Topic: BIP 101 blocks (Read 2911 times)

ya XT is a flop
you should read the BIP100 proposal tho...

You are spot on with that observation. People like splitting hairs by saying "it's a vote for bigger blocks, not XT" or "it's a vote for BIP 101 not XT" or "any vote for 8MB is a vote for BIP 101" or "any vote for 8MB is a vote for XT"...

All in all it's a load of bullshit. Most pools want bigger blocks long term, but not BIP 101 nor XT. That is all. The ONLY push for BIP 101 now is the XT client or stripped down XT.

So, if BIP101 doesn't get adopted, does that most likely mean that XT goes down with it?

I assume that BIP100 can get adopted without adopting XT and whatever is buried inside XT?

I sometimes think think that folks are arguing very fine distinctions that don't really matter in the end. My general sense is that while not the same, BIP101 and XT are "joined at the hip", and not really separable at this time.

Sure they're different, bitcoinXT is a full node and BIP101 is a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. But Both are made by the same person and essentially go hand by hand since bitcoinXT is currently the only full client supporting BIP101. So in the end of te day, they're not that far appart.

I really don't think that Bitcoin XT will survive. So my decision is that I won't mine BIP 101 blocks. I'll just stick with the good old Bitcoin Core. 

he means no. They're different

Well, XT is in support of BIP101 but I'm suspecting that Mike and Gavin are also pushing for BIP101 acceptance instead of the whole package (BIP101 + bitcoinXT). In this document signed by CEOs of bitcoin related companies XT isn't even mentioned once.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

So, at the present time is the label "BIP101" the same as "XT"? This whole thing is a complete fiasco (IMHO), and leads to massive confusion and questions. Makes me wonder if we won't have to worry about a 51% attack so much as internal self destruction.

It's quite early to worry about that. The 'vote' that's taking place right now is just pools adding a small chunk of text in the coinbase of each block. Even bitcoin XT's parameters indicate that the fork cannot be triggered before January 2016.

I really have just one question.

Will my 6 TH in mining hardware sill work if the community switches?

My mining hardware investment has paid for itself, but it seems like the Bitcoin I'd prefer to use to replace my rigs, if I had to, would be worthless.

Looking at ALL the stories of "TO BIG TO FAIL BANKS" checking out the Blockchain for use, kind of makes you wounder who is really going to benefit from 20MB blocks and who will use every trick in the book to control the chain (like having hand picked tor exit nods and blocking the rest).

2 or 3MB should be good for now, with increases as needed. Maybe in 10-15 years, 20MB may be needed, who knows?

There is only a handful of devs behind XT. I for one like to see any kind of development and progression but i also want transparency and full details about the changes that are readily attainable. Otherwise it is a security issue in itself. Since XT relies on Core itself I was willing to try it but I wasn't aware of some of the issue mentioned here.It also changes certain default settings but you have to search what exactly. Since this is just starting off I'm hoping they are going to add more details on their site but they should have right off the bat to gain more trust. I started to think something was shady as well but it was more gut feeling that's why I'm trying to figure out more about it. With the support it currently has it's going to be dominate so Core devs are going to have to step it up and adapt maybe that is the point to pressure early adoption. Such a small group and the media hype without exact details seems suspicious.

Thanks for the info about this. I think this aspect of XT deserves more debate as it is an issue that is not well understood.

Hand-picked exit nodes? Shady as hell.

Well I kept his name out of it, because he's getting a lot of bashing when Gavin is equally responsible for this mess, however: it was Mike Hearn that wrote that code.

He wrote notes in the commit that says the hardcoding is a temporary measure, he wants to load the list of exit nodes in using files instead. Not only is that also a bad idea (most are unlikely to choose against the default list, or even be aware that's a choice to be made). And in addition, I'll believe it when I see it.

Having TOR nodes hard coded into the XT client is a stupid idea & defeats the object of using TOR completely. Who chose the relay nodes? Why? What happens if they are compromised (if they're not already)?

