradually fade away to some much smaller value, but probably always be worth more than $0 simply due to the latent value it has, ie ability for it to be used in transactions with people who dont know about all the tech details. this period of time will last for months and maybe even years. However, what I predict is that the market battle between XT and core will not be any academic smooth curve sort of thing, but rather a chaotic high volume, high volatility price madness where one coin is worth more than the other, then less, then more. All during this time most businesses will probably be forced to accept both, which means they will be economically vested in both and if the miners can merge mine, without any real cost they can continue to mint both winnercoin and losercoin. Now since this doubling is totally legit and enforced by both blockchains and people will do it, the value in them cannot disappear overnight. Otherwise the businesses that accepted losercoin will all go out of business and they dont like to do that. So we get vested interests in losercoin (or mass bankruptcies) We might end up in a DOS vs Windows scenario. I think DOS lasted for quite some years before it finally died. OP has pointed out that this whole fork will make both winnercoin and losercoins into altcoins and there does not seem to be an alternative. James P.S. I am willing to pay a premium for some satoshis that can be used to taint my BTC. |
|
|
|
Apparently my post about SuperNET is offtopic in the SuperNET thread: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. I'd like to know which supernet dev built the cryptocircuits wallet. That has got to be one of the sickest wallets I have ever seen. Whoever you are you did a great job.
Yeah I'd like to know too who thought it would be a good idea to put a web browser inside a wallet. PS. Bob is just trying to pump the coin where he bought into his own ICO. why do people keep linking this cryptocircuits to SuperNET? I have no idea about anything cryptocircuits and SuperNET has nothing to do with it James Rumor has it that a supernet dev is part of the circuits dev team. Dont know how it started or who started it but that's word on the crypto block. Either way, the wallet is sick. It's also not just the webview in the wallet. Its the 1st webview I've seen with audio and video capabilities. It also has a combination of unlocking panels which also unolck a bonus stake, also a 1st in crypto. @illodin Instead of hating maybe you should check it out. Download the wallet, it costs nothing. since anybody can start a rumor without any basis, there have been many projects that claimed some sort of SuperNET involvement without any basis. Even some fairly prominent ones. With almost 800 in the SuperNET community and the stretching of the definition of "dev", it is possible for someone to signup in the SuperNET slack and then create an artificial association. However, I can categorically state that no SuperNET core dev is involved with cryptocircuits. I make no assessment of this cryptocircuits as I havent event looked at it, but if they are actively spreading this sort of rumor, then you can make your own conclusions about this. Why doesnt the cryptocircuits make an official statement about non-involvement of a SuperNET dev? or disclose which person they are claiming is a SuperNET dev. James |
|
|
|
Got the wallet compiled inside an Android tablet today and guess what? It is working. Been chasing after this for about a week. Now waiting for a block to stake. Will confirm when its staking 100%.
Thank you for your excellent work! I use the explorebtcd.info all the time. Sent you a little donation James |
|
|
|
|
Caught up with buglist, sped up orderbook loading by 10x, support remote servers vi cgi, activated central exchange quotes and trading, enabled automatch and autofill.
I am sure there have to be more bugs than have been reported, but now most all the v1 functionality is enabled. I will work on trading to btc38, MS coins support and stats info calls next
James
|
|
|
|
|
Now the data flow is much more sane, I was able to add Ddos protection pretty quickly.
I use leverage factors of 9, 81 and 729 for local, relay and global requests
you might see a pause for sending placebid/placeask as these are global requests
the leverage factor of 729 means it takes 729x CPU power to create a valid packet than to validate it
so with just 10 relay nodes, over 7000 servers will be needed to successfully attack and the attack would just slow things down
probably an easier attack is at the relay level, it "only" takes 81x the number of relay servers to saturate the relays, but the peer to peer comms already established wont be affected.
i expect we will start with about 30 relays, so 2000+ attacker CPU's at this level. Since any node can elect to become a relay too, under attack scenarios, more and more nodes can become a relay to make the attack more and more expensive or we can boost the leverage at the cost of higher average latency.
James
|
|
|
|
|
Now the data flow is much more sane, I was able to add Ddos protection pretty quickly.
I use leverage factors of 9, 81 and 729 for local, relay and global requests
you might see a pause for sending placebid/placeask as these are global requests
the leverage factor of 729 means it takes 729x CPU power to create a valid packet than to validate it
so with just 10 relay nodes, over 7000 servers will be needed to successfully attack and the attack would just slow things down
probably an easier attack is at the relay level, it "only" takes 81x the number of relay servers to saturate the relays, but the peer to peer comms already established wont be affected.
i expect we will start with about 30 relays, so 2000+ attacker CPU's at this level. Since any node can elect to become a relay too, under attack scenarios, more and more nodes can become a relay to make the attack more and more expensive or we can boost the leverage at the cost of higher average latency.
James
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
