Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 6. (Read 21883 times)

I dont know there is about at 80% correlation between all altcoins vs bitcoin.

So if bitcoin goes to 0 then all altcoins will more or less follow. Although I already know a few safe and innovative altcoins that dont need XT, i dont really want to lose Bitcoin, as i consider it the only real currency so far.

Well I`m not a tech person, but even I can tell that if a new altchain is created that needs mining, will split the mining eventually.

A more friendly solution with internal paying like XAPO, Coinbase, Bitpay, etc could be achieved for small TX. Yet they insist with forking the protocol which is bullshit.

I also think that increasing the block size is also much better.

Yeah, if the crisis made from Bitcoin XT continues, even more people will start making XT version of every altcoin that exist only to made more price drops. Is possible that both dev teams doesn't try to find something in common? if it continues who knows what will happen... For now i don't know what to do about my original bitcoins, maybe i will invest them on some coin that are still green (for Coinmarketcap there are almost 50 that are on positive). Anyway the fact of Litecoin XT is that only 200 coins are public, for sure is just a random guy that wanted his\her piece of cake on this disaster.

What interesting times we live in.

https://www.altcoincalendar.info/coins/1816-LXT

But anyway, i think that who is running all this is for sure somebody that hates bitcoin because if wanted to made something good it could made another bubble and not this non stop drop that i still have problems to see how actually happens, anyway i noticed that not only bitcoin got the XT version but even litecoin, if you go to altcoincalendar is visible that a coin called Litecoin XT was launched (Maybe same dev, group or some random guy who wants to join the demolition of bitcoin)

Indeed, bitcoin might have been infiltrated by dark forces, who use the good old D & C tactics to sabotage it.

And since the community is not very united in it's goal, it is likely to succeed. People are always following their own incentives and cannot unite, not even in front of danger.

Maybe XT wasn't created to help bitcoin but to destroy it? If Coinmarketcap data is correct, on 7 days bitcoin lost 15% of the value... Somebody needs to stop this fight before all the altcoins and bitcoin itself will be considered dead or with zero value!

Please tell me guys this XT crap will go away and die.

I dont want to see my money evaporating because some morons that want to divide & conquer , sabotage, bitcoin.

I hope the rest of the devs and supporters figure it out that this XT will just destroy bitcoin.

If these tactics affect the contest, the contest didn't have fairness built in.  Back to the drawing board for the mercantile mercenaries.

As a defiant idea, it's definitely good.

If the fork is not successful, all transactions on that fork will be void; simple orphans from a (1 MB) Bitcoin point of view. That happens every day, it's why we wait for more than one confirmation.
If a person decides to take the risk and accept the fork, don't you think that person would also want a premium for assuming that risk?
If I have a claim in Bitcoin and the other side is trying to settle with XTCoin, how do they pay the premium even if I were to accept?

You are assuming at least two facts not yet in evidence.  Your asserted answers to empirical questions carry very little weight.

Your narrow comp sci prof paradigm is insufficient to make predictions which involve dominant socioeconomic factors.

EG, although 1mb spam attacks are cheap, they do nothing to tx paying competitive fees.  Making blocks 8 times larger only makes spam attacks [8 times cheap] more expensive, while other trade-offs incur increasingly (superlinear) negative margin returns.

IKR?  Politics makes strange bedfellows.  Obviously we should team up and blame Heam for this chaos, so we can go quickly get back to our cherished traditional disagreements.   

Yes Jorge, that's why they're using different names for the two different technologies. Using different names for essentially different concepts is a useful method of being able to refer to said concepts in a way that makes them easy to differentiate from one another.

You mean Cryddit Little? Come on, he's been turning up waving his hands about questionable technical issues for at least several months now, are you trying to tell me he had credibility before this debate began?

Maybe you should take that as a hint that you might be wrong:p

I will bring one online on the weekend, but I think there is still some work to do. Current measures against the XT Attack propagate a certain helplessness that makes the blockchain vulnerable to further bullying attempts.

I fear that if the Hearn Gang and their instigators get away with minor bruises and the pockets full of scammed Bitcoin they will certainly try again.

The problem is that, as I tried to explain, there will not be a "Gavincoin" and an "Adamcoin".  Even if the chain splits, and the 1 MB branch survives for a while, there will be just a two-headed bitcoin. Even if you could trade and speculate on each coin separately, you cannot attack one in the market without harming the other. 


I cannot avoid being the comp sci prof here.  Technically, what Gavin and Mike say is right, and increasing the limit is necessary for two reasons that can't be ignored:

* With 1 MB limit, it is already too cheap and easy to carry out a spam attack.  A attacker with 10'000 USD budget could probably delay half of the legit traffic for days; an such an attack will get easier and cheaper as time goes on. With 8 MB limit, such attack would be at least 10 times more expensive for the attacker.

* Congestion would make bitcoin unusable for ordinary e-paymets.  The user base will stop growing; users wil be turned away not just because of fee increase, but mostly because of the long and unpredictable delays. 

In contrast, for these past 2 months Adam has been only spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominems.  For one thing, he always says "size" instead of "size limit", then claims that 8 MB blocks will have very serious effects (first it was on full node count, then on orphan rate, then mining centralization...) but does not offer evidence or numbers.  At the same time he ignores completely the two points above.  He promises that the LN will provide the growth that the 1 MB limit denies; but the LN will not work, and will not be bitcoin...

Concensus or unanimity? Two different things in my dictionary.

I don't think so. It only requires 75% of miners to agree. None of the other 25% of miners or any of the exchanges or merchants matter at all.

That's not consensus.

Even the recent soft fork required 95% before it was enforced:


So why only 75% for this much riskier hard fork? Because they know it has no chance of reaching consensus.