Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network.
No, the XT is
pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not.
It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
lol how is it pretending to be Bitcoin?
Does xt pretend to send transactions on the network seamlessly now or does it actually do it?
What part of my reasoning didn't you understand? XT is following a protocol which is different from the current Bitcoin, yet currently it is capable of transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain. But it doesn't make it Bitcoin, as the consensus-critical part of code is changed without reaching actual consensus. When the overwhelming majority of users from different cohorts (the so-called economic majority) start running XT, only then it can be considered the new Bitcoin, not when 75% of miners are mining it. Until then, it's just pretending.
"overwhelming majority" now that is subjective. What does that mean 99%, 82%, 93.2837493%?
Yeah if the major exchanges and miners move to XT and there is 25% not moved over then what will you say then? Would you concede that XT is the new "bitcoin"?
What percentage are you referring to?
Nodes?
Merchants?
Miners?
I mean there are too many different metrics to measure "the overwhelming majority" to accurately know that it is true based on some random % that you or any other person thinks up. So what is the difference if 75% is chosen? Is it wrong? To you yes, to some others no.
It is a difference of opinion not a difference of facts.