we should call it BCX+ !

I believe the main chain is the one which is longest, rather than which has the highest sum of work or difficulty.  I'm sure someone can correct me if this is mistaken.

Honestly I believe that the proof-of-work is better measured without regard to the difficulty level.

The way difficulty works, you might need some particular number of  leading zeros to make a block.  If the number is thirty, approximately one in a million hashes actually are capable of making a block.  But regardless of what you need to make a block, every hash that *actually has* thirty-one leading zeros is evidence of approximately two million hashes being done, every hash that *actually has* thirty-two leading zeros is evidence of approximately four million hashes having been done, every hash that *actually has* thirty-three leading zeros is evidence of approximately eight million hashes having been done, and so on.

I'm just saying that you can compare like with like in terms of estimating block difficulty.  Pick a target that definitely would have formed a block, regardless of the time, regardless of which branch -- corresponding to the highest of any difficulty for either branch during the time in question, and count the number of blocks with a hash below that target.  Whichever chain has the most such blocks is, as best anyone can tell, the chain that's had the most hashes done in support of it, regardless of where the difficulty level for the chain was set at the time or how many total blocks are in that chain.

WTF? If that is true, then all this hassle is just bullshit. BCX would never have succeeded. Well, there is some source code where to check this.
Also, if it is so, it means all the other alt coins should be safe also.

Edit: As allways, I could have been wrong and you may just have pointed out mistake I have done.. Embarrassing Why didn't point this out earlier?

Haven't you people been following along? It seems not.

Low difficulty means more chance any one hash gets a block so gets into the blockchain so counts when adding up work.

The higher the difficulty the less chance any one hash happens to get a block so less of the hashes done get into the blockchain to count as work.

So with lots of low difficulty blocks more of the hashes done to get them got into the chain to count as work so the more of the work done to make that chain gets counted when adding up height/length of the chain (the total work). This might also be part of why faster block chains achieve more security in less time; more confirmations (blocks) in the same amount of time is likely to be more actual work counted due to more of the work (hashes) done actually managing to make it into the blockchain.

-MarkM-

just like your post..

So, there still isn't a new Auroracoin release, nor has the fix shown up on git...

When can we expect the fireworks?

Yeah.. good luck with that. That's not how it works.

LOL.... some people just don't get how decentralization works