Topic: Bitcoin Vs Bitcoin XT (is there any difference to the average person) (Read 1764 times)

"Cause and effect" is the what I am saying. XT is the "effect" of the disagreement.
Your dislike for XT (dangerous or risky) does not change the fact that this controversy is not caused by XT.


Please read what I wrote and read what you wrote. They mean the same thing. "Too many" means not everyone, similar to "some" and those "do not like the idea of raising (the limit)" are "refusing to accept any raise of blocksize (limit)". What is incorrect about my statement?

Read my previous posts if you will. I am not the "supporter" you seem to believe I am. My idea of a good resolution to this controversy is obviously Core raising the limit. They aren't moving along as fast as they should. I see no end to this and there is a need to voice out, "tell" them what we users want.

So running a dangerous and risky fork attempt is the right way to go? Implementing controversial and buggy patches is what we should be doing?

This is wrong again. Some of them do not like the idea of raising it. The others just can't reach consensus as to when to raise it and how much to raise it. XT supporters needs to stop spreading this as it is not right.

The controversy is not caused by XT. It's too many Core Devs are in the BlockStream pact. They refuse to accept any raise of blocksize. That is the core of the problem (pun intended).


Unless you have a farm of beefy miners,  it's not your choice (or mine) to make. Sheeps, us users, have to follow the mainchain. The best we can do is keep our coins distributed on the pre-fork chain.

That's the attitude!  You go and charge that line of spears with your naked self   LOL

This is a pussy mindset. 0% compromise with the powers that be. We want a free and independent Bitcoin, fight till the end for it, no ifs. Anything else is a big failure and satoshi will be crying in anonymity (im asuming he isn't going to come back ever again in a legitimate way using his PGP key this point).

And just to go on the record for the sheep.... we agree with the above highlight.  We don't WANT the blacklisting / IP tracking etc.  But we will have our bitcoin.  And if the Very Powerful wolves don't get some of what they want - then they will do away with our bitcoin and create something even more controlling - maybe even limiting our access to various functions (research the itbit setup for example).  So we are not naive enough to not realize that Mike & Gavin are embedding $#IT that isn't good for us - but realize that part of the reason they are doing it is because they are under immense pressure to compromise with the wolf lobby.  So our ultimate desire is that they (and all the voices that influence this) do give a good fight / negotiation into limiting the bad stuff - but we do still want our bitcoin - and in the end - the great scheme of things is that in this Age, which is not yet at an end, the finances are ultimately run by the Wolves.  Soon as everyone accepts and understands that and simply treats it like realistically for what it is - with intelligent positioning/negotiation/manipulation to minimize the damage, but still achieve the goal - then the quicker this moves along and back to business.

Peace, -d

If the XT fork was the same as Core but with a higher blocksize then there would be no controversy, the main problem is Gavin and Hearn are trying to pass a lot of shit in between the code with the excuse of the so called doomsday if we don't raise the blocksize limit about now.

OK - so, the simple answer FOR NOW - is that I have nothing (Zero% Chance) to worry about until possibly January 1 2016 in regards to how/where I acquire or store my bitcoins - in regards to this specific issue of whether they will continue to be accepted on one fork or another?  And I can go back to munching grass until slightly before that, at which point I may wish to monitor situation??

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.

Well, my belief is that my main concern IS, and should be, whether my bitcoins work.  Remember, as I said from the beginning - I'm just an average guy.  Average guys are just sheep trying to get through the day.  Earn enough bitcoin to buy a beer or a nice latte grande   And when I open my wallet I want to see the "money" there.  And when I slide my "card" I want the darn thing to work.

And like most average guys, I don't have time to download / run the entire core, and my simplistic brain is already hardwired to using a brick and mortar bank.  They handle all my security for me.  And my monies are insured.  Coinbase and Circle are the Bitcoin Version of those existing brick and mortar banks - so that is where I will go.  I have 2-Factor, and partial insurance - so I figure if I can get hacked and lose my bitcoin completely there - I will darn sure lose my bitcoin if I attempt to play junior technologist and do it on my own.   And further - like a good sheep, I want my grass cool and quick.  Too much security and it starts to seem too much like work.

