question

[Westin Landon Cox]

So you're forking now the network at an unknown time and date with a simple maority?

It is not a simple majority, it will be a super-majority (>90%) of all nodes run Bitcoin XT or something that supports the larger blocks. Once that happens, there will be an announcement for when and which block will be the block that hard forks, so it is not random and people will know that it is coming.

I've seen this ">90%" claim a lot, but Hearn clearly just says "majority" in that interview. In fact, he says if it comes down to a conflict between the "economic majority" and the "hash majority" (miners), he will add checkpoints to XT to ensure the "economic majority" wins. Here's the relevant part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0&feature=youtu.be

I don't have a problem going along with 20MB (or some compromise limit) if it's really 90% of the miners. If it's 90% of the "nodes" but 50% (or less) of the miners, then I expect very bad results. And it's clear to me from that interview that Hearn is willing to do the 20MB XT fork even if it's less than 50% of the mining power.

[Lauda]

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

If both Chains survive for a period of time how is that not doubling? If you have 10 BTC on Chain X (current), you're going to have 10 BTC on Chain Y (XT) if we fork.
Isn't this correct?

This is just something that caught my eye from one of the discussion. People were saying that it is fine because there is a chance to sell twice which I doubt.

[yayayo]

You just have to install XT later and copy over your wallet if I understood it correctly. The process is simple and if we fork you're going to have double money.
Some people are actually liking the idea of forking because of the potential to sell twice.

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

Yeah, only those on the Hearndresen-fork will be zeroing their money...

I really hope that Maxwell's proposal is accepted now and a real solution for microtransactions based on sidechains is deployed later.

One thing is for sure: I will not support XT.

ya.ya.yo!

[CIYAM]

If it really became so bad that people could "double their money" then I think that Bitcoin would be over and judged as a "failed experiment".

[BillyBobZorton]

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

If both Chains survive for a period of time how is that not doubling? If you have 10 BTC on Chain X (current), you're going to have 10 BTC on Chain Y (XT) if we fork.
Isn't this correct?

This is just something that caught my eye from one of the discussion. People were saying that it is fine because there is a chance to sell twice which I doubt.

There's no way to double your money because the hard fork will only be effective after 90% of consensus is reached, which in practice means by the time this happens the coin that has 10% of nodes on it will be pretty much useless.

[Hollingsworth]

Litecoin to the moon!!!

I don't think this is the way litecoin wants to rise in value.

I would think most alt coins would sink if bitcoin does too.

One exception might be Ripple, which is already trial testing in the financial tech sector.

[Amph]

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

If both Chains survive for a period of time how is that not doubling? If you have 10 BTC on Chain X (current), you're going to have 10 BTC on Chain Y (XT) if we fork.
Isn't this correct?

This is just something that caught my eye from one of the discussion. People were saying that it is fine because there is a chance to sell twice which I doubt.

if that was the case, then xt should be really considered an altcoin, and this is why it will not happen, because it isn't an alt, but just an upgrade to the existing core

if you move your 10 btc, they will be moved from any qt or xt client at the same time

it's like having two client running with the same wallet

[Westin Landon Cox]

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

If both Chains survive for a period of time how is that not doubling? If you have 10 BTC on Chain X (current), you're going to have 10 BTC on Chain Y (XT) if we fork.
Isn't this correct?

This is just something that caught my eye from one of the discussion. People were saying that it is fine because there is a chance to sell twice which I doubt.

There's no way to double your money because the hard fork will only be effective after 90% of consensus is reached, which in practice means by the time this happens the coin that has 10% of nodes on it will be pretty much useless.

Actually, Mike Hearn (who controls the code for XT) is willing to go ahead with a hard fork even with less than 50% of the miners, using checkpoints to ignore the chain with more work. He explained this in a recent interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I made a post about this yesterday, but I think it's worth repeating whenever this ">90%" claim is made. Maybe when the time comes to download the relevant XT code, someone should actually check if the block size limit is only raised after 90% of the miners indicate agreement.

[CIYAM]

Personally I think that the Bitcoin community should be worried about what Mike Hearn is trying to do.

[lemipawa]

Actually, Mike Hearn (who controls the code for XT) is willing to go ahead with a hard fork even with less than 50% of the miners, using checkpoints to ignore the chain with more work. He explained this in a recent interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

If he does that, then he will seriously fuck up Bitcoin and completely discredit it. If it does happen, then people should definitely NOT use Bitcoin XT.

I made a post about this yesterday, but I think it's worth repeating whenever this ">90%" claim is made. Maybe when the time comes to download the relevant XT code, someone should actually check if the block size limit is only raised after 90% of the miners indicate agreement.

I will look at it, but we should definitely get some others too, such as the core devs or Bitcoin Experts on this forum.

[tvbcof]

You just have to install XT later and copy over your wallet if I understood it correctly. The process is simple and if we fork you're going to have double money.
Some people are actually liking the idea of forking because of the potential to sell twice.

