Topic: Consequences of the ongoing core vs. XT battle. - page 2. (Read 3299 times)

Technicalities aside, I think my main concern is that people are taking positions on more of a 'fuck you' basis rather than what benefits them or the system as a whole. I wonder how many xt nodes are nothing more than a protest vote. That's a lot easier than taking the time to truly consider your position.

i have some of the points to explain with bitcoin XT, i could only agree for the block size up to 128 to 256 mb:

1. encouragement of transaction spamming.
as the block size increases, if the numbers of bitcoin users did not increase, some of the people would be able to do major amount of bullshit transactions into the blockchain, but their transaction would be done after a block. that would be unfair to the people with transaction which makes more sense. every time the block size was full of garbage transactions, people would have no choice but to get an online wallet. as a result, people with the XT node wallet would be in trouble of storage, most of the people could not afford at least 4tb HDD to support the blockchain.

2. breaking the protocol of bitcoin.
simply, if bitcoin was newbie friendly, we would not have the XT node. the XT node eats major amount of storage, and what worse is those data could not be archived at all! at the second point, not all of the bitcoin user enjoys the fast speed to synchronise every single transaction easily. newbies are probably have insufficient money to use the XT node wallet, you know, blockchain.

3. leading the bitcoin to unsustainable (susceptible of 51% attacks)
you know, if we started to use bitcoin XT, people would be able to spam the transaction as many as they want, fine with them, but not you guys even if you have enough money to buy the storage for. as people stopped using the XT node, monopolies would be able to monopolise the XT node wallet easily and centralise all of the miners. 51% would be surely crash the bitcoin. data storage requires the certain energy to work for them, single HDD consumes at least 4 watt, as the amount increases, the more HDD (or others) you need, meaning the more power you will need for, i am afraid that people stopped using bitcoin because of the power consuming matter, maybe one day, the consumption of the synchronising would be more than mining.

4. you won't know the node inside (apparently)
so if you don't know what that node will be, then you should stick with the bitcoin core. you know, suddenly changing the core would be risky and could even lose your coins. make more decision before you use the XT node, nobody has ability to change the fate if you lost the coin due to the upgrade. also, if you use the unstable OS, especially windows 10, you would risk the coins being stolen at worse.

idk why i just posted this, but lemme know what are you thinking about this.

They might. They mostly agree it needs to be done.
There's bip103 already there for it. Even luke, who wanted smaller blocks, says (iirc) bip103 is ok. It starts block size limit increases in 2017 tho...

Core devs will never increase block size so all this discussion is pointless.

I was under the impression that the Chinese said yes to 8mb and nothing more. In that case surely they're not going to swallow XT?

What way? the only way to do this was to release it into the wild and let things develop naturally, let people vote. It wasn't possible any other way. It would always have created disruption.

Don't think it was good idea to release XT that way, but the final decision is up to miners.

Thanks for all of the answers, there are really some great ones. After everybody read all of the answers it becomes clear, yes to the block size increase, no to the XT!

What I do not understand, how will we make people that are against block size increase in the core change their mind if XT doesn't regain majority of the nodes in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against the XT after seeing all of theses answers and after reading through a lot of material last few days and I am for the bigger blocks.

The Core software developers disagree how/when to change the blocksize, too.

Why doesn't core add fix increasing block size ?

Then the debate is finished, yes?

All the people in your list support 8MB blocks. They also support Bitcoin Core, not XT.

nodes dont control the network, miners do that. with 51% nodes you cant do much  

Some people think that creating a hard fork like this could kill Bitcoin. I think this will save it. But you can try to convince people like Maxwell etc. Chances are not very good because of their Blockstream Company.

i would like a BIP too but in reality that seems to be not possible.

I agree with what's generally being said - block size increase, no fork. The good I'm hoping will come from this is that Core devs implement an increase sooner rather than later. And in my perfect world, BIP100 would be implemented instead of BIP101.

The merchants & miners are in favor of 8 MB blocks my friend  

summary:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-will-support-bigger-blocks-and-you-should-too-1141086


Some people think that creating a hard fork like this could kill Bitcoin. I think this will save it. But you can try to convince people like Maxwell etc. Chances are not very good because of their Blockstream Company.

Increase the transaction size? Yes, please.

XT? No. Never.


Either there is a stratagem of divide-and-conquer, good cop / bad cop deriving from the core devs, such that they actually support XT's usurpation of bitcoin (I doubt this scenario); or, the merchants, miners, and devs need to stop Mike Hearn & Co. by taking boycotting his interests and refusing to run XT. Gavin's leadership has been steady albeit questionable at times, but Mike Hearn has shown himself to be antithetical to bitcoin's and satoshi's decentralization principles. He frames the narrative to stifle debate, he cherrypicks Satoshi's posts out of context, and he arrogantly speaks as if what he desires is inevitable. Look to the likes of Szabo, not Hearn. I have no doubt that Mike Hearn has been paid off and has ulterior motives.

Allow Bitcoin Core to implement increased transaction sizes.

then just add BIP 101. Gavin tried to archive this since months but 3-4 other devs dont want that. that is the story. that is the reason why we are here.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-0101.mediawiki

Now this was a really good post, 100% agreed. A pretty nice way to put, haven't actually thought about that. It would be amazing if Core eventually ends up adopting some XT features!

This is a well known thread from October 2010 (well, the first 12 posts are from then):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347

Jeff Garzik proposed a patch to lift the max block size limit. It can be seen from the code that the size limit at that time was already 1MB.


Theymos and Satoshi warned against the patch:


This is the thread in which Satoshi had an often quoted reply about how to raise the limit:


I wasn't around back then, but it seems clear to me that Satoshi was still around when the 1MB limit was put in place. I know I've read that he introduced it himself in mid-2010, but I don't have a source to back that up. Is there some evidence that the limit was originally smaller than 1MB and then was lifted (twice?) until it was 1MB? I have to admit, I'm skeptical of the claim that it's been raised before. But I could be wrong.

it's just Bitcoin Core but with ability to have larger blocks, a bug fix, and two minor things that are useful for app developers. we need bigger blocks. 99% agree with that.

and what do you do when you have to choose between 1 MB blocks and 8 MB blocks? i would choose 8 MB blocks - so my way is XT.