Not Bitcoin XT

[achow101]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set (0x20000007 in hex)."

So, what will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? Without the needed hashpower, XT will become surely an altcoin with near-zero value?

Which is the goal of this or to cause confusion that forces an abort.

But then what happens if a lot of xt miners are also producing blocks to the point that the forked chain had enough halshpower to survive?

[1714900730]

1714900730

[1714900730]

1714900730

[1714900730]

1714900730

[1714900730]

1714900730

[Delek]

But then what happens if a lot of xt miners are also producing blocks to the point that the forked chain had enough halshpower to survive?

That's the point.

You can't REALLY know how much power is in each side BEFORE the fork, only AFTER the fork.

What will happen if we get that 75% of blocks were mined with those bits setted but, in reality, the hashpower is 49.3% and 50.7%. Goodbye Bitcoin.

This fork COULD BE a mess, maybe not, but could be in the scenario that I'm describing. This is REALLY necessary?, it is too much risk mate. We should stay with Bitcoin Core and make a new version of it, not building ANOTHER client to fork the blockchain.

[iCEBREAKER]

the people opposed to XT don't want anyone to know how many other people are on board because they are fully aware that if people had accurate information about it, they'd be the losers.  

If the anti-XT people are that sure they're losing, why should any of the rest of us doubt?

Unless NotXT can now make pod-person versions of Gavinistas, you've confused nodes/blocks with "people."   

We are aware of the (apparent) popularity, especially on vapid cute-animal-focused social media, of XT.

How many times must we explain Bitcoin is not a one-opinion-one-vote democracy?  FFS, the populism and self-pity are nauseating.

Theymos already (famously) declared Gavinistas, whether 90% or 51%, are welcome to fuck off to their own forums and subs.

Why don't you demonstrate GavinCoin's supposedly dominant socioeconomic consensus, by being among the first to defect from Trolltalk?

If we miss you, we'll come say hello over at /v/bitcoinxt.

[JorgeStolfi]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set (0x20000007 in hex)."

So, what will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? Without the needed hashpower, XT will become surely an altcoin with near-zero value?

The same thing that would happen if a group of miners with majority power decided to play see-saw with the blockchain.  That is, they mine ten blocks B(N+1), B(N+2), ... B(N+10) normally on top of some block B(N), then go back and mine 20 blocks C(N+1), C(N+2), ... C(N+20) on top of the same B(N), then mine another 20 blocks B(N+11), B(N+12), ..., B(N+30) on top of B(N+10), then mine C(N+21), C(N+22), ... C(N+40) on top of C(N+20), then...

Every sane person would conclude that bitcoin is a joke, while true bitcoiners will find a way to view that as "good for bitcoin".  That is what would happen.

[iCEBREAKER]

No.  We really don't.  

If there is a fork, then one or the other of the two chains dies within a day.  Whatever is left is BTC.  

That was the case in with the previous forks where we had almost 100% consensus before the chain was forked. We now have two people and some followers that try to force the majority to accept their change package. Several people and some pools will not switch to the BXT forkcoin or use both coins BTC and BXT. There are good chances that we will continue with two chains. If this is established as a good way to push changes into the market, we might see several additional chains in the future.

This is fine with me. Everybody and every group of people is free to use their own set of consensus rules and fork the coin. But as long as the original coin is alive the forkcoin should not use the name of the original coin.

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

As if the socioeconomic war of Gavincoin shorts vs longs will be over "within a day."  As if MPEX will simply get bored after a few hours and abandon whatever battle plans for a protracted/expensive strategy of attrition he is doubtlessly currently devising.   

If XT's fork is triggered it is not the end of the Great Schism, only the beginning of the hot phase.

[JorgeStolfi]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.  Either BitcoinXT (and/or other 8 MB versions of the software) will secure approval of 75% of the miners, in 6-8 months at most, and then 100% of the miners will switch to it; or it will fail to do so, and any miners that switched to it will promptly switch back.  The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

But (sorry if I repeat myself) the "fake XT" proposal underscores the silliness of blockchain voting.  It is typical of the hacker mindset: a complicated programming hack that is invented in an attempt to avoid the need for personal contacts and political negotiation. 

