Topic: ... (Read 3179 times)

ok what I don't understand is bitcoinxt and bitcoin core mining same blocks now or are they split and will each have separate diff

Nope, this doesn't work with ignorant people and some XT supporters. The last time that I used this statement, I received a nice piece of ad hominem in return. This is why theymos has called XT a programmed altcoin, I believe. It does make sense (to me).

XT is divide et impera at its finest.

---

---

Update:
Excellent quoted post that I have missed. That is definitely useful for further discussions.

Can't expect anything else from mainstream media. They live on drama.
Then again if this scares people they obviously don't know what they have invested in in the first place, better to get rid of them if you ask me.

Community needs to aggressively educate BitcoinXT supporters.

Can somebody explain why some people disagree with the necessity of increasing block size ?
It should be increased to allow further BTC development, but harsh forking to XT without consensus is harmful, IMO.

Quote from: knight22 on Today at 03:30:06 AM

no: it's an inside job to destroy it, pure & simple:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/block-size-bitcoin-not-scale-effectively/

And it has good chances to succeed even if it does not get implemented, by dividing the community, crashing the price and so expectations, and obstructing a real solution to spam (attacks or crap indifferently) like this one:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114791/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

the very bad influence seems already started the price is tanking slowly but inexorably, i'm sure it has to do with the fork and XT, but if true that it will be possible to double spend your coins then in the case that the price will fall to 50% we have still the same value

\

Start with this: https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

Worth the read

Then read this : https://bitcoinxt.software/

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

Keep in mind, just because the max is 8MB doesn't mean that we start getting 8MB blocks immediately.  That just gives us breathing room to not need to do another hard fork for a while to let other scaling solutions mature.

I agree that there will come a time that 1MB isn't just enough to handle all the transactions in the network, but aggressively increasing the block size to 8MB is just way too high. There should be another solution to this impending problem other than increasing it by 8x.

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

Nope, xt doesn't mine blocks because most nodes are fake nodes (notXT-software). I was also looking into hosting 5 to 10 fake Gavincoin nodes.

Nope, xt doesn't mine blocks because most nodes are fake nodes (notXT-software). I was also looking into hosting 5 to 10 fake Gavincoin nodes.

Right now (until someone actually mines a block that is only accepted by one of the two competing protocols) XT is nothing more than an alternate client that supports the same consensus rules as Bitcoin Core.  After that, which is the alt and which is "bitcoin" will depend on the acceptance of each in the marketplace.

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.

11% in 3 days.

core should increase the blocksize to 4-5MB and would win these nodes.

9% of XT nodes doesn't really matter. Did XT mine any blocks ?

Didn't see that coming, huh?

Gavin is a complete PR desaster - always has been.

Nope, this doesn't work with ignorant people and some XT supporters. The last time that I used this statement, I received a nice piece of ad hominem in return. This is why theymos has called XT a programmed altcoin, I believe. It does make sense (to me).

XT is divide et impera at its finest.

If I could find a feature that violated the current bitcoin consensus rules and which approximately 50% of miners, merchants, and users were willing to immediately adopt while the other 50% were adamantly against, I would roll out a node that supported the feature and suggest that we fork bitcoin today.

Perhaps the result would be a complete disaster, and we could all stop wasting our time on an experiment that clearly can stand on its own in the real world...

Or perhaps market forces would stabilize the situation and everyone would finally shut up about how horrible a contentious fork might be.

This won't be the last time that some influential people want something that some other influential people don't want.  It is human nature and will occur over and over many times.  We can all calm down and accept that the design of bitcoin is capable of surviving anything that anyone else might do, or we can accept that the bitcoin experiment is a failure and we can silently move on with our lives.

Either way, it is certainly ridiculous to think that either side in any "fork" is the "right side". It's also ridiculous to expect that the whole world will always do what an individual or group thinks is "best for bitcoin" just because you want the world to behave that way. There will always be differences of opinion, and there will always be people that feel that they can force their opinion on others (by threats, intimidation, mockery, scare tactics, etc).

What do you think altcoins are?

