Topic: Consequences of the ongoing core vs. XT battle. (Read 3284 times)

In this case stop running XT, otherwise your logic is flawed. Isn't it obvious that by running XT you are enabling them to get in control of development and do whatever they like?

Personally I don't understand the part with the mindless children. Can you elaborate?

Grow up.  I run XT and I don't want Mike, Gavin or anyone to be the "bosses" of bitcoin.

It's mindless children like you that are the problem society has.

doesn't take a genus to understand despite all the misinformation, the battle has little to do with blocksize.

Yes that's perfectly plausible, but you're unlikely to be able to convince the XT development "team" to do that.

Also, note that redlisting/transaction censorship doesn't exist in the XT code. Yet.

CI fuckin A
theybribed Slush to mine 1 XT block 
however, Slush is in danger of life now, because he switched back to core 

Again and again I am surprised how polarized the debate is. (This thread is actually quite good and polite.)
As I stated here, there are many more options (each with many fine-tunable parameters) than only two.

I was trying to say it without sounding insulting to Blazr. He's been here longer than I have. If I'm wrong about the history, I'll admit it and apologize. I think he's probably confusing the block size limit with something else. Memory is imperfect. Regarding the 32 MB, I think that was effectively a limit since that was the size limit on all messages.

Ok, as I understand it, the people that don't want to go to XT are doing so because of ONE thing: The so-called anti-ddos code, which they believe is a slippery slope that may lead to a 1984-style version of Bitcoin in which the capability exists to arbitrarily prevent users/IP address from accessing the network. If this is not correct, stop me here. Now, I'm also under the impression that this anti-ddos code is but a mere section that does not conflict or malign the core consensus code. My question is, couldn't we just RIP OUT the offending code and still have a Bitcoin (XT) that supports bigger blocks but NOT any of the draconian-orwellian stuff like "redlisting", etc?

my opinion is that whatever happens, this benefits no one, I hope it ends soon because all this discussions are not doing a good favor to the bitcoin world.

Perhaps we are giving a bad image to people who still do not know the bitcoin and i dont like it.

Blazr knows the history of what Satoshi posted on this forum very well, he's demonstrated many times in the past that he researches his Satoshi lore very diligently. I would be surprised if he was wrong (for instance, there was apparently a 32 MB limit before the 1MB limit was introduced).

Since it doesn't seem to have come up again, I will be more definite in my assertions: Satoshi added a 1MB block size limit in 2010. It has never been raised since. It has been discussed many, many times, but it has never been raised.

The debate is acrimonious enough without trying to rewrite the history of what's happened.

I am also in favor of this change, I would also prefer to see these changes to be implemented in Core. However that does not seem to be possible since some of the other core developers will not compromise and do not want to increase the block size limit at all. This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus that is unprecedented in history but it is a trial that we must go through, and it is better that we do this sooner as opposed to later.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

i'm also in favor of the changes but not in favor of this whole mess of two possible chain, do it in the good old way with a simple upgrade to core

now that i think about it when they changed the name from QT to Core, there were no complain at all, how come?

I support your arguments. Changing Bitcoin in this way is totally risky.

For me, passing to XT means a big foot moving from decentralization to centralization.

Is simple. BitcoinXT means the end of independence of Bitcoin and a new era that bitcoin will work only for the financial system and governments and not for the people. Before that i have respect soo much Gavin but now i think he breaks his reputation in the bitcoin community forever. I think was a hidden shady person that act for his own propose and not for the good of bitcoin and for bitcoin community.

I bloody well hope so. This is a large financial proposition and seeing it placed at risk to assuage egos is hardly the kind of thing we want the world to see.

I think nothing will happen. Bitcoin is a big thing to have consequences from such things. It is biggest the whole technology behind it. So, at the end, all the parts will see each other in a round table (in the worst of the cases) and will find the resolution of everything.

Or when negotiating with people who won't budge an inch.
I'm sure an almost insignificant move towards compromise by the core devs would take the wind out of this fork.

The community is divided and Bitcoin is forking: both the software and, perhaps, the block chain too. The two sides of the split are Bitcoin Core and a slight variant of the same program, called Bitcoin XT.

Communication has broken down, both sides feel they are vigorously defending decentralization and the One True Bitcoin Vision. The community is divided.

i support XT at a part, but the block size maximum limit would be 128 or 256mb, in order to ensure the speed is enough for the low speed users.
i support core, it is much more newbie friendly.