question

[smoothie]

...
Alice could send her 1 XBTC to her address A on the XT-network and her other address B on the BTC-network.  ...

Note that it really doesn't make sense to talk about 'address x on the y-network' absent a change to make formerly legal addresses illegal or vice versa.  Such changes are possible and may be used as tools/weapons when the battle warms up, but that has not been discussed much and is not part of the current conversation.

Also be clear that re-playing a transaction on 'the other chain' (I would anticipate 'the other chainS' being more relevant) does not necessarily do anyone any good unless they control the keys on the recipient end of things.  It is, of course, trivial to send transactions to oneself so that both the sending and receiving keys are controlled and that will be how clued-in people 'double up'.

Should be a lot of fun to watch. I guess it's a good reason for people to learn a little more about how Bitcoin actually works.

Yes!  That would be very wise indeed.

The cloudy period between both chains will come (in my view) if XT nodes hit the ~50% consensus mark. At that time some merchants/users may be confused as to which chain to accept bitcoin payments on for goods and services.

Will definitely be interesting to see how things work during that "adjustment" period.

No one really knows how long the adjustment period will take.

It is possible that the % could go from 49% -> 50% -> 51% -> 49%...in that time that makes things interesting as it crosses that threshold.

[Westin Landon Cox]

More than 2 weeks has passed...

And now 2 weeks has passed since you noted more than 2 weeks have passed. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are running behind schedule, but it seems to still be in the works. Hearn posted about it on reddit ... 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy

I'm not as worried as I was. It looks to me like XT won't get anywhere near 50% of nodes, and especially not 75% of miners. I'm sorta curious how the forking supporters will react.

[LiteCoinGuy]

More than 2 weeks has passed...

And now 2 weeks has passed since you noted more than 2 weeks have passed. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are running behind schedule, but it seems to still be in the works. Hearn posted about it on reddit ... 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy

I'm not as worried as I was. It looks to me like XT won't get anywhere near 50% of nodes, and especially not 75% of miners. I'm sorta curious how the forking supporters will react.

I'm sorta curious how the BTC supporters will react when we hit the 1 MB limit with 30 cent fees per transaction.

but then iam already running a software that supports bigger blocks - probably XT - Satoshis path. 

[oblivi]

More than 2 weeks has passed...

And now 2 weeks has passed since you noted more than 2 weeks have passed. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are running behind schedule, but it seems to still be in the works. Hearn posted about it on reddit ... 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy

I'm not as worried as I was. It looks to me like XT won't get anywhere near 50% of nodes, and especially not 75% of miners. I'm sorta curious how the forking supporters will react.

But didn't Gavin basically said that the idea of 20MB was not a good idea after all and that he would from now on push the 8mb increment each year model? I dont understand. Is Gavin still going for 20MB or he is going for this?

[LiteCoinGuy]

the broad consensus (after alot of discussions) is that we start at 8MB and stay there for 2 years. that is very conservative and realistic in my view.

[tvbcof]

the broad consensus (after alot of discussions) is that we start at 8MB and stay there for 2 years. that is very conservative and realistic in my view.

Obviously the difficulty is in jump-starting to the solution of unleashing the capacity and codebase management structure we need as expressed by Mr. Hearn.  He has a solution which involves a temporary augmentation of data supplied to SPV leaf nodes (known to most as wallets on cell phones.)  It would be best to just go for it with XT right now or very soon while 'we' enjoy the broad consensus you speak of because there are some people who are outside of this consensus and could interfere with the obviously correct path forward if given the time to work on their subversive code.  It is time.  Go! Go! Go!

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

How was Mike Hearn able to publish Bitcoin XT with an adoption threshold by miners of only 75%? Something as important as a Bitcoin hard fork should require a 90% yes vote by miners. Billions of dollars of OPM are at stake here. This is a dangerous game he is playing.

[Meuh6879]

Well, it's not a modification of the blockchain ... she (?) have already use the 33,5MB limite in the past.

[mairtat]

Remember Gavin Andreeson is the same CIA scum who went wagging his tail like an obedient dog. Even Satoshi dumped him after that. For all we know, he's still working undercover. What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

[Carlton Banks]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

[forlackofabettername]

All that shit, lol. If nobody would care about Gavincoin and these people in general it wouldn't matter. Why do you people even pay attention? Nobody going to "update".

[tvbcof]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

[Carlton Banks]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

[tvbcof]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

[Carlton Banks]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. You can't attack a protocol that isn't being used.

[tvbcof]

What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. You can't attack a protocol that isn't being used.

Going back to my initial point which was related to trying to figure out whether Mike and/or Gavin have any affiliation with intel agencies, it doesn't matter much whether the exploit impacted Bitcoin.  The observation was that one of the relatively few things which Gavin worked diligently on over the last few years was getting the code stuck into core, and Mike was a driving force behind him doing so.  As I recall things.  If the protocol was never to be used then why was it shoved in there?  I recall that there was fairly widespread discomfort at building in a reliance on x.509 but those who had qualms about it capitulated eventually.

[nutildah]

So basically XT is meant to be the "rich man's bitcoin" whereas bitcoin the original will now have a better chance at being utilized on a global scale.

I'm telling you guys, the entire reason crypto was interesting in the first place is because of its cost-cutting mechanisms. Digital money transfer has been around for a long, long time. It was just inordinately expensive and middle-manned to the max.

If its now cheaper to work with fiat (Facebook thinks it is) and you need a 1 Terabyte hard drive just to store your coin's blockchain, the coin no longer works to the benefit of those it was meant to help in the first place and is therefore useless.

[Alley]

If the 1mb limit stays tx fees will rise higher then visa.

[TransaDox]

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

Whats this about DNSSEC PKI vs x.509?. Why isn't something like Convergence being investigated?

[Beefcake]

How was Mike Hearn able to publish Bitcoin XT with an adoption threshold by miners of only 75%? Something as important as a Bitcoin hard fork should require a 90% yes vote by miners. Billions of dollars of OPM are at stake here. This is a dangerous game he is playing.

Yeah, I think that 90%+ is best, even if it means we have to deal with hitting the limit for a little while as they think of something else.