99% of all altcoins ARE disputed forks of bitcoin.

An altcoin is THE RESULT OF someone creating a fork that only a portion of users decide to mine and use.

Miners will never adopt BitcoinXT, anyone educated enough to run a pool knows that BitcoinXT will lower the total amount of transaction fees. Why would they change over to something that is not only controversial but also takes money out of their pockets?

Anyone have a link for total hash of XT right now? I bet it's pathetic. Open all the bullshit nodes you want on free trials of virtual servers, will not make a difference.

9% of XT nodes doesn't really matter. Did XT mine any blocks ?

I propose we send them to re-education camps in Siberia.

we cant really be sure of that. A disputed fork never occurred before, even in other alt coins. We could be in trouble by holding assumptions.

There is no value in mining two different protocols.  One will always have an advantage and that is the side that people will flock to. If bitcoin really does split it 2 it will make bitcoin near worthless and it won't matter what side your on because nobody will buy into a payment system that could split apart like that. It will be a true failure of the protocol and bitcoin will likely be abadoned for an alt coin.


It wouldn't happen anyway because one side will become more valuable and more widely used.  The miners aren't going to want to get caught on the wrong side.  Again A fork will get resolved quickly because nobody wants to be sitting on coins they can't sell.  Greed will resolve this conflict faster then you realize.

This is really disturbing and may damage BTC reputation.
Also, it's not developers, but miners decide which version will prevail.

9% of XT nodes doesn't really matter. Did XT mine any blocks ?

9% of XT nodes doesn't really matter. Did XT mine any blocks ?

All these articles are from the past few hours, they are misrepresenting the situation with fear inducing titles. This is the main effect XT will have on Bitcoin, they will never get enough power to fork but they are damaging the reputation of Bitcoin far and wide. Community needs to aggressively exterminate BitcoinXT and its supporters. 



http://www.psfk.com/2015/08/bitcoin-xt-bitcoin-fork-cryptocurrency-bitcoin.html

http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21661404-spat-between-developers-may-split-digital-currency-forking-hell

http://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-xt-launches-block-size-debate-hearn-andresen-2015-8?r=UK&IR=T

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33974826

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-software-forked-in-bid-to-resolve-scalability-issue/

Its bad for price in the short term but I expect that once this isssue is resolved bitcoin will get a bid again.

Its not about moral stance. In the case that user base is split, exchanges and infrastructure is split, both coins can hold some financial value.

If both coins hold financial value there is profit to be made by mining both coins.

Of course the value of a united bitcoin would be more then the sum of it split parts.

Complete lack of understanding on how bitcoin works.  Any splits will be resolved quickly due to the incentive of miners to agree. Bitcoin is designed to do this.

that's not how it will work miners aren't going to take a moral stand if one side starts to min the rest will follow within a day or 2.  It will likely go to whatever side the exchanges are on because miners need to sell their coins.

What IS important is the very bad influence this all has on the market and trust in Bitcoin by the general audience. Lots of (unnecessary) confusion, panic, harm to Bitcoin's reputation, stalling it's acceptance and growth.

If the community is split and both coins have some financial value, people will mine both of them. People mine Litecoin afterall, which is kind of a fork of bitcoin.

the very bad influence seems already started the price is tanking slowly but inexorably, i'm sure it has to do with the fork and XT, but if true that it will be possible to double spend your coins then in the case that the price will fall to 50% we have still the same value

If the community is split and both coins have some financial value, people will mine both of them. People mine Litecoin afterall, which is kind of a fork of bitcoin.

Exactly.. Regardless whether Bitcoin XT will get enough nodes or miners to fork, or not, is not very important. And sure, Bitcoin will be able to handle this, technically.

What IS important is the very bad influence this all has on the market and trust in Bitcoin by the general audience. Lots of (unnecessary) confusion, panic, harm to Bitcoin's reputation, stalling it's acceptance and growth.

Complete lack of understanding on how bitcoin works.  Any splits will be resolved quickly due to the incentive of miners to agree. Bitcoin is designed to do this.