Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no one in charge of bitcoin and it is made up of willing participants. Bitcoin gives you the option to be your own bank.
"Not Bitcoin-XT" is trying to not let a miner vote take place.
On the bitcointalk forum, a new client called "Not Bitcoin-XT" was recently announced. From the post:
Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.
They are literally trying to get nodes on the network which pretend to support the bigger block size patch, but actually don't. If enough miners ran this software, it would falsely trigger the 75%/95% acceptance thresholds. Fortunately, most miners are known entities and would not be caught dead running software like this. The rest of the users just add to the Bitcoin XT node count, ironically making Bitcoin XT appear to have even more support.
CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners | Peter Todd | Aug 19 2015
Peter Todd on Aug 19 2015: Deployment of the proposed CLTV, CSV, etc. soft-forks has been recently complicated by the existence of XT(1) and Not-Bitcoin-XT(2) miners. Both mine blocks with nVersion=0x20000007, which would falsely trigger the previously suggested implementation using the IsSuperMajority() mechanism and nVersion=4 blocks. Additionally while the XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT software claims to support Wuille/Todd/Maxwell's nVersion soft-fork mechanism(3) a key component of it - fork deadlines(3) - is not implemented. XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT behavior Both implementations produce blocks with nVersion=0x20000007, or in binary: 0b001...111 Neither implementation supports a fork deadline; both Not-Bitcoin-XT and XT will produce blocks with those bits set indefinitely under any circumstance, with the proviso that while XT has a hashing power majority, blocks it produces might not be part of the Bitcoin blockchain after Jan 11th 2016. (though this can flap back and forth if reorgs happen) Curiously the BIP101 draft was changed(4) at the last minute from using the nVersion bits compliant 0x20000004 block nVersion, to using two more bits unnecessarily. The rational for doing this is unknown; the git commit message associated with the change suggested "compatibility concerns", but what the concerns actually were isn't specified. Equally even though implementing the fork deadline would be very each in the XT implementation, this was not done. (the XT codebase has had almost no peer review) Options for CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment 1) Plain IsSuperMajority() with nVersion=4 This option can be ruled out immediately due to the high risk of premature triggering, without genuine 95% miner support. 2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority() In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:
block.nVersion & ~0x20000007
This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create blocks with nVersion=8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the CLTV/CSV/etc. IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork. For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can remain nVersion=8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an unknown bit set. When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases. Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with the same masking technique. This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers (Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update schedule.(6) 3) Full nVersion bits implementation The most complex option would be to deploy via full nVersion bits implementation using flag bit #4 to trigger the fork. Compliant miners would advertise 0x20000008 initially, followed by 0x20000000 once the fork had triggered. The lowest three bits would be unusable for forks for some time, although they could be eventually recovered as XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases. The main disadvantage of this option is high initial complexity - the reason why IsSuperMajority() was suggested for CLTV/CSV in the first place. That said, much of the code required has been implemented in XT for the BIP101 hard-fork logic, although as mentioned above, the code has had very little peer review. References 1) https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt 2) https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt 3) "Version bits proposal",
Pieter Wuille, May 26th 2015, Bitcoin-development mailing list, [http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008282.html,](http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008282.html,)
Blocksize Debate: Coinbase? BitPay? Chain.com? Blockchain.info? Circle? 21.co? What the fuck do they think about that?
