Bitcoin XT Fork


Title says it all, really.

Is there going to be concensus for, or against the proposed changes?

Looking at the chart I just found, as well as some figures I just read (closed the post and lost the link, sorry), it seems there will be.



Just putting this here for reference.


Nice, hadn’t seen that, how likely is it to be authentic?

Part of me sympathises with the views expressed there, , though part of me recognises that sometimes there needs to be a more aggressive push to get people moving in a direction, be it the right or wrong one (depending on your POV).

Part of what I read suggested that there was already widespread consensus amongst the mining pools, wallet providers and service providers, even though only two of the core devs were pushing this fork.

What will happen now really is an example of democratic consensus.

If they reach the required number of nodes the change will be implemented, if they don’t, it’ll go down as another part of bitcoin folklore.

We live in interesting times :slight_smile:


Based on what I can tell - it does look authentic (the two spaces after full stop sentence, the use of honour vs honor) , but I’m no expert at this so I can only express my personal view of it being credible.

And yes I do agree with your view, its “interesting times” indeed…


The thing is that mining and nodes may protect the network but others services have much more power to force a change. Who has the most power in the bitcoin network do you think? The services that have the most wallets (addresses) in operation like some of the exchanges etc… If they come all together they could force a fork without even consulting the miners and if they fork the miners will have to follow because they can’t spend their bitcoin otherwise. I had this discussion before with someone and they did not agree with it but it’s just like banks if all the banks change the way they work everybody has to follow because else your money would be useless.

So people that run nodes don’t have any power miners don’t have any power it’s the other services that can control the bitcoin network.


If the miners refuse to switch, and the majority of the private node holders refuse to switch, then the service providers who you mentioned above can go off on what ever fork they want, they still wont have control of the network.

Unless the majority of each section decide to make the change and, in doing so, force that change on everyone ele, then it wont happen.

Let’s say, as per your example, the main service providers make the switch, but the miners don’t. Fine, most wallets run by third parties are now on the new network. And it can be 51% attacked and screwed with by anyone with an antminer U2.

Not so cool.

We all depend on each other in this ecosystem, so really, there has to be a majority consensus across all the different sections.

Democracy is a messy beast, for sure.


Yeah you are right. And in the previous discussion I had there was no mention of miners it was the belief that the node owners control the network but in fact they have no real say in it. If all nodes would force a new fork it would not happen at all. And the illusion that you need 100% of the network to agree to a fork is just that an illusion.


Satoshi Nakamoto always signed his messages with his PGP key 5EC948A1 the message posted to bitcoin-dev was not signed:(


Bitcoinbrothers will force their own fork and create bitcoin-deutch!!!


3 Chinese pools and BitFury…




Bitcoin XT is a needless diversion Mike Hearn published. Chinese miners consider Bitcoin XT an altcoin and support the 8 MB blocksize in BIP101

I doubt XT will go anywhere even with the support of the crypto kids at reddit. Anyone who decides to run a Bitcoin XT node for fun should realize they are voting with their computer for a hard fork. Bitcoin price is already down as the market hates uncertainty real or imagined.

Surprised Mike Hearn put his reputation on the line with Bitcoin XT. He is all in now.


The changes could be all moved into the Bitcoin core.

This forcing a set of changes through might fail, it just seems there is a long term campaign going on here.


Users and merchants

By running Bitcoin XT you take no risks: if insufficient mining hash power runs XT to reach supermajority then nothing will happen. If enough does, you will follow the new chain and things will continue as normal.

Additionally, XT has a useful feature: double spend monitoring and relaying. By running XT you help propagate information about double spends across the network, making it harder for payment fraudsters to steal from sellers by broadcasting two conflicting transactions simultaneously.

EDIT: Bitcoin-XT is still dependent on consensus. I think one of the biggest issues isn’t over the code but over the name. The new name does make it sound like an altcoin rather than Bitcoin-Core with several patches.


Let’s assume the mail is authentic. “This” is what I talk about so often and it’s why I tend to tilt when I hear things like “Satoshi’s Round Table” and “Secret meeting to decide on the future of bitcoin”.

Funny how the core developers would be willing to fork BTC to Bitcoin-XT while having been ignorant to implement other protocols or features for a long time now. I guess forking is okay if you want to push your own vision and will onto everyone else.


Despite how ominous a “hard fork” sounds, it’s just a block size increase and unlikely to cause any technical problems unless I’m missing something here (I mean the change itself; hard fork could and likely will cause issues). Arguably if the change was more disruptive it would be much harder to gain such a consensus. So it looks like the consensus works as expected.


Agreed and yeah, you’re missing plain fear :slight_smile:

As for the consensus, when I posted above as @keymaster about the “force” being with 3 Chinese pools and BitFury I was being serious despite @Daffy disagreeing.

What do you guys think would happen if f2pool, Antpool, BW and BitFury would each put a message on their website staying “please update to bitcoin ( bitcoin XT) to prevent ending up on “the wrong chain”. Our wallets will be updated to … at … in X days.”

It would leave the miners with pretty much two options. Follow the lead if you like it or not or get on a different pool and the large scale farms would still outrun the consensus because miners wouldn’t operate their rigs at a loss, the majority would follow the money.

“Hey guys no more GHX payouts because we don’t consent to the BTC version / fork the pools consented on and who are finding 80% of the blocks.”

Everyone cheers at GH for resisting the fork…


Well that is the point is it. What would happen if the 3 top wallet owner services would do the same? It would create an outcry because people would not be able to spent their bitcoin and everybody would have to follow including the miners. You would get not simple a few thousand miners crying you would hear the cry of millions…


Agreed but personally I do not believe that the “market makers” are not in bed with each other. The days of the miners and users having enough pull to consent to a fork or to reject it are over in my opinion. Sh it like secret meetings on remote islands to decide on the future of bitcoin ala Bilderberg make that very clear. They call themselves the bitcoin elite so what else is there to talk about really?


To be honest I’m seeing very little difference whether it’s a cartel of pools, exchanges, or a bunch if idealist devs who come up with a fork. I can only hope that any serious fork wouldn’t be completely idiotic as everyone (including pools, exchanges, or even devs) depends to some extent on the coin maintaining and increasing widespread acceptance. Beats the old rubbish we call “democracy” any day of the week.


Chaos and Mayhem - especially if they just went ahead and did it in a do it or else tone.

for example me a simple insane miner would dump every last TH, try to sell every account I could to BTC, withdraw every coin to a paperwallet and and wait to see witch way the wind blew. ohh i might leave a little in play to gamble with but the majority would be taken out of play. If it got scary enough I would consider selling out completely to fiat or try and stash some of it in an altcoin.

I think the chaos would crash the price as well. if there was enough resistance and a possible civil war sprung up the results would be devastating, so much so that it might never recover.

its slow painful and a bit hard too watch but a slow petition like, consensus building system to call for a change is much better way to go about it. All the major players signing off and agreeing to something as well as a large majority of the small players is needed in order to avoid problems I would think.