π
Original date posted:2015-08-16
π Original message:> 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.
I fail to see how voting with version numbers is different than voting with
coinbase scriptSig. Other than the fact that the voting XT is doing is
formally defined instead of ad-hoc.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150816/b28441d8/attachment-0001.html>;
Andrew LeCody [ARCHIVE] /
npub10qβ¦rt9pg
2023-06-07 17:35:28
in reply to nevent1qβ¦v62s
Author Public Key
npub10qzuhfx33295fwj8eq86vlfc9e5mkzj5lzzpcwhj2yqyae3jetysxrt9pgPublished at
2023-06-07 17:35:28Event JSON
{
"id": "78721e6e49b146c16acd0b0e7c13579f8acf3df857b5641489bb96dd1aff6f3a",
"pubkey": "7805cba4d18a8b44ba47c80fa67d382e69bb0a54f8841c3af251004ee632cac9",
"created_at": 1686159328,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c8deaa0aeee1e5d915e04ef7baf8b8074172a310b656820cd8767442ca514e56",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6cbe57e5a426f06749b6ccfb12f73aaa5a38c54efdf60fec772f7126b6ddc81a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"adc46baf19635308a9e07308e9a828eda8987950ef4483471c8aa3bf6650afd6"
]
],
"content": "π
Original date posted:2015-08-16\nπ Original message:\u003e PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The\nequivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the\nreasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said \"referendum\". There\nwas a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig like\nplain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment.\nOnce a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they\ndon't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this wasn't the\ncase.\n\nI fail to see how voting with version numbers is different than voting with\ncoinbase scriptSig. Other than the fact that the voting XT is doing is\nformally defined instead of ad-hoc.\n\nOn Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:40 PM muyuubyou via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e I posted this to /r/BitcoinMarkets but I thought I might post it here as\n\u003e well.\n\u003e\n\u003e ---\n\u003e Currently 0 mined blocks have voted for XT.\n\u003e\n\u003e If it ever gets close to even 50%, many things can happen that would\n\u003e reshape the game completely.\n\u003e\n\u003e For instance:\n\u003e\n\u003e - Core could start boycotting XT by not relying to them and/or not relying\n\u003e from them.\n\u003e\n\u003e - Core could appropriate the version string of XT, making it impossible to\n\u003e know how much they are progressing and a losing bet to actually execute the\n\u003e fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e This kind of node war if the factions were sizeable would make it very\n\u003e risky to transact at all - balances in new addresses could end up\n\u003e vanishing. Usability of the system would plummet.\n\u003e\n\u003e Note that any disagreement between the network and the biggest economic\n\u003e actors - mainly the exchanges at this point, \"wallet services\" maybe -\n\u003e would mean BTC plummets. Hard. And so would confidence.\n\u003e\n\u003e It's a risky game to play.\n\u003e ---\n\u003e\n\u003e PS: I consider this attempt at takeover about as foul as it gets. The\n\u003e equivalent of repeating a referendum until a yes is obtained: the\n\u003e reasonable reaction to this is actively blocking said \"referendum\". There\n\u003e was a fair play alternative which is voting through coinbase scriptSig like\n\u003e plain 8MBers are doing, or like BIP 100 proposes for dynamic adjustment.\n\u003e Once a majority is obtained in this way, devs have to react or if they\n\u003e don't then this sort of foul play would be justified. But this wasn't the\n\u003e case.\n\u003e\n\u003e -----\n\u003e ηΊγγ°ζγ\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150816/b28441d8/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "dd981a354c4c489dc83739e32e0d34e529c0581387006b05b3d7bd9c35dda63b549f7506008a2eadba9f83f5f2d543560f47f7c04d62e3f2800e4ebd06035c13"
}