I'm a sheep - and there are a lot more of me than there are of you.  The sheer mass and volume and stupidity of my herd is what drives the global world merrily along on it's economic course.  While I realize the fact that the wolves are trying to gain control over me - and that some of the "hidden" code of XT is well beyond simple block size increases - and is perhaps even the greater motive of the wolves - I and my huge flock of similar minded sheep are actually used to getting chomped on sometimes.  It's part of our nature that we accept the fact that we occassionally get slaughtered.  So we don't really care that we are being led to the slaughter..... as long as our Bitcoins work, and we can eat, drink and be merry - all the way to the slaughter, blissful in our intentional ignorance.

SO NOW back to an unresolved issue I still have.....

IF I were to buy or accept a Bitcoin, from a person or exchange that was running XT, and ultimately the whole XT rollout then subsequently fails - and the primary Chain remains "Core Centric" - will those Bitcoins that were acquired via an XT node operating Exchange be valid anymore on Core Chain?

To simplify.... is there a danger that a sloppy rollout could result in a window of time that one might need to be very cautious in how/where they acquire bitcoins?  And if so - how does an average sheep know what to look for to determine what might be a Bitcoin originating from an XT Chain??

Peace, -d

not  immediately, but in the future, where we are back to sq one with only big companies mining and running nodes.

Sure.

You can send me an email too if you prefer.

If you have your coins at Coinbase, you don't have the private keys to your address. So you are controlled by what Coinbase decides to do. Should they want to remain on the minority fork (extremely unlikely), your coins will be at risk because your coins will only exist one fork. You should start moving coins to your own address you have keys for, so your coins will exist on both forks and you can decide for yourself.


If you believe bitcoin will continue to grow, then there is nothing to worry. Keep your coins in your own wallet. Price will pick up after the blocksize debate is over.

Your coins will still work on XT, but that shouldn't be your main concern.

I personally think 8MB blocks are superior to 1MB, but no way in hell do I think 8MB and a divided community is better than 1MB with an opportunity to compromise. When it comes down to it, the community is the most valuable variable to the value of Bitcoin. Without an active group of people believing in the value, Bitcoin will die. I see no reason to alienate certain members of the Bitcoin community when there is no pressing reason to do so.

DannyHamilton is awesome.  He was one of the first people that made me feel welcome here--actually walked me through how to use a wallet!  Incredibly knowledgeable and patient with those truly interested in learning about Bitcoin.  I'll likely be reaching out to him again soon as well.  Thank you for continuing to be a trusted resource for our community DannyHamilton!

I might take you up on that. I've got a number of questions that have been bugging me for a while. I haven't wanted to ask them for fear of looking like an idiot on the open forum. I may take time to send you (as a trusted, knowledgable, old school forum member) a PM tomorrow if that's ok.

It is very difficult to get a straight answer in this forum with such a question.  You are likely to get some very passionate (and scary) sounding answers from individuals that are sure that they know exactly what the future will bring.  If you want to discuss this in a more relaxed and unbiased setting, feel free to send me a PM.

this response is one of the best

we have no way to influence the course of BTC  daor market strength

Great explanations. I now understand it for the first time 

As for Bitcoin adresses.... Would they still be operational if there is a fork? I mean, my coinbase adresses (for example) would still be working for XT if there is a fork?

I see two separate issues being addressed here.  One is the validity of each BTC.  The other is the value of each BTC.

I'm guessing there are quite a few threads addressing this already, so please do post links to answers.  Most of the discussion I've seen is technical, political and/or philosophical...rather than real world practical and logistical execution discussion for the average user.  Also, please correct and/or elaborate as I'm sure I've missed details as we piece this together...but the way I understand it...

Any Bitcoin Core created BTC pre-fork would continue to be valid on Bitcoin XT.  All BTC, be it from Core or XT would be valid on both chains, for as long as Core could maintain the capacity to handle the additional volume created by XT's increased blocksize.  But new BTC created once Core has reached it's max capacity would then only be identified and valid on XT.   At that point, sending a newly mined BTC to the older chain would simply no longer be recognized?  But sending a pre-fork BTC to the XT chain would always be valid and recognized.

The value question is completely separate.  The value of any BTC regardless of what chain its on can rise and fall based on myriad factors, not the least of which is the potential loss of trust in the network due to these and/or other changes.  One BTC from either chain would be worth one BTC--the question is simply which chain would recognize it based on it's date of creation.  The exchange rate value of any BTC will be determined by market forces, rather than technical ones.