Topic: I ran Bitcoin Core for >3 years, and I turned it off today (Read 6918 times)
I am sitting here idling until Bitcoin Classic is released...
of course it is FUD to call XT an altcoin. qt would be an alt too in that case.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
Blockstream is trying to solve it while you're falling for the nonsense proposed by Bitcoin Classic. Let's look at how badly Bitcoin scales via the block size limit.
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Good luck trying to scale Bitcoin for mass adoption via the block size. Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Thanks for fixing
(and thanks for not mincing words, Lauda
) 
I ran Bitcoin Core for >3 years, and I turned it off today
I am now running Bitcoin**Censored**
I am now running Bitcoin**Censored**
Is still off or you tun it on again?
I'm not a technician so this discussion is kind of hard to follow for me. For an average user like me, what impact does those coin wars have? I'm not running any of those clients, I use Mycellium for storing my coins. Am I doing something wrong?
thanks
thanks
To be on the safe side, I will most like store most of my coins in cold wallet, such as a securely generated paper wallet. During the "wars" just don't move your coins, because during the "wars" you will not know if your transaction is included in the final winner's chain.
I'm not a technician so this discussion is kind of hard to follow for me. For an average user like me, what impact does those coin wars have? I'm not running any of those clients, I use Mycellium for storing my coins. Am I doing something wrong?
thanks
thanks
I ran Bitcoin Core for >3 years, and I turned it off today
I am now running Bitcoin**Censored**
I am now running Bitcoin**Censored**
I also turned bitcoin core off because blockchain size was very big.
But, which client running on your device now? Core, XT, classic, unlimited, or perhaps QT
So many choice to solve block size & i don't know which one is the best, but blockstream isn't option.
jl2012 was a censorship martyr before it was cool. You are just copying his style.
If you want a truly manageable blockchain size, check out Cryptonite (XCN). It uses a mini-blockchain, for ultimate pruning power!
of course it is FUD to call XT an altcoin. qt would be an alt too in that case.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
Blockstream is trying to solve it while you're falling for the nonsense proposed by Bitcoin Classic. Let's look at how badly Bitcoin scales via the block size limit.
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Good luck trying to scale Bitcoin for mass adoption via the block size. Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
As far as I can tell, the idea that XT is an altcoin is clearly FUD intended to discredit those who would otherwise be interested in running it. There's really no logical reason to call it an altcoin. As has been stressed by people running full nodes in other threads, individual nodes are free to implement their own rules and connect to the network.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
of course it is FUD to call XT an altcoin. qt would be an alt too in that case.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
you cant discuss this problem when you are in a critical growth phase. you have to be prepared.
Again this is based on assumption that bitcoin user base will experience growth monumental growth. We've heard such prophecies many times till now but back in 2013 I didn't expect to see this an argument in a propaganda campaign.
Furthermore the reason Gavin Andresen stopped having his ideas implemented in Core was because there wasn't consensus about them. There were hundreds of perfectly good reasons to not support bitcoin XT, people that no longer trust Gavin are still called FUDsters and dictators. Prior to this schism, the only update channel was bitcoin Core and as long as the majority of the users behind this channel don't approve of new changes implemented to bitcoin, implementations with them included are not bitcoin. The mental gymnastics to avoid this are kinda funny.
You need to upgrade your network connection if it hasn't sync'd after 3 years. 
i think this is a turning point.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a market.
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over today as well.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a market.
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over today as well.
This is a turning point. The point where XT officially became a laughingstock.
After so much chaos and drama, you have a mighty 3% of the nodes to show for it?
Team XT lost the technical debate, and there is zero propensity for XT gaining an economic majority.
Plus, we now have this handy Domination Post from thermos:
Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
Face it old buddy, XT got rekt like Stannis at Winterfell.
Now, when can I order my 1000 XMR 1oz Platinum Lealana? Do you want Cryptonic to eat your lunch?
"1. First they ignore you
2. then they laugh at you
3. then they fight you, then you win."
At what point are we at? 1, 2, or 3?
XT is still at the stage where people who know better laugh at it.
For a brief moment, we fought XT with NotXT. Then it lost and went back to Step 2, where it will remain forever.
i would like if you can post some more on about why you turned it off and why started the new one ? what changed your mind ? etc..
