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 It simply allows you to craft transactions on each chain which is no longer valid on the other chain.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. Perhaps the split will cause a loss of trust in Bitcoin entirely and neither fork will hold their value. 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.

Add up your total balance.

Choose an appropriate fee manually.

Subtract that fee from your balance.

Send the remaining balance to an address of your choosing using the fee which you subtracted from the original balance.

Yes. If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins. You have IOUs issued by whatever exchange you are using.

If there is a fork, make high fee transactions on the Core chain (a high fee will entice miners to mine on the Core chain). You could also make it clear you are willing to trade things of value for Core coins. Try to purchase more Core coins.

If there is enough demand, some miners will continue to mine on the Core chain. (Some will do it simply because, like you, they do not want XT.)

Taint your coins on the XT chain with some inputs that only exist on the XT chain (XTaint), by sending your coins plus the XTaint to another address you control. (You can now spend XT coins without worrying about your Core coins.)

Sell your XT coins.

Buy Core coins with the proceeds from that sale.

Why bother. Reddit (as far as I am concerned) is a place where practically no valuable information is exchanged.

This guy... makes a lot of sense.

I speculate that people will get what they pay for.

Whether or not I approve of the moderation efforts happening here, I don't really understand this point of view (although I keep seeing it). This is a (private as in ownership) forum for discussing Bitcoin, it has nothing to do with actual Bitcoin technology (which is censorship-proof).

If this forum were somehow built on a distributed block chain, then your observation would be valid.

If anything, this clearly points out why we need Bitcoin in the first place.

The thing is, we don't need Bitcoin's freedom from lousy bankers for every transaction under the sun. All we need is for the system to exist and function so that when we do need it's properties, it is available to us.

I think using Bitcoin to buy a Happy Meal is like using a chain saw to cut down a dandelion.

Sure, but for all practical purposes (in their actions, if not thoughts) they have been forced to consent, which I'll happily admit is an oxymoron.

Well it can be (see democracy), but it shouldn't be.

A fork is nothing to be feared, in fact it is an opportunity (in more ways than one).

Bitcoin transactions are worth more than VISA transactions and I am willing to pay more for them.

I realize this is unspeakable for all the mainstreamers out there.

You get what you pay for.

It's funny that someone who has no stake in this is telling us to "pray that it does not happen", while I am sitting here praying that it does happen.

A fork is nothing to be feared, in fact it should be seen as an opportunity. I'm especially interested in a fork which has (even if temporarily) two surviving chains.

This is all just an experiment and we really need to see what happens when a major, long lasting fork occurs. If Bitcoin can't survive, it wasn't good enough to begin with, and it would be time to go back to the drawing board.

If there is demand for transactions (mining) on both sides of the fork, that demand will obviously be met.

Clearly, since there is no consensus, there will be demand.

If there is a fork, any private keys you hold prior to the fork will exist on both sides. You can then taint them with post-fork coins and separate them entirely (holding both, selling one or the other, selling them both).

If you want to make sure you don't have a vote (the only kind of vote that counts) in the matter, sell before the fork.

Taint and sell one of them in order to purchase more of the other with the proceeds.

satoshi holds the private keys to a lot of bitcoins. Should there be a fork in the future, he can single-handedly devastate whichever side of the fork he doesn't agree with by tainting his coins with coins from a new block from that fork and then dumping them on the market. In a 1-2 punch he can then use the proceeds from that sale to purchase additional coins on the side of the fork he does agree with. In other words, satoshi doesn't have to use his words in this case.

It's pretty clear that Mike doesn't understand what an economic majority means. If you have the economic majority, you don't need to enforce a "technical mess" to fix anything.

I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say, unless they actually want to turn Bitcoin into something completely unrecognizable.

I'm not completely opposed to bigger blocks, but I am completely opposed to BitcoinXT and anything Hearn.