I have thought about this for a little bit, and I have thought of two scenarios that could happen because of NotBitcoinXT

Scenario #1: Some people (a small percentage, less than 10%), including miners and exchanges, use BitcoinXT. NotBitcoinXT gains enough usage to cause a fork. Those 10% using XT are forked, while everyone else continues on normally. Some business is disrupted, but not too majorly and those XT users abandon XT and return to Bitcoin Core and your plan worked to maintain the status quo.

Scenario #2: A large portion( around 50%) of the users are using XT, and some more people use NotBitcoinXT which causes a fork. Now half of the Network is one the XT chain, and the other half on the Core chain. There are essentially two Bitcoins because the XT chain will continue to call itself Bitcoin since it was supposed to be a fork with consensus. Users will be frustrated because there are two coins called Bitcoin but you can't know which one to use. Business are confused and get angry customers because of the two chains, and new users don't know which one to use. lot of users and businesses stop using Bitcoin due to the hassle involved with trying to sell things with Bitcoin and two chains. Then they leave and don't come back because of this massive fuck-up and Bitcoin is Dead. Also, malicious users will have both clients, and get double their coins and attempt to sell to get the most profit.

Scenario #3: Ntohing happens and neither XT nor NotBitcoinXT gains enough traction to cause a fork.

Also, if people start to see XT to appear like it is gaining traction(when a lot of it is NotBitcoinXT nodes) and nearing the fork point, it might actually cause more people to jump to XT in order to stay in business. After the fork scenario two happens and shit hits the fan.

So again, please tell me how causing Scenario #2 is good? Or are you trying to go for Scenario #1?

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm a litttle slow, but I still don't understand how causing a premature fork is good for Bitcoin and maintains the status quo?

Wouldn't a fork create two blockchains with some people on one and others on the other. If exchanges and miners don't specify which blockchain they are on, then users get confused, new users are even more confused, and people stop using Bitcoin. People then stop using Bitcoin both because of the confusion, and the fact that two of them now exist completely discredits Bitcoin. So not only is XT discredited and abandoned, but so is Bitcoin. So please explain to me how a premature fork is actually good since it has long been established that FORKING WITHOUT CONSENSUS IS NOT A GOOD THING which is what this client is doing.

I think I may have found where the problem is, but I will need to do some testing. This is just from looking at the code. I think it has to do with VarInt and the readVarInt() method in message.java. This method is called to get the length of the array and I think it isn't doing something correctly which causes the length to be too small. I need to check this out with debugging though.

Hexafraction, can you send me the main class that you are using?

No. I don't think it is because the only thing with signatures are transactions. I think it is actually verifiying each block and transaction to match the consensus rules. Everything must be in the right format, and then the client uses the data given in each block and transaction to calculate the hashes and checks if it matches. For example (overly simplified), in a transaction, it must verify the signatures match. Then it must hash the entire transaction and the hash should come out to be the transaction id. If it doesn't match, the transaction doesn't validate. Then for blocks, it must hash every transaction together, which in some blocks can be more than 1000, and it gets the merkle root. Then it must combine the data in the header such has timestamp, nonce, and whatever else and get the block hash. If the hash it gets matches the hash it was given, the block validates.

The reason this takes so long is not because hashing is slow, but because of the sheer size of the blockchain. It must validate every single block it receives, from block 0 to 370298 and beyond. This is what takes the most time. The process can be sped up with faster processors to do all of that hashing, which is why different computers take different times to validate and index the blockchain.

Signature validation does not take 24 hours. What exactly are you talking about? Are you talking about validating the blockchain?

So what happens when a premature fork happens? What happens when some exchanges are using XT, some aren't. Some people are using XT and others aren't. Now you have exactly the situation which having the threshold in XT prevents, two separate blockchains operating with (possibly) equal power. Now there are two Bitcoins. What do we do then? This is what could happen if people start using this node fake XT node. Again, as I have said before, such a fork is a terrible idea, and this modified XT node will only make the likelihood of such a fork worse.

I just looked at the code and it looks like the only things changed are two lines which change the date from 1452470400 (11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 UTC) to UINT_MAX which IIRC is 4294967295 (02/07/2106 @ 6:28am (UTC)). So he didn't actually stop the hard fork in those clients, but rather postponed it for another 91 years. OP, you should fix that.

Exactly. It has the same features (double spend relaying, etc.) and it uses the same block versions. The only difference is that it will not accept the forked block as valid for another 91 years.

This is such a terrible idea. Why would you want to spoof Bitcoin XT, it will just cause the fork to happen before consensus occurs and if enough people were using that fork, you suddenly just screwed over Bitcoin. Please don't do this, it is such a bad idea. Have you actually considered the consequences of a premature fork? If you haven't, please do think about what could happen to the Bitcoin network if a premature hard fork occurs.

Are you the reason that it looks like Bitcoin XT is gaining traction on bitnodes?

Wrote what? The email? If so, can you prove it?

Probably to cover the fee for the winner so that the winner would actually get 0.2 BTC.

Also, OP, anymore hints for us yet?

This is a specific service problem, it is MyBitMine's problem, not Bitcoin's nor yours. Try contacting their support to see if they can help you.

Yes, but only because it uses the same blockchain up until the fork. Any transactions that you do after the fork will not show up on both blockchains, only the one that you are using.

Do you think it is possible that someone is simply setting up tons of Bitcoin XT nodes just to make it seem like there is more support for it?

Also, am I the first person to do this?

Their will not be two separate coins since the fork only occurs after 75% of the miners switch to use XT. There will technically be 2 coins, but one will be less secure and less used than the other. Also, it is a fork, so it does not reward current btc users with its coin, but everything in the current blockchain will be in the forked blockchain. Also, there is plenty of debate of whether xt is considered an altcoin.

Where I can I find this blog post? I want to judge for myself.

It is also possible that the vistomail account was terminated and the hacker was able to register the email again like how the gmx hacker worked. The vistomail was also a lesser known account so the hacker may not have known that it existed.

I have a sr. member account to sell if you are interested.

Are there any clients that implement the other BIPs?

Check your firewall settings to make sure that bitcoin-qt.exe is allowed to have incoming connections as well as tcp port 8333. Also check your router's firewall to make sure that it isn't blocking tcp port 8333.

That is a different situation than what is going on here. Sure the likelihood that that person is who they say they are is pretty high, but what about some really famous person who no one has ever seen before (no pictures, nothing) and have only been known online and suddenly one day a random person says that he is this person? Would you really trust that guy to be saying the truth? Or would you ask for more proof of his identity? That is what we are doing here. No one knows who satoshi is, what he looks like, or anything about him except that he is some guy on the internet who created this cool thing called Bitcoin. Without any other information about Satoshi, no one can really vouch for him and we can't know that this person is him without some kind of proof since anyone can say "I am Satoshi".