Topic: BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen. - page 3. (Read 6848 times)

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep, I missed that. It's thick and fast in here still.

That's a sensible response given your situation, I can empathise as I previously did some mining too. To answer your question to me, choosing between 8 MB XT and 1 MB Bitcoin, I would choose 1 MB Bitcoin. At least that's the question I believe you meant! But of course, that decision can't be made in isolation from the resumption of reality: XT would continue on it's schedule and Bitcoin would have to change, however that is achieved.

In addition, I will outline what I believe I would have done were I still mining today. And it is nearly the same choice; stick with the Core client, but open to the idea of mining the XT chain for at least a short while, profitability would trump ideology (I think we might all be tempted to run VISA or SWIFT nodes if such a thing existed). But that would depend, so, so, so heavily on the unknown/unpredictable events that will take place between now and January, one of which is XT's demise. This drama almost certainly has a few more acts to play out, I would be surprised if not.

I do think that the range of choices should be expanded, actually as soon as a third alternative comes into being which would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would personally support that instead. The way that I see it though, is that if these are the only two options we have now, I am in a position where I do have to make a choice even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

I get the feeling maybe you missed my response to your post, since I have actually already answered this question. lol

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12222488

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple.

Yes they have found a way to solve the problem without forking Bitcoin but they are the bad guys because I don't like them

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into solving the problem of small block sizes on the false assumption that Bitcoin would never be forked. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (problem solving) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT because they work for nothing and don't care about Bitcoin at all, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining in it's current working form.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream not those who've forked Bitcoin, and the lack of consensus (ie faith that we should all think exactly the same) with Gavin and Hearn is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" (the unimportant minority) who have a financial interest in keeping the Bitcoin the way it is are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not those who are forking Bitcoin.

A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change as a preemptive strike that will cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses now instead of waiting for Bitcoin to do it on it's own.

We have to act early to create these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States and we all (yes ALL of us) love democrazy and how voting produces such wonderful presidents. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable. That's why I keep starting new threads about XT because it's inevitable and I need to sell it to all those minority who have not chance of stopping us anyway, because, well because I'm right about all this stuff.

I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the "illusion" in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different, when really it's "Exactly" the same. (like black is white if you change it's name.) Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level.

If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsWjeiQ76s it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, that's why I state the logical arguments so clearly. The arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And that's why I tell you to be afraid, emotional and worried about the dangers for bitcoin!

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in not frightening people with a change of block size, not those with a deep interest in frightening people about small block sizes. I think this split is very dangerous and you should be afraid and emotional, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I wil follow my heart and support Bitcoin XT (,By logical, I mean if favor of XT). The BlockSize increase is necessary to destroy our enemies and a good thing for bitcoinXT! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I keep asking for a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT to convince myself that I'm actually interested in logical arguments. I am yet to find a logical one because listening to logical arguments would fry my small minded brain!

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill

alrite, pardon me if it is a bit harsh sometime, i am a civilized irl.
i surely wish i did not have to do this.
but thats internet and you gotta fight with the same weapons these people are using.

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

4 dev is better than 2.

besides you'll never run anything. noob.

might as well sell the few satoshi you have you retard little scumbag.

gtfo of bitcoin.

The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis.


But it will be after the fork. Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th.


I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion.

This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository. If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP 101 to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I predict that a group composed of Greg Maxwell, Mark Friedenbach, Luke Dashjr, Pieter Wuille etc would be the people forking the client. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances.

The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant.



Would you agre that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization...

Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it.

I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core).

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

You do realize that Bitcoin will continue running without BlockStream or XT right?  You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin.  I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on.  I mean, supporting XT which is a disgrace to what Bitcoin stands for, under the guise of solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.  If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options.  If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself.  BlockStream and XT are both shitty options with extreme benefits for their creators at the cost of the community.  Don't support either one.