Topic: Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL - page 2. (Read 12702 times)

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes. That chart says there's 6k. Huh

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks. Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute.

btw my vote is core.

your right we the usurers with an invested interest in the success of Bitcoin should choose what node software to run, the protocol is guarded by the node software we choose to run the more nodes using alternate code running the same protocol the less centralized Bitcoin will become. (promoting decentralization by centralizing control is an oxymoron)

I was just referring to the hand full of central controllers spreading fear uncertainty and doubt that want to keep control of the code that runs on 99% of nodes, they are using PR and Politics to maintain their control, they can't actual force you, but they can do things like prevent new users from using Satoshi Bitcoin (the idea of limited quantity not limited transactions) by only offering them a choice as agreed by the central governing comity, which is exactly what www.bitcoin.org is threatening to do to anyone who wants to run a code-base the central governing comity defines as controversial.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: Spjuth on June 11, 2015, 04:46:12 PM

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes. That chart says there's 6k. Huh

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks. Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute.

btw my vote is core.

EternalWingsofGod

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! Grin

That is an interesting picture it does makes sense that the developers run nodes for fun over there.

Quote from: kazuki49 on June 16, 2015, 02:10:46 AM

Quote from: solex on June 12, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

If MS did get serious in the embracing stage of Bitcoin the economic potential of a client on every MS computer as a default app or skin to pay for services would add signifcant leverage to the XT implementation, plus nodes would by default join XT a sort of a join the borg mentality, and break a stalemate.

But that's super speculation Wink

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: solex on June 12, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: Hyena on June 11, 2015, 12:37:25 AM

Quote from: solex on June 10, 2015, 05:33:37 PM

Quote from: Hyena on June 10, 2015, 12:43:00 AM

That's why I support the idea of getting rid of the Proof-of-Work mining altogether and replacing it with Proof-of-Stake. Right now miners are parasites to the network. The only owners of the network are actual bitcoin holders.

Satoshi's invention of mining (which probably should have been called "confirming") not only secures the blockchain but has one very important side-effect: the disbursement of the 21 million coins into as many hands as possible, i.e. distributing BTC wealth. This job is 2/3rds complete.

Would we prefer it if 73 people who happened to be around in the first months of 2009 got all the BTC to begin with?

Satoshi's PoW was very good for the initial distribution of coins but only for that. I don't support 100% PoS coins at all, that's the reason I hate NextCoin for example because 100% PoS is corrupt and unfair distribution. However, a hybrid between PoW and Pos (such as Peercoin) is the best approach. You have the coin slowly transforming from PoW to PoS over time. To put it into the context of Bitcoin, now would be the time when we should start seeing PoS blocks around and perhaps over the next 4 years PoS mining should become dominant to PoW mining.

A hybrid PoW/PoS mining model gives us the best from the both sides. It's the fairest initial coin distribution and energy efficient in the long term. As a bonus it makes network development decisions much easier to have a PoS coin because in PoS mining the miners and coin holders are the same people, so they can use their private keys to their stash to vote democratically what protocol changes to implement and what not.

Actually, I think that your suggestion is what is needed eventually, perhaps when the block reward gets below < 1BTC.

There is a long-term threat to the PoW model when the reward gets very small, "re-mining", where miners deliberately ignore recent blocks en-masse in order to grab the transaction fees for themselves. The incentive structure dissipates. However, IBLT should help a lot in this situation as it gives non-mining nodes some influence over the miners to only take tx from the mempools instead of orphaning. Might not be enough of a force and a PoS element could help.

Quote from: Spjuth on June 11, 2015, 04:46:12 PM

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! Grin

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

Spjuth

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! Grin

https://i.imgur.com/F2j1sko.png

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tss on June 11, 2015, 03:12:40 AM

so current poll looks like a united states election... 56 to 44 so far.
no majority by any means and not even close to the supposed 90% xt changes activation point.
anyways its all worthless.
if you choose xt then...
you're a moron follower who doesn't understand whats going on and want to devalue the btc.
OR...
chances are you aren't the other side who is a very early adopter who cashed out and is trying to take advantage of btc by changing it so your companies investments can use the blockchain for "software development"

I think you got that the wrong way around, its the VC's who haven't yet cashed out of Fiat who are trying to change Bitcoin to there advantage, its the early adopters if you could even call me that (in late 2011 everyone before me was an early adopter) that are invested in preserving the value that will materialize in Bitcoin.