Their silence smells like "we don't give a shit because we have other plans, let the average bitcoiner waste his time and words", even if, because of their HUGE involvement with Bitcoin, they should probably care way more than the average bitcoiner here on Bitcoin. Personally, as an average bitcoiner, I'm not going to waste tens of millions of dollars if Bitcoin goes to shit. What about them? Any ideas? Any word from them? ------------ EDIT ------------------- Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks: “We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less." Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux" Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks: "It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2" BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks: "Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x" Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.” BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100): “BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system." http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100
Trying to understand the Bitcoin Unlimited philosophy and why there is no malicious intent
BitcoinXT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have caused a lot of anger and “bad blood” in this space. Many have argued that these clients could split the hashrate into two groups, separate the nodes onto different chains, causing effective network downtime and a catastrophic loss in the integrity of the system. However, this does not mean proponents of these clients had malicious intent, they simply view the system in a different way. I came to this realization after reading the following quote from a prominent Bitcoin Unlimited supporter:
The problem is that BIP109 is both a hard fork and a soft fork at the same time; that is, it allows for larger blocks but it adds tighter limitations on number of bytes hashed and number of signature operations. Bitcoin Unlimited supports larger blocks but (at this point in time) does not believe the additional rules should be added. On test net, BIP109 activated and then a block was mined that was valid according to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited, but was invalid according to Classic due to these additional rules, and the Classic nodes were forked off the network. This created some FUD (that in my opinion was misplaced) and now many people think it's better to turn off BIP109 signalling.
Source: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/56z9cd/can_the_miner_formerly_known_as_kncminer_and/d8nsu89 To some it may be difficult to believe, that even after the miners had explained the issues to BU supporters and Bitcoin Classic nodes had been booted off the test net due to being tricked into a false activation, the false flagging of BIP109 is still thought as misplaced FUD! Prior to this I had spent hours trying to persuade Bitcoin Unlimited supporters to remove the BIP109 flag, emphasizing that they effectively doing the bidding of “Not Bitcoin XT” (https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt). I felt like I was hitting a brick wall of ignorance and utter stupidity. However, I realized it is just a different view. If Bitcoin Unlimited supporters are apparently fine with “attacking” their own side, then it demonstrates a lack of a malicious intent in there "attacks" on the "opposing side". While I somewhat disagree with their logic in this respect, I do not think it is objectively as stupid as one may think. Please consider the following assumptions:
There is no significant actual usage of the currency,
The network is more of a shared philosophy, vision and idea held by members of the community, rather than an actual P2P network of nodes
In the above scenario, it is apparent that BitcoinXT, Classic and BU are not attacks on the network. Since the currency is in its early stages and not actually used, any network downtime or double spend attack opportunities caused by the attempted transition to larger blocks are not a problem. Since the network is an idea inside the minds of the community, nodes diverging onto different chains is not a concern as the community will be able to decide on the validity of the chain in a social process and then later update the nodes. Any delays are not a concern due to the above. The above assumptions are not necessarily false, the system is new and actual usage of the currency is limited. At the same time the network is both a P2P network of nodes and an idea, and the relative weighting of the importance of these two things is not clear. Therefore Bitcoin Unlimited proponents are neither stupid or malicious, they just look at the system from a different angle. Bitcoin Unlimited have been persuaded to remove the false flag, even if they do not understand why, I at least think they do not see a significant disadvantage of removing the flag, which is ultimately why they made the decision. In this respect the two opposing sides of the community have some common ground. We all need to try and look at the system from many angles, and try to consider the requirement of keeping the network up and running reliably, the actual behavior of the nodes and the vision people have.
Bitcoiners: make no mistake! Even though it is very likely that BTU is now going the same way as XT and Classiccoin the re-centralization attempts will not stop.