As far as I can tell, the idea that XT is an altcoin is clearly FUD intended to discredit those who would otherwise be interested in running it. There's really no logical reason to call it an altcoin. As has been stressed by people running full nodes in other threads, individual nodes are free to implement their own rules and connect to the network.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
of course it is FUD to call XT an altcoin. qt would be an alt too in that case.
we dont need a blocksize increase today BUT we will need it very bad in 6-12 month and we have to be ready then!
things can move really fast and when we see an influx of 5-10 mio. new people (+ a dramatic price increase) you will be glad to have XT in place.
you cant discuss this problem when you are in a critical growth phase. you have to be prepared.
"but...but....it is.....the name - it is different! i dont like it! and even they must be able to run a node!":
Do you ever take anything seriously? Because it's not your Litecoin, it's 15 times larger -- some $3.9 billion market cap is at stake. Joking doesn't make your argument more valid.Sorry RoadTrain, LCG is actually right on this one. I did say anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream should be able to access, verify, and amplify the Blockchain.
It is to all users benefit and adversaries' detriment full (ie non-leech, contributing) Bitcoin nodes be maintained in far flung places like Côte d'Ivoire.
The people who grow my chocolate have a special place in my heart. Whether completely unbanked or merely underserved by financial services, residents of the Dix-Huit Montagnes region participate in System D to an extent unimaginable to most drive-though-ATM using westerners.
Given that Bitcoin (and Monero) are the natural currencies of System D, the depicted villagers have more to gain from Bitcoin's 'be your own bank' functions than just about everyone (besides edge cases) in the first world.
As petro-fiat collapse proceeds, there will come a point when Bitcoin is a convenient distraction and scapegoat for politicians to blame. When it's Bitcoin's turn to be declared the latest threat to NATO security, we'll need every single node outside of The Empire we can possibly get.
It's not out of altruism we preserve full (ie non-leech, contributing) participation for the proverbial African village. It literally takes those villages to keep Bitcoin diverse, diffuse, defensible, and resilient.
The village in question exists in a war-torn area where a great deal of the population has been displaced, and many immigrants arrive to work in agriculture. It's not hard to make a long list of things they could do with a full node.
-receive remittances from emigrants (Bob got a job in America, mowing the grass around drive-through ATMs)
-send support to refugees (Sally made it to France, she needs 1000 Euro to start a crepe stand)
-buy agricultural supplies (fertilizers and pesticides are expensive, but Joe's Chemicals gives a discount if you pay in BTC)
-sell goods (some foodie in Denmark will pay Alice 10 times wholesale for her organic heritage criollo cacao and trendy pickled cassava)
The fun-loving folks (festooned in colorful traditional ceremonial garb) in LCG's picture look like they could collectively come up with $300 for a laptop and find an internet cafe. They certainly don't deserve to be excluded by high barriers to entry from full (ie non-leech, contributing) participation in the network. They definitely don't deserve damnation to an existence of SPV and trusting third parties like Paypal, M-Pesa, or (God forbid) Hearn's Circle.
EDIT:
from Why Bitcoin Could Be More Important Than the Internet for 5 Billion People
Quote
In order to make his point on the importance of Bitcoin for at least five billion people around the world, Casares first discussed the problems associated with using cash on a daily basis. While many people in the developed world take credit cards and debit cards for granted, there are billions of people around the world who are forced out of the digital economy and stuck moving physical cash whenever they need to make a transaction:
“If you are one of the five billion people who live on cash — there’s a little over a billion people who have credit cards and debit cards, most of the world does not have that. So, they’ve seen this revolution go by them. They cannot benefit in any way, and they have to rely on cash. Cash is expensive to keep at home, it’s expensive to transport, it’s risky, all payments [require] that you move there physically — usually by public transportation that is slow, increasing the risk of it being stolen. It’s ridiculous, but it’s very expensive to be poor. And it’s very expensive to live on cash.”
“If you are one of the five billion people who live on cash — there’s a little over a billion people who have credit cards and debit cards, most of the world does not have that. So, they’ve seen this revolution go by them. They cannot benefit in any way, and they have to rely on cash. Cash is expensive to keep at home, it’s expensive to transport, it’s risky, all payments [require] that you move there physically — usually by public transportation that is slow, increasing the risk of it being stolen. It’s ridiculous, but it’s very expensive to be poor. And it’s very expensive to live on cash.”
i run almost three years now several bitcoin nodes and i think i will add one more
After so much chaos and drama, you have a mighty 3% of the nodes to show for it?
