From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBDD194B for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:22:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70090240 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:22:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57196 helo=server47.web-hosting.com) by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZS5CN-003Iwn-Gx; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:22:43 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:22:43 -0400 From: jl2012@xbt.hk To: odinn In-Reply-To: <55D467AF.5030203@riseup.net> References: <55D45715.4010107@riseup.net> <55D467AF.5030203@riseup.net> Message-ID: <46e6bf2dbd8e08745f1c0dbd9f62bc7d@xbt.hk> X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: jl2012@xbt.hk X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched 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: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] =?utf-8?q?Bitcoin_is_an_experiment=2E_Why_don=27t_w?= =?utf-8?q?e_have_an_experimental_hardfork=3F?= 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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:22:46 -0000 odinn via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-08-19 07:25 寫到: > The big problem is >> BIP101 being deployed as a Schism hardfork. > > This is certainly a problem. > No, BitcoinXT won't become a Schism hardfork, or may be just for a few days, at most. There is one, and only one scenario that BitcoinXT will win: it is supported by major exchanges, merchants, and investors, and they request miners to support it. When BIP101 is activated, these exchanges will refuse to accept or exchange tokens from the old chain. Miners in the old chain can't sell their newly generated coins and can't pay the electricity bill. They will soon realize that they are mining fool's gold and will be forced to switch to the new chain or sell their ASIC. The old chain will be abandoned and has no hope to revive without a hardfork to decrease the difficulty. The dust will settle in days if not hours. Will the adoption of BitcoinXT lead by miners? No, it won't. Actually, Chinese miners who control 60% of the network has already said that they would not adopt XT. So they must not be the leader in this revolution. Again, miners need to make sure they could sell their bitcoin in a good price, and that's not possible without support of exchanges and investors. What about that Not-Bitcoin-XT? The creator of the spoof client may stay anonymous, but the miners cannot. 95% of the blocks come from known entities and they have to be responsible to their actions. And again, they have real money in stake. If bitcoin is destroyed, their ASIC serves at best as very inefficient heaters. So Bitcoin-XT is basically in a win-all-or-lose-all position. It all relies on one condition: the support of major exchanges, merchants, and investors. Their consensus is what really matters. With their consensus, that could not be a Schism hardfork. Without their consensus, nothing will happen. ------- Or let me analyse in a different angle. BitcoinXT is in no way similar to your examples of Schism hardforks. All of your examples, "ASIC-reset hardfork", "Anti-Block-creator hardfork", and "Anti-cabal hardfork", are hostile to the current biggest miners and will destroy their investment. These miners have no choice but stick to the original protocol so 2 chains MUST coexist. However, BIP101 has no such effect at all and miners may freely switch between the forks. They will always choose the most valuable fork, so only one fork will survive.