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

People who sit on value in the blockchain prior to a fork could very well 'double their money' and probably much more.  The catch is that the sum of all of one's crypto-currency will be much less in, say, USD denominated terms because the credibility of bitcoin-based distributed crypto-currency will be severely eroded and every fork will suffer.  Indeed, crypto-currencies generally will suffer a black-eye and alts will probably not be spared.

The good news, though, is that crypto-currencies are generally more useful when there is a genuine need for them.  If fiat systems become less desirable (through collapse, degradation into 'cashless' systems, increased surveillance which is abused, etc) free crypto-currencies become a much more tangible value proposition.  Probably at least one of the Bitcoin forks will survive as the most viable foil to fiat malfeasance.  One will have to choose the right one (maybe, if forced by the designers) and be willing to sit on one's hands for an extended period of time.  If I have to choose, I'll be choosing the fork which focuses most highly on defense and that absolutely will not be the one which promises to carry everyone's morning coffee purchase on it's native chain.

[MicroGuy]

Personally I think that the Bitcoin community should be worried about what Mike Hearn is trying to do.

I think the military checkpoints discussed below will ensure that the Chinese miners are isolated and the "correct chain" (Bitcoin XT) maintains its integrity.

Checkpoints to ignore longest chain >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

[ArticMine]

Litecoin to the moon!!!

Why would Litecoin go to the moon in this scenario when it has a similar maximum blocksize problem as Bitcoin? Furthermore if Bitcoin resolves the maximum blocksize problem, the problem will still remain in Litecoin. If one wants to hedge against the maximum blocksize problem in Bitcoin using alt-coins it only makes sense to pick an alt-coin that has an adaptive blocksize limit that can grow with time such as Monero.

Edit: Strikethrough added to quote.

[canth]

Its not an altcoin. If you have Bitcoin then you also have "Bitcoin XT"

"Bitcoin XT" absolutely is a altcoin.

Honestly, I don't even understand why this topic hasn't been moved to the altcoin section...

If you had Bitcoin, Litecoin or Dogecoin on May 12th, 2014 you also have CLAMS.  That doesn't make it "Bitcoin".

Unless the majority run XT, at which point anyone running 1MB block Bitcoin Core will be on the altcoin path. Of course, it won't come down to that. Should it be that the majority of nodes run XT, Bitcoin Core will add 20MB blocks and we'll be back to consensus.

[tokeweed]

Belongs in the altcoin section in my opinion.

Good luck with it though.

lol...  This sentiment from some of the Bitcoiners scare me a bit.

[not altcoin hitler]

Where to buy the ICO?

[tokeweed]

Where to buy the ICO?

HAHAHAHA!!!  Well played!

[tss]

Belongs in the altcoin section in my opinion.

Good luck with it though.

lol...  This sentiment from some of the Bitcoiners scare me a bit.

why?  we don't need change.  change is scary. 
so is bitcoin a financial instrument or a programming project?

[LiteCoinGuy]

Where can i buy Bitcoin XT?

you can buy Bitcoin XT and Blockchains on Crypsy.

[Lauda]

if that was the case, then xt should be really considered an altcoin, and this is why it will not happen, because it isn't an alt, but just an upgrade to the existing core

if you move your 10 btc, they will be moved from any qt or xt client at the same time
it's like having two client running with the same wallet

No. That's not how forking works. Doing a hard fork doesn't mean that we're upgrading the current chain, but rather starting a new one from some point (e.g. after a certain block; or when consensus is reached) with some changes/additions to the code.
As I've already stated: if you have 10 BTC on Bitcoin core, you're going to have 10 BTC on XT too. Moving your coins on Bitcoin Core won't move your coins on XT.

This confirms it:

People who sit on value in the blockchain prior to a fork could very well 'double their money' and probably much more.  The catch is that the sum of all of one's crypto-currency will be much less in, say, USD denominated terms because the credibility of bitcoin-based distributed crypto-currency will be severely eroded and every fork will suffer.  Indeed, crypto-currencies generally will suffer a black-eye and alts will probably not be spared.

The good news, though, is that crypto-currencies are generally more useful when there is a genuine need for them.  If fiat systems become less desirable (through collapse, degradation into 'cashless' systems, increased surveillance which is abused, etc) free crypto-currencies become a much more tangible value proposition.  Probably at least one of the Bitcoin forks will survive as the most viable foil to fiat malfeasance.  One will have to choose the right one (maybe, if forced by the designers) and be willing to sit on one's hands for an extended period of time.  If I have to choose, I'll be choosing the fork which focuses most highly on defense and that absolutely will not be the one which promises to carry everyone's morning coffee purchase on it's native chain.

I think the military checkpoints discussed below will ensure that the Chinese miners are isolated and the "correct chain" (Bitcoin XT) maintains its integrity.

Checkpoints to ignore longest chain >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

Thank you for sharing this. I knew that Hearn's intentions were wrong from the start. I wonder what he is really up to?