Topic: "Bitcoin" XT Status Update - page 3. (Read 11197 times)

Or put the NOTXT Nodes back on core and let XT sit at 5-7% until they give up and relize their shit isn't going anywhere and they find a better solution.

If Bitcoin forks in January and there isn't something close to a 50/50 split, you can be damn sure that miners, merchants, exchanges are going to pick the winner real fast, no matter which side it's on. The market you are talking about would evaporate nearly instantly.

So XT puts out a proposal requiring a vote. NoXT gambles with everyone's value using deceipt while hoping that it doesn't put the hashing power over the top. There can be no argument here - this is the riskiest part of the entire endeavor.

Great movie, bad analogy.  

That would be an interesting experiment:

Set up an exchange such that before the fork all deposits of BTC credit the user's BTC and BXT accounts with the amount of the deposit. Then let the users trade BTC for BXT on a market. Forbid withdrawals until after the fork.

So I deposit 1 BTC today, get 1 BTC and 1 BXT in my exchange accounts, and sell the 1 BXT for 1 BTC. So I have 2 BTC and 2 BXT in my exchange accounts.

After the fork the exchange is careful to make sure that all withdrawals are valid only on the fork on which they belong, so I withdraw my 2 BTC and have doubled my money - so long as the BXT fork doesn't "win" (in which case I have lost 1 BTC, and the guy I traded with has doubled up).

There would need to be a rule about what happens if the fork doesn't happen by a certain date. I guess all trades would be cancelled and everyone would get their BTC back. Or alternatively it could be considered that since the fork didn't happen, all BXT account balances are worthless and BTC balances stand.

The exchange rate on such a market would be a much better indicator of how the economic majority feels about the BTC vs. BXT debate than anything we currently have.

I remember something similar happened after MtGox froze withdrawals, before it became obvious that MtGox dollars were worthless.

Your disdain for the value of the adversarial process (IE fighting features) is noted, as is your preference for controversial, dramatic "reckless" vanity forks.

The proper channels of the BIP process have kept Bitcoin going this long, and are based on time-tested FOSS best practices.

You disdain for them and eagerness to grant Mike "Final Call" Heam unlimited power are noted as well.  

It's the NoXT supporters who could do the most damage, actually. By itself XT either gets to 75% or it doesn't. With NoXT, it's more likely that we could get to a true 50/50 split for mining power and yet still trigger larger blocks. That'll cause all sorts of drama and for most of us will just mean that we won't do transactions for a few days while the mess sorts itself out. To use a classic movie quote:

"Konovalov Crewman: Torpedo, Dead Ahead!"

"Andrei Bonovia: [to Captain Tupolev] You arrogant ass! You've killed us!"

The project is interesting because it *might* damage Bitcoin.  Not many things can do that.

The solution is running and mining blocks with NotXT nodes.

Contact your favorite pool ops/devs and ask them to add a port for NotXT miners.

When XT is lulled into a false sense of security, we spring the trap and kill it.

I'm so glad there's a proper channels police in bitcoin to save us all.

Yes, I'm well aware there are BIPs although some of them are a joke and you know it. Pieter's unnumbered BIP doesn't increase the block size to 2MB until 4 years from now, Garza's 2MB BIP 102 seems a joke given how well it was accepted by the other core devs. Things are progressing really well - I'm sure they'll come to consensus any year now.

This project can damage to Bitcoin network . how it is interesting ? .... Anyway
Now , We know problems and the question is what is the final solution ? Is there any possible solution ?

The core devs have multiple BIPs for bigger blocks working their way through the proper channels.

Quick, move the goalposts again so as to make XT appear reasonable despite its checkpoints/spying/TorBlock/"final call"/weak "75%" threshold/etc.

BitcoinXT BIP 101 forks becomes a non-issue if the core devs decide to increase the blocksize, as Coinbase and Charlie Lee and many others believe it should be. They've got months until January rolls around - let's see if they can get it together before then.

Everyone's on the chain until Jan 2016. At the earliest.

Any exchange that has bitcoin has XT.  Their still on the same chain.

Big NACK for XT from the creator of Litecoin:

Are there any exchanges with Bitcoin xt at the moment?

With all the damn threads, it seems like half of them, I think we know the f#$&king status.

lol

Bingo!  Thanks for playing along and being a good sport.   

been saying it all along, it's gavins coin not bitcoin.
and I'm purposely running core just to give my vote.

I figgered as much. To be honest, I think it's a flawed principle because it's much more restrictive than those good ol' maxims of prudence that automatically left wiggle room for "leaps of faith" and other kinds of risk-taking.

But that's me. I stand by what I wrote earlier: "whatever keeps your boat afloat." You're wise to stick with your criteria; I'll stick with mine.

To be honest, I did download the full-node XT QT but I stopped running it when I saws that the Chinese miners didn't want to sign on. By that decision criterion, I pegged XT as yet another fad destined for the Land of Forgotten Fads. The way things look now, I might well have been wrong - but I'm still waiting it out & using Multibit.


Well, I'll say one thing: my limited intellectual resources do make it feasible for me to recognize when I'm wrong.