Sounds dodgy as hell if you ask me.

RIght, the blacklist thing isn't true, it's sort of like counter-counter-FUD.

It's not a list of Tor nodes that get "banned" from Tor. When you're on Tor, you're using the Tor network. To get on, you need one node to send data into the network, and a different node that sends the data you wanted back to you. The former is called an "entry node", and the latter is called an "exit node". The XT patch to Tor has a list of the exit nodes that can be used with XT. Because of how it was coded up, you cannot connect to any other exit nodes except those on the list.

This is a threat to privacy, but it doesn't stop you using Tor with XT. There's not much point using Tor if the exit nodes are hand picked by the developers, that's not the role they should be playing.

my support for XT is now dwindling...

I think it would be possible for a node running under TOR to relay a TX to a node that isn't under TOR and running a modified version of XT which has an empty black list of TOR IPs which then relays the TX to all the other regular TX nodes without them ever knowing the TX originated from a client under TOR.

I think most can agree we NEED to increase block size at least a little, the market is demanding bigger blocks, sooner or later the 1MB limit will be causing huge problems, if XT solves this problem and the free market adopts it willingly this is not "anti-competitive" quite the opposite.

If bitcoinCore would implement a tiny increase in blocksize say 2MB  this would solve the immediate problem, buy them enough time to implement alternative solutions, and they would find it VERY easy to gain support. I for one am only considering XT because it solves the immediate problem. Give me a less drastic alternative and ill go for it.  To say 1MB limit is "just fine" and we'll eventually have tech to reduce the TX/pre on the mainchain makes me want to cry man, they won't even acknowledge there's a problem... how can I support CORE when blocks start to be 1.5MB back to back aculating 1MB of backlog every 20mins!!??

No, you're wrong, you've misunderstood the implications. Dark net markets use Tor, and XT breaks Tor compatibility. Either users cannot easily access other XT nodes from behind Tor (becasue of the anti-DOS deprioritising), or their privacy is compromised by the hardcoded list of Tor exit nodes that XT will permit you to connect to (privacy is the point of using Tor in the first instance, remember?).

So to DNM operators, it's not the difference between low volumes (with Core) and higher volumes (with XT), as you suggest. It's the difference between some (with Core) and none (with XT). I broadcast all my transactions over Tor, even when using my phone, even when just buying a packet of chewing gum. I wouldn't have the confidence that this was worth the effort on a network run by the Hearn gang


After the fork, spend your XT coins on the Core chain. You won't be able to. Because of the fork.


When did I say we should keep it the same or reduce it? Raising the limit to a fixed limit with an increase schedule is anti-competitive and anti free market. I never would have expected someone like you to want central planning in his coin. Especially not a coin centrally planned by known sympathisers with politicising money systems.

BIP 101 blocks and Tor support are two different things, there will be clients that run with XT style blocks but do not implement the TOR blacklist thing.

i think what you mean to say is: if the dark markets do not increase block size they will soon find themselves waiting days for the confirmations, as block limit is surpassed. If the TX  backlog cannot be cleared because of the 1mb block limit and this backlog just keeps growing and growing, you might find it Extremely difficult to get confirmations and might even get to a point where your TX never confirmed  and you have to resend and hope it makes it into the ever increasing backlog.

I really hate when poeple call XT an alt, it is a fork! forks are good, if bitcoin does not evolve (for lack of a better word) it WILL die, we can't let a handful of nut bags halt bitcoins progress and endanger its functionality in the process.  I think it's fascinating how the blockchain can fork in this manner when there isn't 100% consensus and the change is felt to be vital by most. I look forward to more forks and more debates about these future forks.

also google " hostile takeover ", this fork is very much in the sprite of bitcoin itself,and if satoshi was around he would be supporting XT, he said it himself that the block size will need to be increased in the future.

maybe the Core Devs will come back to reality and add 4-5 MB blocks with a little increase over time. otherwise the majority will switch as soon as we see 1MB and a rising transaction costs in 2016!

for now, ill support XT.