Topic: Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL (Read 12702 times)

Such a coin already exists and is doing pretty well: NuBits. It's the first cryptocurrency that solved the volatility problem and has been holding a 1$ per nubit price peg for 10 months already since it was created.

i think the consensus on who the control freaks are, is still out.

Such things significantly complicate the goal of tapping a revenue stream based on individual tracking.  It cannot be done efficiently at a single point as would be the case by simply monitoring a single global blockchain.  Disaster.

It will also be much more difficult to exercise control if one cannot grab a single choke-point through tainting and such.  Disaster on top of disaster.

It also makes likely adversaries out of potential friends to have relatively large players such as gift-card issuers be able to realize a value autonomously.  Such more important players would be happy to cut out the middle-men from the equation if they can operate autonomously on a free blockchain.

No wonder these control freaks are in a state of panic.

Been reading on twitter the idea of bitcoin denominated creditcards or giftcards.

That is a thing that can 'rival visa' and is easy possible with defensible small blocks.
The issuer of such cards handles most transactions off chain.
So bitcoin can 'rival visa' already in its current state.

The GavinHearncoin looks more ridiculus by the day.

Well, the definition of cash needs for it to the fungible and anonymous. Bitcoin is not anonymous, or not enough due the fact the ledger is public, and fungibility is at least arguable. If you knew the BTC you just recieved comes from some illegal activity, would you still take it?
With cash, you would say yes because cash is untraceable, you wouldn't even know, the problem is with Bitcoin it's traceable due the public ledger. So im not sure about "electronic cash". I think Monero meets the electronic cash definition way better. I wish Bitcoin was as anonymous, but with anonymity other problems arise..

Considering Bitcoin was designed as an “electronic cash system”, your point of view doesn't match what Bitcoin is actually about. Also, you don't need to wait for confirmations when buying most things online.


Corporations creating altcoins seem like a publicity stunt that won't go very far. They would become some sort of coupons, but not more.


Seems like a contradiction. Is the problem that Bitcoin is not evolving, or that it is evolving?


A “Community Central Bank”, i.e. a central entity, something which Bitcoin has been against since the beginning.

Guys, what will happen after the fork with my old Bitcoins? I think XT won't resolve the "real problem".

Well, Im not tech, Im not economist, just a crypto enthusiast, but this is my point of view. I always have seen BTC like Gold, is too hard to be used as a "currency" for the mainstream operations:  you have to use it in very very very little fractions, have to wait lot of time to get a confirmation...

But Bitcoin is the mother of crytpo, it has a value accepted and has resisted a big crisis, guys. In the near future will come more alts, not only created by techs, or by some bump-and-dump guy, the biggest corporations will create them. BTC has been the reference since the begining... And so will be for the rest of time, BTC is the king of the crypto ecosystem.

BTC XT is trying to evolve BTC to try to be what BTC will never be. The problem is that is not evolving enough. Other alts better designed for merchants use can emerge and win the market; I hope the winner won't be a private alt...

So I think you should create and "Official altcoin", related with Bitcoin, with some inflation options, managed by the same community. That alt must be "cheap" and must has a real estable value to support a massive selling pressure. The alt would be build over a Community Central Bank.

Ecommerce in 2014 was around USD 1.5 trillion. If the "Offical Alt" could move just 1 %... it means USD 15 billions, so it need  a monetary mass around 750 mlls-1.5 billions of coins -to preserve a 1 to USD 1 similarity. How many coins will be needed to cover the 10 % of eCommerce?

Of course, I dont mean we must have an USD parity, just I'm saying that mass monetary required is too high respecfully BTC and BTC XT can offer.

A BTC fork would be sad, that's my point of view.

Do you know that larger (and especially unlimited) block sizes increase centralization and provide better opportunuties for attacks on the network?
Do you know that Core developers do want, and actually do a lot coding for Bitcoin to scale; I believe most of them agree that the limit should be raised. But the difference is that Core developers have an established system (BIP) for importang changes in the protocol. Yes, this system is not ideal and slow, but it allows devs and experts to thoroughly discuss all the problems, possible downsides and ways to prevent or manage them. This is a way for Bitcoin to be stable, secure and robust, not the XT stuff.

I also recommend reading Jeff Garzik paper BIP 100, where he suggests a way to increase blocks.
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

XT is not Core in a sense that it's not maintained by an experienced team of developers; it contains controversial changes that were implemented without reaching consensus. I can fork Core, change numbers and release it, but it wouldn't be Core anymore. Core is a reference implementation of protocol, XT is not.

I would go for XT. I'm in support of raising the block size limit or removing it completely.

I totally support 8 MiB. But after that we should not increase it any more and find some long term solution.

wtf is this? are you aware that XT is core with the block limit increased? still people think that there will be two different bitcoin respectively with their client..i'm astonished in the bad way

If the Core's block limit is raised to 8 MB, most people will use Core.

Well, a website wouldn't be able to vote on this poll, but bitcoin.org doesn't stand behind Mike's and Gavin's vision for a fork to increase the block size. Theymos' signature stands behind this decision.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894

Your comment just confirms this:


We can't have a sane discussion if people keep referring to the 20 MB proposal as “Gavincoin”.

This is the sort of talk that should be avoided. Lets stick to the arguments instead of trying to slander the other side by questioning their motivations.


Both sides do this.

Yep.  The reason why I transferred to LTC.  Looking for other alts to park tho...  LTC shot up wtf?

Change name to Gavincoin.

its in our best interest to not have a central control code base that runs on 99% of all nodes,

XT is the first option for making the split. no one is going to do anything stupid we all want Bitcoin to go to the moon, there is a lot of FUD out there, from the people who stand to loos control over Bitcoin.

some other options in the wind are libbitcoin and BTCD.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized if its controlled by a handful of centralized developers. a decentralized solution would look like 3 or 4 versions of different implementations running the same protocol, one where Core had just 33% or so.

Well, I hope they do not try and push it through if they do not have majority (85%+) mining, node and services on board.

Trying to go ahead without that consensus, would be damaging I think.

Apart from that I guess they have a right to try.


tbh Most likely they are doing it now to just try and put some pressure on the other side to yield.