I cant believe this could happen.
Are we really gonna see ip blacklist and software control by 2 dev ?
Sad
2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.
Topic: BIP 101 blocks - page 2. (Read 2901 times)
I cant believe this could happen.
Are we really gonna see ip blacklist and software control by 2 dev ?
Sad
2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.
I cant believe this could happen.
Are we really gonna see ip blacklist and software control by 2 dev ?
Sad
No... AntPool supports larger block size and will support XT if it gains the majority. So far the ONLY pool to actually submit XT blocks is Slush. Latest was 370817. However, Slush is also mining version 3 blocks as well. Latest was 370859.
I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks. I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it. Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that. Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin. While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
This won't be the last attempt either, I foresee a glut of BTC alt clients coming out soon, all claiming to "represent the community"
I'll stick with the original.
I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks. I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it. Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that. Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin. While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.
Fully correct: a hostile takeover, but driven by market forces. (i.e. the perpetrators of the fork are somewhat successful at spreading misinformation to gain supporters)
Fortunately, reality cannot be altered by misinformation, only the perception of reality can be distorted.
So if XT becomes an established alt alongside Bitcoin (and it won't displace the original, because it cannot serve confidential transactions on the darkmarkets without proper Tor support), then eveyone will soon find out that the economic incentives offered by XT too closely resemble the legacy financial system that we're trying to be rid of.
I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks. I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it. Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that. Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin. While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.
I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks. I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it. Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that. Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin. While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?
Personally, I'm all for BIP101. I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.
will you be mining BIP 101 blocks?
I think it important to increase the blocksize limit, satoshi intended it to be raised when the time came, and the time has come. I also think it's important dev come up with ingenious ways to reduce traffic on the main chain, while these "side chains" and "block streams" are being developed we need bigger blocks to accommodate the growing TX vol, even if these alternative TX methods were ready today, I believe we will evently need bigger blocks in anycase. Mining Farms will have no problem downloading 8MB / 10mins, and smaller minner can continue to mine in a pool and be completely unaffected by increase in blocksize. the idea that requiring solo miners to download <8MB blocks will centralize Bitcoin is a ridiculous argument.
weather or not block limit in increased the TX vol will, resulting in the same amount of data needed to be downloaded but also keeping a huge backlog of TX's in a mempool to eventually be placed in an overly stuffed block. slowing confirmation times, while requiring the same bloody bandwidth.
also, heres some stats http://xtnodes.com/
I think it important to increase the blocksize limit, satoshi intended it to be raised when the time came, and the time has come. I also think it's important dev come up with ingenious ways to reduce traffic on the main chain, while these "side chains" and "block streams" are being developed we need bigger blocks to accommodate the growing TX vol, even if these alternative TX methods were ready today, I believe we will evently need bigger blocks in anycase. Mining Farms will have no problem downloading 8MB / 10mins, and smaller minner can continue to mine in a pool and be completely unaffected by increase in blocksize. the idea that requiring solo miners to download <8MB blocks will centralize Bitcoin is a ridiculous argument.
weather or not block limit in increased the TX vol will, resulting in the same amount of data needed to be downloaded but also keeping a huge backlog of TX's in a mempool to eventually be placed in an overly stuffed block. slowing confirmation times, while requiring the same bloody bandwidth.
also, heres some stats http://xtnodes.com/
Jump to: