Topic: Bitcoin is Forking - page 3. (Read 5334 times)

I've never understood why people never understand this aspect.

There is no such thing as free energy, Someone has to pay for it. Bitcoin network can not rely on a handful of tenants abusing their lease contract.

If you even understand an ounce of the whole bitcoin movement, you would understand it must not have biased rules for a set of players.

Beside having bandwidth as another variable in mining calculation, it help eliminate the geographic centralization of bitcoin mining. This does not mean home mining will hold a candle, mining should be purely business driven not some ideal day dreaming shit.

Your logic is so old and flawed, i feel like i'm back to arguing with Litcoin supporters when it came out. Right...... ASIC resistent huh?

It's exceedingly early days. There'll be plenty of screaming and shouting before we know where it's headed.

yeah great fork with only 206 nodes and 0 bitcoin from miners . Ok is official this will fail

http://www.xtnodes.com/

Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up

Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.

This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Actually this fork is a good test for the total decision making intelligence of bitcoin community, if majority of community members are just blind followers, then XT fork might receive enough support and become a hard fork, but if majority of the members can think independently, they are very unlikely to go with XT, which is a much higher risk road. Why take a higher risk decision when you can take a lower one??

Anyone wanting to stay in the loop can subscribe to the bitcoin-dev mailing list at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

That's the modification that all the chinese pools and exchanges agreed to and signed on right? The 8MB limit?

If people, they learn that the BIP101 is in discussion between developpers for Bitcoin Core to adopt a strategy to raise the block size.

So, wait the september and it will be done for integration.  

Thanks a lot - that's awesome!

Makes sense. I changed it so that the data gets updated every 30 minutes (Current day gets overwritten).
Bitcoin XT 0.11.0 gained 14 nodes in the last hour or so...

Awesome, thank you for this.

Cool, thanks (and asking: Could an update be done more often? Just in the first few days....?)

I don't think they just chose that name because they thought it was cool. If I recall correctly, XT was a build off of Bitcoin QT and the name is just a naming convention from previous versions.

I made a quick chart to keep track of Bitcoin XT adoption over time

http://www.blockchaincenter.de/

The chart will get updated daily at noon (GMT).

The debate was going on for a long time. So now, Bitcoin XT (what a crappy name, btw) is out of the box. So it is basically up to the active users to decide. That's an electronic form of democracy. If anybody wants to sue them because they give users a choice, I'd say: Let the guys who want to file a lawsuit do this.

And I totally disagree: The debate is good for Bitcoin. Most of the normal users won't even realise that something's going on. They simply don't care. They want to make their transactions, smoothly and cheap.

Of course a lot of people will use this debate to jump an their (bankers) chairs and cheer: "See, Bitcoin is dead". So what? Not the first time, not the last time.

As I said: Let the users decide.

Power over money are both very toxic things this is true. The quicker we move forward the better IHMO.

edit: ELI5 on this subject for people:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12150667

It's still small enough for a modest number of individuals to have massive sway. There's enough money in it right now for their best interests to  overrule the system's.

That's a pretty toxic combo. Whatever fork there may be it's better to get it over and done with rapidly.

Bitcoin evolution into something better (or the incentive to make it better) will rise questions and sparkle debates until the end of the time, because if you don't
debate and change it when it's needed, bitcoin will eventually become obsolete.

The most important thing is for us to remain civilized about it, and any other outstanding problem, so that we don't kill bitcoin by dividing it into xyz forks and therefore cripple it for everyone. Our strength should be in numbers that are rising constantly, rather than decreasing.