3 ms·

There is no law against publishing software that would introduce a blockchain hard fork if run. Yes, XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the app

There is no law against publishing software that would introduce a blockchain hard fork if run. Yes, XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the appreciation of their pre-fork bitcoins. Publishing XT introduces economic uncertainty in the short term, and long-term undermines confidence that we can rely on the mathematical promises of bitcoin at all. If XT is successful, why wouldn't Hearn (or Coinbase, or another person with interests divergent from large bitcoin holders) publish XT 2.0 removing the coin max? Or introduce any number of other inflationary changes? If it can be done, eventually it will be done. It's inevitable that people will eventually propose all manner of changes to bitcoin, some good, some stupid. Real bitcoin (or original bitcoin) could still continue to run as its own fork, in the background, waiting for the market to decide on a winner. Just as it is inevitable that developers will propose a small infinity of bitcoin-derived altcoins, trying to capture the windfall of a self-published bootstrapped currency. But very few altcoins will become successful networks in the long term, a smaller and smaller percentage of new coins as time goes on. Either Hearn and Andresen are correct, in which case their success will speak for itself -- even if they totally screw over the large bitcoin bag-holders in the process. Or, XT will become an insecure, centralized network and will die off on its own. No need for politics, in this case mathematically dictated incentive structures will decide who wins.

hollerith 11y ago
>Yes, XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the appreciation of their pre-fork bitcoins. Could someone explain how the XT fork might affect the future value of currently-existing Bitcoins? I expected it to have a neutral effect, since one fork will eventually die out (and since the fork does not try to change the rate at which Bitcoin are created). Even if both forks persists somehow, every holder of a current Bitcoin will essentially have 2 Bitcoin -- one spendable on one fork, another spendable on the other.
- olalonde 11y ago
  There is also one possible scenario where both forks survive and become two distinct currencies.
  - x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
    Do people with existing coins get to spend them on both chains?
  - hollerith 11y ago
    OK, but then if you have one BTC now, you will have one of each kind of BTC later, so that scenario does not explain why "XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the appreciation of their pre-fork bitcoins".
    - olalonde 11y ago
      It is correct that bitcoins mined before the fork will be spendable on both chains. That being said, it is also possible (and in my opinion probable) that the combined value of both currencies (BTC and BXT) will be less than the current value of BTC for a variety of reasons (Metcalfe's law, loss of confidence, etc.). That being said, I think it's more likely that one of the forks will win (e.g. the core devs will merge Bitcoin XT to Bitcoin Core if the fork happens).
heinrich5991 11y ago
>If XT is successful, why wouldn't Hearn (or Coinbase, or another person with interests divergent from large bitcoin holders) publish XT 2.0 removing the coin max? Or introduce any number of other inflationary changes? That's a rhethoric device one should avoid using.
pron 11y ago
> No need for politics, in this case mathematically dictated incentive structures will decide who wins. Whenever I see a statement like this I smile because that's what politics is[1]. If many people decide to do something based on their interests (rather than, say, being forced to leave their homes because of an erupting volcano) -- that's politics. Thing is, people who say they hate politics usually don't know what it is, and the result is that they just do politics badly. You can't not have politics in any social structure -- it is an inherent process in any kind of social interaction. Whenever one person tries to convince someone to do something, or to reach any sort of an agreement -- that's politics by definition. Whether the incentive are mathematical (though they never really are when it comes to humans) or not doesn't matter. Politics is the process by which a decision -- any decision -- is eventually taken by a group. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
- zekevermillion 11y ago
  I agree that politics operate in bitcoin. I disagree that politics will decide which network branch remains in use, at least not conventional politics of influencing people through polemic, logrolling, or subsidy. Politics in the sense of any attempt at influencing people aside from the literal design of your favored protocol implementation. You may be correct to say that incentive structures designed in software protocol is in fact politics itself, a new and effective form of politics. In that case I would agree with you. Perhaps my original comment would be more interesting if I had thought of bitcoin protocol proposals as a form of politics!

hollerith 11y ago

>Yes, XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the appreciation of their pre-fork bitcoins. Could someone explain how the XT fork might affect the future value of currently-existing Bitcoins? I expected it to have a neutral effect, since one fork will eventually die out (and since the fork does not try to change the rate at which Bitcoin are created). Even if both forks persists somehow, every holder of a current Bitcoin will essentially have 2 Bitcoin -- one spendable on one fork, another spendable on the other.

olalonde 11y ago
There is also one possible scenario where both forks survive and become two distinct currencies.
- x3n0ph3n3 11y ago
  Do people with existing coins get to spend them on both chains?
- hollerith 11y ago
  OK, but then if you have one BTC now, you will have one of each kind of BTC later, so that scenario does not explain why "XT infuriates those who hope to make money based on the appreciation of their pre-fork bitcoins".
  - olalonde 11y ago
    It is correct that bitcoins mined before the fork will be spendable on both chains. That being said, it is also possible (and in my opinion probable) that the combined value of both currencies (BTC and BXT) will be less than the current value of BTC for a variety of reasons (Metcalfe's law, loss of confidence, etc.). That being said, I think it's more likely that one of the forks will win (e.g. the core devs will merge Bitcoin XT to Bitcoin Core if the fork happens).

heinrich5991 11y ago

>If XT is successful, why wouldn't Hearn (or Coinbase, or another person with interests divergent from large bitcoin holders) publish XT 2.0 removing the coin max? Or introduce any number of other inflationary changes? That's a rhethoric device one should avoid using.

pron 11y ago

> No need for politics, in this case mathematically dictated incentive structures will decide who wins. Whenever I see a statement like this I smile because that's what politics is[1]. If many people decide to do something based on their interests (rather than, say, being forced to leave their homes because of an erupting volcano) -- that's politics. Thing is, people who say they hate politics usually don't know what it is, and the result is that they just do politics badly. You can't not have politics in any social structure -- it is an inherent process in any kind of social interaction. Whenever one person tries to convince someone to do something, or to reach any sort of an agreement -- that's politics by definition. Whether the incentive are mathematical (though they never really are when it comes to humans) or not doesn't matter. Politics is the process by which a decision -- any decision -- is eventually taken by a group. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

zekevermillion 11y ago
I agree that politics operate in bitcoin. I disagree that politics will decide which network branch remains in use, at least not conventional politics of influencing people through polemic, logrolling, or subsidy. Politics in the sense of any attempt at influencing people aside from the literal design of your favored protocol implementation. You may be correct to say that incentive structures designed in software protocol is in fact politics itself, a new and effective form of politics. In that case I would agree with you. Perhaps my original comment would be more interesting if I had thought of bitcoin protocol proposals as a form of politics!