Topic: Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL - page 5. (Read 12702 times)

Gavin has said that he would not link the hard-fork with any other changes (even though it would be a real benefit to Bitcoin to get a few technical improvements done at the same time which also need hard-forks, and will probably never happen because of that).

So what are the recent news?

I am voting for XT under the assumption that THE ONLY THING they would do is to increase the max block size from 1 MiB to 8 MiB. If there anything else they want to implement as a part of the hard fork then I might not vote for XT. This poll sucks in a sense that it is unclear what XT would specifically introduce.

uhh I think, that you missed the point. please take your time and read about XT and recent news again..

Bitcoin for everybody not just for the elite, super rich or startup services ....

Voted for XT

There are alts that can't do such a thing for valid reasons. For example, it doesn't make sense to distribute nubits amongst all bitcoin holders just because they hold bitcoin. However, in many cases alts could have used such a wealth distribution. For example, in the case of dogecoin, litecoin, ethereum and namecoin.


PoS is much more secure because it's cheaper to buy the majority of mining power than buying the majority of all coins. Can you imagine someone trying to buy more than 50% of all bitcoins right now? The price would just go so high that it wouldn't make any sense to buy them.

How many coins Satoshi supposedly has? A million? It's less than 10%. He wouldn't be able to do anything with less than 10%. Also, I don't support pure PoS such as NXT. Pure PoS is weak but a hybrid such as peercoin is the real good solution. Peercoin started as a PoW coin but over time PoS mining was set to become more profitable than PoW mining. The reason for this is that PoS makes the coin weaker in the very beginning because then it is easier to hoard more than 50% of the coins (as it was with nextcoin). However, after enough coins has been distributed conventionally (using PoW) it becomes safe to switch to PoS mining.

edit:
I now switched my vote back to XT since Gavin admitted that 20 MiB was based on wrong calculations. I support increasing the max block size to 8 MiB as a means to postpone the problem for 4 more years and thus give time for the lightning network and similar solutions to be developed.

Huh? You're saying all alts should just do a 100% premine and award their coins to whomever happens to hold bitcoin at a given snapshot in time? And that's more fair than altcoins launching with GPU/CPU mining in a competitive environment where anyone with a computer can be involved? I don't follow you.

I'm also far from convinced that PoS is more secure. Can you imagine the kind of weight Satoshi would throw in if he suddenly started staking BTC after a hiatus (if it functioned like the PoS coins I'm familiar with)? He'd be able to double-spend at will. I've inadvertently gotten 20 consecutive confirmations on an altcoin simply by not staking for a while and then jumping in. A coalition of BTC holders could wreak havoc with PoS.

I am for XT, I like that changes are relatively rare in Bitcoin compared to altcoins, but some things just have to be done no matter if everyone likes it or not. And this is one of those things. It's for the good and bright future of Bitcoin

Yes, I wouldn't lower the 10 minute confirmation time. Too much hard code has been written under the assumption that 1 block =  roughly 10 minutes. You can accept pending transactions but only deliver after enough confirmations has been received. it can be solved outside the block chain by merchants.

this isn't really an issue, merchants could just accept pending transacction, node propagation can play a big role against any feasible attack to the network

Bitcoin has the perfect wealth distribution. All altcoins who started a competition against bitcoin instead of taking a snapshot of btc's ledger and using the same base wealth distribution made a wrong, greedy and selfish decision. To punish those alts for trying to compete with bitcoin with their petty little enhancements I would suggest upgrading bitcoin over time to support hybrid mining ( PoS + PoW similarly to peercoin ) and block chain based stakeholder voting similarly to peershares. This ASIC centralization should be terminated and replaced with PoS mining which is much better security model.

I can't vote because I'm a newbie but I want to say that I'll be going with XT if its the wrong decision I will bow out i just dont think carrying on the way we are is going to be beneficial and going xt isnt going to effect many people in terms of centerlisation.

I'm totally agree with bitcoin XT for 20MB
But how about lower bitcoin block time from 10 minutes become 1 minutes or so

One of the big selling points of BTC is being able to move millions with very low fees. If we end up paying fees as big as normal banking, then that defeats a big point of what makes BTC amazing.

I vote XT for bigger blocks. As I see it there is a handful devs that try to kidnap Bitcoin for their own ideological reasons.
Gavin and Mike are the ones that keeps the promise given from the beginning. If others want something else, i.e. a small altcoin that you can run on your laptop, then work on that. Bitcoin is supposed to be the big global ledger. That needs much bigger block size.

I run my own full node and I will switch to XT when it has the bigger block size implementation.

One vote? That can't be right. I don't see the results of the poll, probably because OP choose not to shot them but it seems kinda broken to me.

If you want to send Bitcoins... Pay the fee. Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing the Reddit retards lose their $ following the wrong fork. Kinda mean but w/e

I voted for Bitcoin XT and this is the reason:

It is not only about the blocksize debate. It's about progress (XT, Gavin, Hearn and other) vs. non-progress (Core, Bockstream clan https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-blockstream-the-reason-why-4-core-developer-wont-increase-the-blocksize-1075323).
While I agree the decentralization aspect is one of the most important factors for bitcoin, the Blockstream clan is constantly ignoring suggestions about the technical progress of bitcoins. It might be somehow about their cypherpunk background or rather because of their inexperience.
I am sure we would be a big move more into mass adaption without these guys and with a more progress based core team (Hearn, Gavin, even Sathoshi).

But the Blockstream guys don't want progress, they don't want mass adoption. A lot of them are ignorant and simply don't understand economics and how to make bitcoin for the mass.

But progress, changes but also failings are crucial, even with bitcoin. The community will stand behind the project, even if we need to hard fork again, even if we need to roll-over the blockchain, now is the best time to probe. We are still in the pre mass adoption phase.

So if you are poor you are stuck with the shittier non premium service (your transaction will not be in the official blockchain, therefore defeating the purpose of using BTC above regular payment methods). I would understand it for microtransactions, but not for norma ltransactions. Tat uscks.

I voted core because everybody is on XT.  That one vote on core is mine.

20 MB is a limit, not the target. It gives us extra time to adapt. 8 MB could also be good.