Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 8. (Read 21893 times)

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. If it occurs without consensus (which is what NotBitcoinXT is doing) then we will end up with two chains and both BTC and BXT will be discredited and then both will crash and die.

Indeed that is the point.  The way the fork is programmed, every transactions will be in principle valid under both sets of 'consensus rules' and executed in both branches of the blockchain.  Sometimes, by accident or crafty art, a transaction may be executed in only one branch; or the same input may be sent to two different adrresses, one in each branch.  However, ordinary clients will have no control over such events (and may be confused by them).

So, it does not make sense to call either branch an altcoin, or to invent a symbol for it.  Splits of the chain (ophaning) happens all the time even when everyone is running the same version of the software.  

It is also not logical to say that one branch is an altcoin because it uses different 'consensus rules' than those that were in force before.  Once a block smaller than 1 MB has been solved, it is impossible to tell which software was used to solve it.  (There is a version field in the header, but the software can set ti to anything it wants; it is ignored by the protocol.) Thus one can claim that the limit has always been 8 MB since genesis, or 17.3 GB; and both branches would then be valid according to these 'consensus rules' too.

Or also: suppose that someone posts a version of the software -- let's call it BitcoinZZ -- that does NOT cut the block reward in half when it should.  If that version attracts enough miners, but not 100%, the chain will split into two branches, one with 25 coins of block rewards, as in the common trunk, and the other with 12.5 coins.  Which one will be the true Bitcoin: the one with a change in the reward, or the one whithout the change?

This question is connected tp a famous logical/philosophical paradox of Bleen and Grue.  Everybody knows that emeralds are grue, and sapphires are bleen.  But a curious thing will happen on March 17, 2017, when emeralds will suddenly become bleen and sapphires will turn grue.  Some weirdos say that things are 'green' if they are grue until that date and bleen afterwards; but why would one give a name for a color that becomes a different color at some date? That is stupid...

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.

If it works out like this, then I think everyone agrees that the remaining chain can be named "Bitcoin".  However, I don't see how anyone could know for sure that it will, indeed, play out this way.  As far as I can tell, we never had a fork that was even comparatively as disputed as this one.

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. 

The point is we need to the name the things correctly. In case of a fork we have two coins and every users and every service has to be able to distinguish between them. This has to be done until one of the two chains is not used anymore.

It makes no sense to rename the longest Bitcoin chain as this the original chain with the original consensus rules. As BitcoinXT is the new coin we have to find a new name for this coin which could be BXT. If someone pays with BTC/BXT or accepts BTC/BXT it should be clear for everyone which coin is meant to be used. If we immediately reach 100% consensus we can name the BXT fork BTC as we did in the previous forks, but as long as there are BTC users we need to distinguish between the forkcoin (for those who don't like the name alternative coin or altcoin) and between the original BTC.

The problem did not occur in the past as we almost immediately reached 100% consensus when the hard fork takes place. This time it looks like we will end with BTC users and we will have BXT users when the chain is forked. The miners have to decide which coin to mine and we continue with to competing chains. This is fine for me. Depending on the value I will try to change my BXT into BTC as I will not be able to deal with a coin that allows blocks with 8GB (Gigabytes) every 10 minutes (in 2036).

More to the point it proves that 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?

There are also other BIPs that propose and implement bigger blocks such as BIP 100 and 102. Some people may support bigger blocks, but not XT specifically.

Part of it is all the fear mongering out there from the small blocks camp, as well as just the human psychology/sociology involved. A lot of people simply won't make a decision until they see others have already decided, and the existence of Not Bitcoin XT doesn't help that one bit. It proves that we don't even *have* an accurate way for people to find out how many other people have already gotten on board.

If ~75% of the users and even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, how come XT doesn't have 75% of the nodes and a large portion of the blocks aren't blocks with the XT version number?

As far as I can see the argument is already over if the anti-XT crowd feels it is so certain to lose any fair contest that it will resort to tactics like this.

Seriously.  They screamed all rational discussion about ending the block size limit to a standstill even though ~75% of the users and an even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, and now that they are facing an actual implementation of a client that will hardfork to >1MB blocks they're trying to sabotage the consensus process rather than allow consensus to be decided by adoption? 

At what point do they admit they've already lost?

False. Any Bitcoin Core release requiring a soft fork or a hard fork forks the chain.

amazing to see how fast some guys mutating badly as soon as reaching the feeding trough.
well, on the other hand all this saves time because there is no more need to speculate
about the - under the hood motives - supporting this articial mess. knight22 is right here.

preventing fair consensus by doing things like this is an absolute nogo. i haven't care
much about this mostly personal driven XT freak show so far but i am switching my node over
to XT now (even if the final decision is made by a combo of too few miners and exchanges).

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

Again, BitcoinXT currently runs on the same blockchain and won't create a fork until it reaches a super majority. If it doesn't reach that point then it won't fork and go bust. Being an altcoin is not an option and was never intended to.

A new Bitcoin Core version will not fork the chain.
New Blockchain = Altcoin
Bitcoin XT = Altcoin since 2016

This is absurd. Whenever a new Bitcoin Core release occurs, it doesn't have consensus, either. Are you cool with also calling new releases of Bitcoin Core an altcoin? You are making up your own semantic definition of what an altcoin is, just to be able to add guilt by association to XT -- when, in fact, your argument also bad mouths any new release of Core.

Until BitcoinXT activates the 8 MB limit -- indeed, until someone mines a block larger than 1 MB -- both are the same bitcoin, with the same miners and users.

If and when an oversize block gets created and solved (in 2016) the chain will split, and each branch will have a set of miners; but it will not be two coins still, because each transaction issued will be executed in principle in both chains.  Only expert clients will be able to craft transactions that execute in only one chain; for normal clients, that may happen, but largely outside their control (and Core clients may get quite confused).

However, if and when BitcoinXT gets 75% of the hashpower, the rest of the miners and most of the services and clients should quickly switch to it too (even Mircea Popescu).  So, when the limit is finally raised and an oversize block gets mined, the Core branch will have  less than 1 block per day; while it will be business as usual for the XT clients.  

Right, it's a fork!


As long as the current BTC network is alive it will be an additional coin - an altcoin or if you want to differentiate a forkcoin which is even worse. It captures the current BTC network, > 75% of the hashpower and all users that are willing to use BXT or both BXT and BTC.

In case there will be a 100% consensus it replaces the current BTC network and we can name the forkcoin BTC.

Not Bitcoin XT
just awesome.