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

so current poll looks like a united states election... 56 to 44 so far.
no majority by any means and not even close to the supposed 90% xt changes activation point.
anyways its all worthless.
if you choose xt then...
you're a moron follower who doesn't understand whats going on and want to devalue the btc.
OR...
chances are you aren't the other side who is a very early adopter who cashed out and is trying to take advantage of btc by changing it so your companies investments can use the blockchain for "software development"

Hyena

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: solex on June 10, 2015, 05:33:37 PM

Quote from: Hyena on June 10, 2015, 12:43:00 AM

That's why I support the idea of getting rid of the Proof-of-Work mining altogether and replacing it with Proof-of-Stake. Right now miners are parasites to the network. The only owners of the network are actual bitcoin holders.

Satoshi's invention of mining (which probably should have been called "confirming") not only secures the blockchain but has one very important side-effect: the disbursement of the 21 million coins into as many hands as possible, i.e. distributing BTC wealth. This job is 2/3rds complete.

Would we prefer it if 73 people who happened to be around in the first months of 2009 got all the BTC to begin with?

Satoshi's PoW was very good for the initial distribution of coins but only for that. I don't support 100% PoS coins at all, that's the reason I hate NextCoin for example because 100% PoS is corrupt and unfair distribution. However, a hybrid between PoW and Pos (such as Peercoin) is the best approach. You have the coin slowly transforming from PoW to PoS over time. To put it into the context of Bitcoin, now would be the time when we should start seeing PoS blocks around and perhaps over the next 4 years PoS mining should become dominant to PoW mining.

A hybrid PoW/PoS mining model gives us the best from the both sides. It's the fairest initial coin distribution and energy efficient in the long term. As a bonus it makes network development decisions much easier to have a PoS coin because in PoS mining the miners and coin holders are the same people, so they can use their private keys to their stash to vote democratically what protocol changes to implement and what not.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: MicroGuy on June 10, 2015, 07:09:51 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You can see how many XT nodes are running here:

http://www.xtnodes.com

Quite a bit of growth in the past week

Finally, we're getting what we need ... an iron-willed individual ready to take the bull by the horns and steer Bitcoin into victory lane.

Thanks man, just trying to do my part to contribute to the movement. If people know how strong we stand in numbers of XT nodes, then we can causatively reinforce that number until we have a majority. It's kind of difficult if we don't even know how many we have.

My XT node shows up as a Core 10.0.1 lets recount closer to Feb next year.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Alley on June 10, 2015, 10:14:36 PM

Quote from: Alley on June 10, 2015, 10:14:36 PM

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes. That chart says there's 6k. Huh

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks. Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

I would say you're incorrect. A network with only a few nodes would be susceptible to a cyber attack.

Sure but how many do you need? Nodes maintain the protocol and store the blockchain, the incentive to run a node is to protect the value one has stored on the blockchain and ensure miners abide by the rules.

Not everyone needs to run a node, I suspect businesses high net worth individuals, and a myriad of services will have a need to run a node, (preserve the protocol and have at hand, proof the blockchain is correct.) So long as there is competition nodes will not collude, and the network will be resilient as miners are the ones that validate transactions and miners do what nodes allow them to do.

This number isn't an arbitrary but a function of the distribution of of value stored on the blockchain and the services that are dependent on it. Referencing a number from the past isn't a reliable comparison, back then there were other methods used to count and everyone has to download the full blockchain if they were to use Bitcoin.

The most effective way to attack the network is to have a private corporation employ developers to wright the code for Bitcoin and have it be the single source for all nodes.

That is the situation today that's why I am running a Bitcoin XT node.

fartbags

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1004