MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Precedence: list

--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, &quot;wallet services&quot; maybe - would mean BTC plummets. Ha=
rd. And so would confidence.</div><div><br></div><div>It&#39;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 &quot;referendum&quot;. 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&#39;t then this sort o=
f foul play would be justified. But this wasn&#39;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--