Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A623826 for ; 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 ; Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:39:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by labd1 with SMTP id d1so60925238lab.1 for ; 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: From: muyuubyou 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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
I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might p= ost it here as well.

---
Currently 0 mine= d 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 cou= ld 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 b= et 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 sy= stem would plummet.

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.

It's a risky game= to play.
---

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.
-----
=E7=82=BA=E3=81=9B=E3=81=B0=E6=88=90=E3=82=8B
--047d7b3432f44f5bd4051d613fb3--