Bitcoin is a revolutionary approach like never seen before in the history of the world. It is even more disruptive than any revolution seen before as it does not depend on weapons and the beheading of kings but offers an exit from the centralized financial world. It is a truly peaceful revolution that does not need guns and bloodshed and that is not aiming at putting someone else on the throne but burning down the throne altogether instead. Decentralization instead of replacing the central power that is. Any kind of revolution always triggers a counter-revolution. Re-centralization of the network is the counter-revolution to Bitcoin. In an even more sophisticated way than Xtcoin and Classiccoin BTU is aiming to enable re-centralization of mining, nodes and software development. They even wanted to install a “president” of Bitcoin. No kidding! :) With every wave the counter-revolutionary re-centralization movement is getting louder and stronger. This one has been exceptionally smart in attracting big miners / pools to it by telling them that they can outcompete and eat the smaller ones. But with every wave Bitcoin is getting stronger and more resilient as well and it has given us the ultimate tools to fight off these attacks: actual, factual decentralization and immutablity of the ledger. That is what Bitcoin stands for. No compromise on that, sorry! And these attacks will never stop. So even if BTU goes down the drain now please be aware that the fight for your own freedom will never end. “Compromise” like it has been suggested a lot in the recent days is not anything the re-centralization movement wants. It wants perpetual war and perpetual infighting and it will do anything it can do to achieve that and that means that the next iteration of the counter-revolution is already at your doorstep. Freedom is never achieved for good. Freedom is something you lose when you go to bed at night and that you will have to fight back again next morning when you get up. Keep on hodling! Keep on running your own node! And maybe even get that old 330 Megahash USB-miner out of your memorability-drawer and hook it back up to the network just to make a point! :) Edit: added a zero.
You can support the ABC/BU/XT chain by purchasing a mining contract at bitcoin.com. Most likely this will not provide a return on BCH, but give you a smile every time you see a bitcoin.com block in the chain.
Trace Mayer: "I would not be surprised if this current Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic...is funded by or is some kind of government sponsored attack on the Bitcoin network, and they're not getting very much traction."
“Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /r/btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /r/Bitcoin way back.”
As much as I like Bitcoin XT; the 75% supermajority is a major problem. (Because F2Pool)
Let me preface this by saying I am a supporter of Bitcoin XT and even run a node sponsoring / hosting service that has nearly 90 active full XT nodes on the network. I want XT to succeed, and is why I think 75% is too low for a supermajority; it makes us vulnerable. Some of you might have seen this article on BIP101 flaws and one point sticks out:
It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.
Now, it's not almost certain, but in particular circumstances it is a game killing issue. Take the following:
Two large mining pools could collude to have >= 25% voting power. (F2Pool, BTCChina, and Bitfury hold around 21.7%, 14.1%, 11.2% of voting power respectively).
They are all currently voting for BIP100 and so collusion candidates represent at least 47% of all voting power.
That means potential damage to the BIP101 camp is salient somewhere between 25% and 50% miner support (call it 45% to get rid of the race condition).
If the BIP101 movement were within the 25-45% range and the above three pools started mining on Not Bitcoin XT, then all BIP101 miners (25-45%) will eventually start producing big blocks which would not be accepted into the main chain (because they're only supported by 25-45%).
Since (in this case) Non-BIP101 miners would make up >55% of the hashing power it is incredibly unlikely the BIP101 chain would last long - there would be many stale blocks and it would cost BIP101 miners dearly, until they moved back to Core.
What this means comes back to a generic truth about self-organised systems: minority rule never works. By selecting 75% as the supermajority threshold we give a wide window of opportunity to a minority to fuck it up for everyone else. IMO this is exactly what we want to avoid, whether that's in regards to core devs, mining support, or w/e. A 95% supermajority would close that window and restrict it to a much larger actor and a much smaller time frame, greatly decreasing the risk of an attack. The only 'perfect' solution is unanimous support but for obvious reasons that is unlikely. The next question is something like 'can we even get 95% support?' which is a difficult one to answer. Another option is 85% because that would mean the two largest BIP100 supporters listed above would need to collude, or all three.