Well, sorry, but that does not work.  The size limit issue will be decided by *people*, not computers or algorithms.  The only effective way to obtain a consensus on some issue is to discuss it with the relevant *people*; listening to them, trying to understand their worries and goals, finding a proposal that most of them could approve, or at least accept, triyng to convince them to do so, and getting their pledge that they will do so.   

Gavin, even without being obviously a political genius, knows how to do that (because of his experience at Google, and with the 2010 and 2013 incidents).  That is what he did this time, e.g. getting the Chinese miners to agree to 8 MB.  That is apparently an approach that Greg and Adam, prototypical hackers that they are, do not seem capable of doing -- and, for that reason, hate it, and call it "populist tactics".

I bet that the Core × XT "war" will be resolved that way: the miners (the Chinese, and probably others too) will talk to each other, and eventually agree that they all should raise the limit (by downloading BitcoinXT or some other 8 MB version, or rolling their own); or that they all should stick to 1 MB.

By the way, in the BitcoinXT Github repository there is already a branch that has only the 8 MB limit increase, without the other controversial changes:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

(This is not a recommendation, of course; only an information.)

[Peter R]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.  Either BitcoinXT (and/or other 8 MB versions of the software) will secure approval of 75% of the miners, in 6-8 months at most, and then 100% of the miners will switch to it; or it will fail to do so, and any miners that switched to it will promptly switch back.  The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

But (sorry if I repeat myself) the "fake XT" proposal underscores the silliness of blockchain voting.  It is typical of the hacker mindset: a complicated programming hack that is invented in an attempt to avoid the need for personal contacts and political negotiation. 

Well, sorry, but that does not work.  The size limit issue will be decided by *people*, not computers or algorithms.  The only effective way to obtain a consensus on some issue is to discuss it with the relevant *people*; listening to them, trying to understand their worries and goals, finding a proposal that most of them could approve, or at least accept, triyng to convince them to do so, and getting their pledge that they will do so.   

Gavin, even without being obviously a political genius, knows how to do that (because of his experience at Google, and with the 2010 and 2013 incidents).  That is what he did this time, e.g. getting the Chinese miners to agree to 8 MB.  That is apparently an approach that Greg and Adam, prototypical hackers that they are, do not seem capable of doing -- and, for that reason, hate it, and call it "populist tactics".

I bet that the Core × XT "war" will be resolved that way: the miners (the Chinese, and probably others too) will talk to each other, and eventually agree that they all should raise the limit (by downloading BitcoinXT or some other 8 MB version, or rolling their own); or that they all should stick to 1 MB.

By the way, in the BitcoinXT Github repository there is already a branch that has only the 8 MB limit increase, without the other controversial changes:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

(This is not a recommendation, of course; only an information.)

I never thought I'd see the day that I completely agree with JorgeStolfi

[iCEBREAKER]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.

The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

Yes, the thing about unpredictable outcomes is that their outcomes are difficult or even impossible to predict.  I blame the unimaginable chaos for that.  

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

As the big fat buttcoiner brain bug, are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I did see your 'I actually like BTC but am very skeptical' and admire your financial conservatism BTW...  

[jl777]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.

The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

Yes, the thing about unpredictable outcomes is that their outcome is difficult or even impossible to predict.  I blame the unimaginable chaos for that.  

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

As the big fat buttcoiner brain bug, are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I did see your 'I actually like BTC but am very skeptical' and admire your financial conservatism BTW...  

I never thought there will be the day I agree with icebreaker

[dooglus]

The only way that I can see that we end up with two chains is if the fork occurs without consensus. With BitcoinXT, the fork is programmed to occur with consensus, therefore that fork becomes BTC.

I don't think so. It only requires 75% of miners to agree. None of the other 25% of miners or any of the exchanges or merchants matter at all.

That's not consensus.

Even the recent soft fork required 95% before it was enforced:

when 950 out of the 1000 blocks preceding a block do have nVersion = 3, nVersion = 2 blocks become invalid, and all further blocks enforce the new rules

So why only 75% for this much riskier hard fork? Because they know it has no chance of reaching consensus.

[Bagatell]

Because they know it has no chance of reaching consensus.

Concensus or unanimity? Two different things in my dictionary.