Even the supporters of larger blocks weren't expecting to see mass adoption of XT overnight, so I don't see why someone as vehemently opposed to them as yourself was expecting it to happen even faster. The link for the latest release that actually supports larger blocks was only put up on the xtnodes website on the 10th. It's been three days. I (just about) credit you with enough intelligence to know that this is going to go on for a little longer than that before we have a clear outcome. Troll harder.
If you're in that much of a hurry to declare the contest over, people are just going to wonder what you're so afraid of. No one can say with any certainty whether this will go on for weeks, or even months. All we know for certain is that it's going to be interesting.
Also, it's not an altcoin. Again, troll harder.
Most supporters of larger blocks don't support XT, because it entails a Hearn dictatorship complete with checkpoints and Tor crackdowns.
XT is most certainly an altcoin, no matter how hard you wish or how long you bloviate:
Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
As far as I can tell, the idea that XT is an altcoin is clearly FUD intended to discredit those who would otherwise be interested in running it. There's really no logical reason to call it an altcoin. As has been stressed by people running full nodes in other threads, individual nodes are free to implement their own rules and connect to the network.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
I say this as someone who does not see the need to increase the block-size limit at this moment. Perhaps it should be increased eventually, perhaps it should be increased and decreased dynamically based on usage (as we do with difficulty) but I don't think the situation is desperate enought that everyone needs to switch to XT now.
Calling XT an altcoin is clearly hyperbole. It's no more an altcoin than it is if I download core and make a change to the code and compile and connect, it's an alternative bitcoin client, but that doesn't mean it's an alternative coin.
At the moment bitcoinXT is not an altcoin, it uses the same network and coin of bitcoin core, electrum, multibit, greenAddress, etc... it is only another bitcoin client (that support bigger sized blocks).
This is how I see that things as well. All is the same with 2 clients, just 1 supports bigger and 2nd supports larger blocks. Which one will be in a majority in the end, well the time and the community will show. If XT will have more nodes than core in the future, than I guess we will be calling XT chain a Bitcoin. If not, then everything will stay the same as it is now. Lets see, in this way or another, consensus must and will be reached!
"but...but....it is.....the name - it is different! i dont like it! and even they must be able to run a node!":
Do you ever take anything seriously? Because it's not your Litecoin, it's 15 times larger -- some $3.9 billion market cap is at stake. Joking doesn't make your argument more valid. I'll be switching over today as well.
I can't wait to buy some of your shiny physical litecoins using XTcoins, while my BTC stay untouched.
You will be sticking your neck out and immediately accepting XTcoins, to demonstrate the power of XT's economic majority, right?
[ Buttburn ]
XT is just another stupid altcoin, and is getting deservedly #rekt.
Sorry if that burns your butt. Actually no, I'm glad you are upset.
Cry moar, please.
if it was called bitcoin 0.12 instead of XT would you have been against it? isn't the only relevant difference the block increase? which could be implemented directly in bitcoin core and preventing all these fuss about core vs xt?
"but...but....it is.....the name - it is different! i dont like it! and even they must be able to run a node!":
It has nothing to do with "special treatment". If a fork occurred without consensus, only then does it become an altcoin. If it either achieves consensus or the fork doesn't happen, it's still Bitcoin. The fork hasn't happened yet, so it is still Bitcoin. XT sends and receives bitcoin transactions using the Bitcoin blockchain. It is an alternative client, not an alternative coin. Stop spreading misinformation.
It is not misinformation because those are Hearns intention. He stated that in the worst case scenario checkpoints will be implemented to ignore the longest chain. In other words, consensus is not necessary for the fork to happen according to him. I'd rather people be aware of his intentions on time.That alternative client needs to die.
Dont twist words around to fit your agenda.
The key part Mike said that you intentionally left out from that video:
Quote
If the needs of the wider global bitcoin community start diverging from what miners in China want, the who wins .... the answer is the economic majority wins
The fundamental of bitcoin blockchain has always been economic incentive. Miners dont make rules they're rewarded for following rules. The moment they're stupid enough to disagree as in the worst case Mike mentioned, the network will have to ignore them and treat them as an attack ( ignoring the longest chain is a defense against attack)
Jump to: