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
130
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99CF488B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:09:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com (mail-lb0-f181.google.com
[209.85.217.181])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CABDD112
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:09:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so119952041lbc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=VEh0W2XMYx2nNfUzMFfjPbT4R8jX333vMf5XLu+asZM=;
b=HOAWS+p0vX8mvrQWNkoTAnnl/iKCL8DN/R6iB4eVS362t6iXvnerGCAm5zvQzvS9iB
I7KUyZ3/G3v3BQP6vuR0B8I2m6EJmLHkPL6iwJuZrToToHc+Wam1Vz1BKTKeOsg/X8rV
eNRPR5CtwgNwFQ4oGD++5BoMs3/a7J5NsuEdTa7UD43nzL9TR4B6XlTWXr6nCFlkPuYR
MxJ/bpQxZ4QS06LFi9ZZAZbrPloAd7kwuy7jAb39WyElqKfN27haWY2UV5HZdRNxzmVs
LWdhiA7ueR+G4FMhlYgahMfjwGPM05wPxRhdmJ7bEx2KWTDzB4kjfntoFoHz9QQt5+tM
plrg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmL6aKmVh7ePsxsMsMyszEh52VIL90a+oHiPl25K1vwZnoC4ULxwJOTXrE8O01YD8CEApdC
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr10577292lac.114.1439978992903;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:09:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F99FFEE6-6D10-480D-B96D-960B84092C88@gmail.com>
References: <CADWuND3EfO6YO3g4H09_mWhrHC4PX4SZpTTuETiX2PyCxSRCsQ@mail.gmail.com>
<55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com>
<CAEX2NSfaPv0g07hfT31voGWX05Z6uaBsZOjhMkOwBr4mdHbPQw@mail.gmail.com>
<55D124D7.4050209@gmail.com>
<61AD0CE6-014E-44E2-B9C7-00B35D2E09CC@petertodd.org>
<CAEX2NSeAgrN877zAVDrk_J+7EVDPagt8u4+HB7hDMVMPwS6Zng@mail.gmail.com>
<F99FFEE6-6D10-480D-B96D-960B84092C88@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:09:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoEVmqiOpPcf1wUsNt4pmU=oVawq2-0YwrEjm1W1YBmeg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:09:55 -0000
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think that it is important to note that Bitcoin XT faces a natural
> uphill battle.
>
> Since it is possible to setup atomic inter-fork coin trades. I do not
> see how Bitcoin XT could possibly win if Satoshi decides to sell 10000
> XTBTC for BTC everyday for the first 100 days after the fork.
>
> In many ways Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge
> economic investment in Bitcoin.
>
>
> Here is some simple game-theory for non-consensus forks:
>
> 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version
> string.
>
> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork.
>
> - Now people have no-idea what % of the economy Bitcoin XT holds. -
> Making it impossible for people to put economic faith behind Bitcoin XT.
>
> 3. Setup good Atomic Swap markets.
> [...]
> The price for XTBTC coins will plummet, Satoshi progressively dumping
> his 1M stash over a year or it so will make sure that it doesn't recover
> either.
Some XTBTC advocates may sell all their BTC for XTBTC and viceversa.
But I'm afraid that what most currency speculators (thus most Bitcoin
holders) will do is just sell both all their BTC and XTBTC for fiat,
and wait for things to settle before deciding whether to re-enter or
not.
This could result in both currencies' prices going down to 1 usd cent,
nobody knows.
> I cannot see how Bitcoin XT is but-not in a extremely weak position from
> game theory.
Unfortunately it also puts Bitcoin core in an extremely weaker
position than it was before the Schism hardfork.
Even if XT fails in making blocks bigger, it may destroy Bitcoin.
That's probably not the goal of Bitcoin XT, but I don't think Andresen
and Hearn fully undesrtand the risks of a Schism hardfork (not to
mention their "followers" in the interwebs).
Since we want to discard the assumption that Hearn and Andresen want
to make Bitcoin centralized or destroy it, it's reasonable to conclude
that have serious misunderstandings on how the global consensus works.
This is consistent with some of their strong positions on Bitcoin Core
policy defaults (like maintaining the first seen spending-conflict
replacement policy [the dumbest possible one after "last seen"]
forever).
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Or can=E2=80=99t you create a transaction that=E2=80=99s still within the=
op count and sig ops limits but is larger than 1MB?
Yes, it seems the simplest way to permanently separate your BTC from
your XTBTC is to move them all in transactions bigger than 1MB. You
may need too many outputs to increase the size (thus also hurting the
utxo size in Bitcoin XT), but that's just a side effect.
|
