muyuubyou [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: π Original date posted:2015-08-15 π Original message:I posted this to ...
π
Original date posted:2015-08-15
π Original message: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.
-----
ηΊγγ°ζγ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150815/8ba538ee/attachment.html>;
π Original message: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.
-----
ηΊγγ°ζγ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150815/8ba538ee/attachment.html>;