[JorgeStolfi]

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

The problem is that, as I tried to explain, there will not be a "Gavincoin" and an "Adamcoin".  Even if the chain splits, and the 1 MB branch survives for a while, there will be just a two-headed bitcoin. Even if you could trade and speculate on each coin separately, you cannot attack one in the market without harming the other. 

are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I cannot avoid being the comp sci prof here.  Technically, what Gavin and Mike say is right, and increasing the limit is necessary for two reasons that can't be ignored:

* With 1 MB limit, it is already too cheap and easy to carry out a spam attack.  A attacker with 10'000 USD budget could probably delay half of the legit traffic for days; an such an attack will get easier and cheaper as time goes on. With 8 MB limit, such attack would be at least 10 times more expensive for the attacker.

* Congestion would make bitcoin unusable for ordinary e-paymets.  The user base will stop growing; users wil be turned away not just because of fee increase, but mostly because of the long and unpredictable delays. 

In contrast, for these past 2 months Adam has been only spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominems.  For one thing, he always says "size" instead of "size limit", then claims that 8 MB blocks will have very serious effects (first it was on full node count, then on orphan rate, then mining centralization...) but does not offer evidence or numbers.  At the same time he ignores completely the two points above.  He promises that the LN will provide the growth that the 1 MB limit denies; but the LN will not work, and will not be bitcoin...

[KurtB]

https://i.imgur.com/HI4kOGA.jpg

I will bring one online on the weekend, but I think there is still some work to do. Current measures against the XT Attack propagate a certain helplessness that makes the blockchain vulnerable to further bullying attempts.

I fear that if the Hearn Gang and their instigators get away with minor bruises and the pockets full of scammed Bitcoin they will certainly try again.

[_mr_e]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.

The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

Yes, the thing about unpredictable outcomes is that their outcome is difficult or even impossible to predict.  I blame the unimaginable chaos for that.  

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

As the big fat buttcoiner brain bug, are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I did see your 'I actually like BTC but am very skeptical' and admire your financial conservatism BTW...  

I never thought there will be the day I agree with icebreaker

Maybe you should take that as a hint that you might be wrong:p

[Carlton Banks]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

You mean Cryddit Little? Come on, he's been turning up waving his hands about questionable technical issues for at least several months now, are you trying to tell me he had credibility before this debate began?

[Carlton Banks]

but the LN will not work, and will not be bitcoin...

Yes Jorge, that's why they're using different names for the two different technologies. Using different names for essentially different concepts is a useful method of being able to refer to said concepts in a way that makes them easy to differentiate from one another.

[iCEBREAKER]

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.

The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

Yes, the thing about unpredictable outcomes is that their outcome is difficult or even impossible to predict.  I blame the unimaginable chaos for that.  

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

As the big fat buttcoiner brain bug, are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I did see your 'I actually like BTC but am very skeptical' and admire your financial conservatism BTW...  

I never thought there will be the day I agree with icebreaker

IKR?  Politics makes strange bedfellows.  Obviously we should team up and blame Heam for this chaos, so we can go quickly get back to our cherished traditional disagreements.   

[iCEBREAKER]

there will not be a "Gavincoin" and an "Adamcoin".  Even if the chain splits, and the 1 MB branch survives for a while, there will be just a two-headed bitcoin. Even if you could trade and speculate on each coin separately, you cannot attack one in the market without harming the other.

You are assuming at least two facts not yet in evidence.  Your asserted answers to empirical questions carry very little weight.

Your narrow comp sci prof paradigm is insufficient to make predictions which involve dominant socioeconomic factors.

EG, although 1mb spam attacks are cheap, they do nothing to tx paying competitive fees.  Making blocks 8 times larger only makes spam attacks [8 times cheap] more expensive, while other trade-offs incur increasingly (superlinear) negative margin returns.

[KurtB]

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

The problem is that, as I tried to explain, there will not be a "Gavincoin" and an "Adamcoin".  Even if the chain splits, and the 1 MB branch survives for a while, there will be just a two-headed bitcoin. Even if you could trade and speculate on each coin separately, you cannot attack one in the market without harming the other.  

If the fork is not successful, all transactions on that fork will be void; simple orphans from a (1 MB) Bitcoin point of view. That happens every day, it's why we wait for more than one confirmation.
If a person decides to take the risk and accept the fork, don't you think that person would also want a premium for assuming that risk?
If I have a claim in Bitcoin and the other side is trying to settle with XTCoin, how do they pay the premium even if I were to accept?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

This is defiantly not a good idea.

As a defiant idea, it's definitely good.