Bitcoin Core versus XT observations | Ken Friece | Aug 19 2015
Ken Friece on Aug 19 2015: 1.) Most people are running XT as a vote for bigger blocks and not because they specifically support BIP101. If Core supported bigger blocks, most XT users would switch back to Core and XT would die. 2.) In this high stakes game of poker, XT just went all in, but Core still has the far better hand. There are many, many scaling solutions Core could adopt that would appease XT users enough to kill XT. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The real question is whether or not anyone can provide enough Core leadership to reach "consensus". The longer it takes for Core to reach "consensus", the stronger XT gets. 3.) Bitcoin market price has a far greater mining centralizing effect than larger blocks ever will. Right now, miners with reasonably efficient hardware and energy costs (.5W/GH mining hardware, 10 cents per kilowatt hour power, $250 BTC price) spend about half of their mining income on electricity. If the total Bitcoin market cap is under ~5 billion at the next halving in July 2016, it's game over for all but the most efficient (large) miners. The mining centralization that may occur with 8MB blocks in 2016 is nothing compared to the centralization that will occur if the total Bitcoin market cap does not grow substantially between now and the next halving. 4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of uncertainty right now, which makes the mining nightmare scenario outlined above more likely. The entire ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once a Core scaling solution is adopted. Hopefully this issue will be revolved well before the next halving in July 2016 so the market has time to adjust and grow again. 5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all Not-BitcoinXT will do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up putting more people on the losing side of the fork. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150819/a69e5e4c/attachment.html> original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010421.html
I'm amazed we only have ~515 Bitcoin XT nodes running. Guys, let's do more. This is not really difficult or expensive...
Hello fellow Bitcoin XTers, Amidst all this recent reprehensible behavior by Cobra-Bitcoin, Bitcoin moderation by Theymos, and Bitcoin Core Devs, I decided to do something to try to help out our cause: I'm now running a Bitcoin XT node. It was incredibly easy to setup, and it's running on one of my underutilized servers. If you want to express your support for Bitcoin XT and moving Bitcoin forward (past all of the negatives of the status quo), I highly recommend you take this very simple and positive action: Setup a Bitcoin XT node today! I am truly amazed that (as of right now) there are only 515 Bitcoin XT nodes running. (How is that possible?) Come on, guys, let's do more. This is not really difficult or expensive... (Honestly, servers are relatively cheap nowadays. No need to try to run this on laptops or Raspberry Pi's, imo.)
Interesting that @DavidShares stands by his choice to not list Bitcoin SV as a client of Bitcoin Cash on /r/btc when it is currently mining a large percentage of the blocks. Weird how close this mirrors how XT was viewed in /r/Bitcoin way back.
[Not Debunked] Bitcoin XT Fork. I left the most sensitive topic to the end. In the August of 2015 someone sent this email to the dev mailing list from [email protected] I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT ... Just to be clear: running XT means that our users will always be on the largest chain, regardless of whether a fork happens or not. We believe, this is in the best interest of our users. And we are not the only ones: almost all other Bitcoin businesses are supporting larger blocks. You are not going to feel that the broker is forcing you in any direction when you sign up with BubbleXt. That’s something you do feel when you sign up with other brokers on the internet. You will be shocked to know that some brokers want complete control of their traders. They don’t let their traders make any move without their consent. In addition to that, they provide their traders with ... How Much Bitcoin You Need to Be within the Richest 1% of BTC Holders It’s expected that ASICS will now not be profitable for their… Read More Uncategorized Posted on June 3, 2020 Please note that Bitcoin XT does not validate segwit, and the conversion notes above still apply. Development process. Ideas for useful features are tracked in Issues. Pull requests from developers, including well-done cherry picks from other clients or cryptos, are very welcome. To discuss Bitcoin Cash development in general, you are welcome to use the mailing list. We have a manifesto that ...
Bitcoin Talk Show #LIVE (Sep 2, 2019) - Crypto News Talk Price Opinion with your Calls - Duration: 1:09:52. World Crypto Network 757 views. New Nick Szabo on Let's Talk Bitcoin talking about the block size limit and the XT fork. This is from the last few minutes of Episode 246. The full episode is available here: https://letstalkbitcoin ... Auf YouTube findest du großartige Videos und erstklassige Musik. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder mit der ganzen Welt teilen. Aug. 19 -- Bitcoin was built on the sort of open-source ethos that has driven generations of geeks. But the same principles it celebrates—a decentralized network of contributors, a transparent ... Not an expert in anything, just a dude documenting his Crypto Mining journey! A Crypto Mining Bitcoin/Ethereum/Speculative Coin Channel! Thanks for stopping ...