Topic: Is it mandatory to upgrade to XT? (Read 2682 times)
No, it's optional. Running XT is just for a show of support for the block size limit increase.
is there any FAQ related to XT/core stuff and basics? I see those kind of threads daily and it will be obviously helpfull to summarize it to some sticky thread..
I think a sticky would be a great bit of info. There was this epic thread debating the fork which went on for pages and literally hit that Hitler moment sometime towards the end, but that one was too emotional. If someone knows the best thread on this with the most concise and clear set of facts, I'd love to see a mod do a sticky as its a really important topic in our community these days.
is there any FAQ related to XT/core stuff and basics? I see those kind of threads daily and it will be obviously helpfull to summarize it to some sticky thread..
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story.
Alas, videos. Ah well, I'll try to find a time and some headphones to check out that link. Thanks!
I guess what you said about miners potentially having a different set of motivations from other users makes sense. But only to a certain degree (at least to me). Miners also have to be users if they want to spend the bitconi they've mined. I have one last follow-up question here, did Gavin Andresen end up switching to develop on XT or was that just a maybe that never happened. I would guess that Gavin wouldn't be for throwing away the forking rules.
It's a difficult situation. Who has a bigger weight, the big ass industrial miners, or the small time miners + bitcoin users (people that run nodes by leaving their wallet open)? There should be a way to balance both sides of the coin.
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story.
Alas, videos. Ah well, I'll try to find a time and some headphones to check out that link. Thanks!
I guess what you said about miners potentially having a different set of motivations from other users makes sense. But only to a certain degree (at least to me). Miners also have to be users if they want to spend the bitconi they've mined. I have one last follow-up question here, did Gavin Andresen end up switching to develop on XT or was that just a maybe that never happened. I would guess that Gavin wouldn't be for throwing away the forking rules.
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story.
Core itself contains multiple checkpoints and checks for soft (and possibly hard) fork rules. These rules come into play whenever a consensus rule change is occurring and a fork is involved. The checks are not specific to a particular change, but to all changes. Hearn is planning on changing those checkpoints and check rules in order to implement the block size fork quickly.
Do you have a reference on that? What's his motivation? The way you present it, it sounds like he's a madman throwing safety to the wind. Surely there's another side to the story.
In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
The problem is that Mike Hearn is willing/going to put checkpoints into the source code that will ignore the old chain and fork it even if consensus isn't reached. He said he is willing to do this when the majority of people have switched to Bitcoin XT. Doing that and overriding the built in super-majority checks is bad for Bitcoin and could cause it to crash. Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both.
While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause.
There are several problems with this and I hope it does not come to this, but as users we have a choice and most importantly can just sit out the storm or even move to an alt for the time beeing. Those of us with full nodes on proper servers might have somewhat of a vote, but I doubt thats the deciding factor. The big questions are #1 which coin do the merchants accept (usefullness), #2 which coin do the exchanges accept (exchangeability to fiat and other currencies) and #3 which coin do the miners accept (network security). The coin that gets all of them will win eventually, the biggest problems will arise if no coin can get a majority in either group or even worse can e.g. get a majority of the merchants, but not a majority of the miners. What good is a widely acceped coin that can easily be attacked by a large pool of "another" coin? Even worse these two coins battle for the same historical blockchain. Someone recently described this not as a simple Y fork with two chains, but as a hydra with multiple chains poping up. Every orphaned block potentially creating another chain.
This potential clusterfuck is why I hope the issue at hand can be solved calmly and without putting foots down.
In theory there is no clusterfuck scenareo since the fork only happens when super consensus is reached. Until then, both coins are technically the same and therefore accepted everywhere.
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both.
While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause.
There are several problems with this and I hope it does not come to this, but as users we have a choice and most importantly can just sit out the storm or even move to an alt for the time beeing. Those of us with full nodes on proper servers might have somewhat of a vote, but I doubt thats the deciding factor. The big questions are #1 which coin do the merchants accept (usefullness), #2 which coin do the exchanges accept (exchangeability to fiat and other currencies) and #3 which coin do the miners accept (network security). The coin that gets all of them will win eventually, the biggest problems will arise if no coin can get a majority in either group or even worse can e.g. get a majority of the merchants, but not a majority of the miners. What good is a widely acceped coin that can easily be attacked by a large pool of "another" coin? Even worse these two coins battle for the same historical blockchain. Someone recently described this not as a simple Y fork with two chains, but as a hydra with multiple chains poping up. Every orphaned block potentially creating another chain.
This potential clusterfuck is why I hope the issue at hand can be solved calmly and without putting foots down.
Now I couldn't agree more with what you just said. I was imagining just such a terrible situation if miners are using one fork and the merchants that have been facilitating the economy (coinbase, etc) were using the other---then imagine the media shitstorm and the huge selloff and I think our coins would become worth very little (probably on both forks). Anyway, I'm with you hoping that the community can find a way to move forward without issue. As far as I know, though, the fact that the fork isn't supposed to happen (ever) unless 90% of the last 1000 blocks are new version, that part is comforting. Seems to basically guarantee consensus if/when it happens.
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both.
While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause.
There are several problems with this and I hope it does not come to this, but as users we have a choice and most importantly can just sit out the storm or even move to an alt for the time beeing. Those of us with full nodes on proper servers might have somewhat of a vote, but I doubt thats the deciding factor. The big questions are #1 which coin do the merchants accept (usefullness), #2 which coin do the exchanges accept (exchangeability to fiat and other currencies) and #3 which coin do the miners accept (network security). The coin that gets all of them will win eventually, the biggest problems will arise if no coin can get a majority in either group or even worse can e.g. get a majority of the merchants, but not a majority of the miners. What good is a widely acceped coin that can easily be attacked by a large pool of "another" coin? Even worse these two coins battle for the same historical blockchain. Someone recently described this not as a simple Y fork with two chains, but as a hydra with multiple chains poping up. Every orphaned block potentially creating another chain.
This potential clusterfuck is why I hope the issue at hand can be solved calmly and without putting foots down.
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both.
While I believe you are technically corect, I think that what you're describing, Sho, sounds like a worst case scenario imo. I'm certainly hoping that the world doesn't end up with bitcoin and xtcoin existing independently---I think it'd be a marketing disaster for us. Which one is Overstock.com gonna take when I want to buy something, for example? What kinds of mess would that cause.
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
If you have pre fork coins in your own wallet you have bitcoin and xtcoin after the fork. You never have to switch you just can use both.
Switching to XT is like a vote to show your support for raising the blocksize limit. It's not madatory, it is entirely your choice. If and when the fork is scheduled, you would need to switch to use your coins. There is no date set for the fork and your are safe using either one now.
Hopefully XT will get rolled into core long before any fork occurs. At least that's what I'm hoping for. The last thing bitcoin needs is more drama regarding which fork of the software is the better one to be on.
It is not mandatory, nothing is mandatory. You don't need to upgrade now. If more than 90% of the nodes and the last 1000 blocks mined follow the new rules, then there will be an official announcement from Gavin (probably) about the time and block number of the hard fork. It becomes recommended to change to Bitcoin XT if this happens, as the old chain will be left insecure and unused. However, a change to Bitcoin XT is not necessarily required; there is the possibility that Bitcoin Core will support the change. Unless you support the change, then there is currently no need to change to Bitcoin XT and it most certainly is not mandatory.
core or xt is my question. and why? will the coin fork according to this http://altcoinpress.com/2015/06/satoshi-loyalists-upgrade-to-bitcoin-xt-before-deadline/ and people left behind?
Jump to: