1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
|
Return-Path: <muyuubyou@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A623826
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:39:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-la0-f41.google.com (mail-la0-f41.google.com
[209.85.215.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8453817D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:39:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so60925238lab.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
bh=J5viod77t1h3rYzVVLis5+u5lER1IXsbBALXzDolsXo=;
b=i2wLaazmz2lNPr39ZteBPQuvQkvT1adjWcM2mkkgt+gcvwvVVf+wIjl3S09/5av/XI
c8l5yCJXXLl7hX386bh0YQU5lKQdnqyn0yeONGXMtwVplSVnJCXtYXglCsTUuorWgBT+
i7oca5ITEB4cAqeSebUHeJG/exq+Jv3MFh1YW3phjOZO+Z4UtZree6zG+qnTUzlIFfos
FbiCY2Ml6+iB+PU0FAJ6HaYK1+M2Wb7Wup4muuXgUyYOQ1VfZLQOEgxTKn7xehJNJu8I
jeLnRLtByW0/LpNEAmFxzWu7ud3FWJszw4eGk4LKcvdoM5U2msSO+ymvDbxhRXYBsMfl
WJKA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.144.69 with SMTP id sk5mr49468457lbb.6.1439678394750;
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.170.143 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 15:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:39:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CADWuND3EfO6YO3g4H09_mWhrHC4PX4SZpTTuETiX2PyCxSRCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: muyuubyou <muyuubyou@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3432f44f5bd4051d613fb3
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:39:57 -0000
--047d7b3432f44f5bd4051d613fb3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here as
well.
---
Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.
If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would
reshape the game completely.
For instance:
- Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not relying
from them.
- Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible to
know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute the
fork.
This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very
risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up
vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet.
Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economic
actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, "wallet services" maybe -
would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence.
It's a risky game to play.
---
PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The
equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the
reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said "referendum". There
was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig like
plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment.
Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they
don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this wasn't the
case.
-----
=E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B
--047d7b3432f44f5bd4051d613fb3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might p=
ost it here as well.<div><br></div><div>---</div><div><div>Currently 0 mine=
d blocks have voted for XT.</div><div><br></div><div>If it ever gets close =
to even 50%, many things can happen that would reshape the game completely.=
</div><div><br></div><div>For instance:</div><div><br></div><div>- Core cou=
ld start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not relying from them.=
</div><div><br></div><div>- Core could appropriate the version string of XT=
, making it impossible to know how much they are progressing and a losing b=
et to actually execute the fork.</div><div><br></div><div>This kind of node=
war if the factions were sizeable would make it very risky to transact at =
all - balances in new addresses could end up vanishing. Usability of the sy=
stem would plummet.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that any disagreement bet=
ween the network and the biggest economic actors - mainly the exchanges at =
this point, "wallet services" maybe - would mean BTC plummets. Ha=
rd. And so would confidence.</div><div><br></div><div>It's a risky game=
to play.</div></div><div>---<br></div><div><br></div><div>PS: I consider t=
his attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The equivalent of repeati=
ng a referendum until a yes is obtained: the reasonable reaction to this is=
actively blocking said "referendum". There was a fair play alter=
native which is voting through coinbase scriptSig like plain 8MBers are doi=
ng, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment. Once a majority is obt=
ained in this way, devs have to react or if they don't then this sort o=
f foul play would be justified. But this wasn't the case.</div><div><br=
></div><div>-----</div><div>=E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B<b=
r></div></div>
--047d7b3432f44f5bd4051d613fb3--
|
