Topic: Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin? (Read 1161 times)

Before we do anything blocksize related in the future Gavin and Mike need to have been excluded from the core team. In the future i will refuse updates that have only a single line of code from Gavin or Hearn.
There won't be any forks or blocksize-changes with Gavin or Hearn around. They need to go if you want ever change the blocksize or reach consensus on anything.

There will be no consensus with Gavin and Mike. Period.

I did do it when the price hit above $280. I'm going to sit this one out. If they show that this isn't just another U.S. control tool I'll buy back in. People here seem to forget that Bitcoin is just an investment like any other. I buy and sell investments all the time. Bitcoin is no different.

Why You Think like this , if all you had to Do this then why didnt you did it Few days back when BTC/$ was quite reasonable .
Moreover it was likely to happen , and whatever Protocol will the Future need will be shorted out in coming months not Today.
Bitcoin XT has already started taking It Nodes ON and is increasing rapidly.

Statistics Taken from XTnodes:

836 Bitcoin XT nodes (supporting bigger blocks)     6414 Total nodes at present.

Few Information has been leaked that some nodes are switching To-Fro from XT to Core..

Statistics: on August 19 there were total 842 nodes and Today there are only 836 at Present.

well its actually similar to what the core devs actually want. read coblee a few hours ago;

"There's a better option. Really try to reach consensus. Unlike what you have been told, the devs actually support increasing the block size. They just couldn't come to a consensus on how much and when. And we still have plenty of time to get to a consensus. Next month, most of the devs and bitcoin experts are gathering in Montreal to discuss this topic to get everyone on the same page"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

Okay, nobody mentioned this here. The only reason for which I'm not doing it myself is, that I'm afraid that it won't get enough attention. Someone needs to make a petition and request bigger blocks with core (some compromise like 4 MB = less resistance from users). After which one should open a thread here, and spread the word. If a lot of people agree, and the Core developers refuse to do this, then I'm afraid that the current system is very flawed.

In that case even I would probably drop Core (not saying that I would join XT).

There's only one action to take right now. Do what I did and cash out all your coin into your local fiat and let this shake out. If Bitcoin becomes/remains something you can support then buy back in and continue using it. If Bitcoin becomes something you can't support then find something else to invest in. I suggest marijuana store stocks. Aerogrow International Inc is looking pretty good.

yes i'm leaving all post for now. just gave a warning so the thread didn't go too far off track.

Please dont delete my posts, I am back on topic again.

Fair enough, I am glad that you are not intrinsically opposed to a hard fork, and I do absolutely respect your desire to stick with Core if that is what you want. It is this volunteerism that I love about Bitcoin after all. Maybe we will end up with two Bitcoins so to speak, one that has limited transaction capability where you will have to use third parties instead of being able to transact on the main chain directly and another one with expanded blocks that everyone in the world will be able to use directly and benefit from. We are free to choose, and if Bitcoin does undermine itself there will be plenty of altcoins that will be able to take its place instead if it ever came to that.

i may have to clean up any post in this thread that are simply bitcoincore v bitcoinxt because this is not what the thread is about, tis only about bitcoincore's options. if it included xt it should be in the alt section or may even get deleted.

please understand if i delete ur post it wasn't meant as a censorship of your ideas (which i'd be more the happy to debate elsewhere).

This article that you have linked argues that XT is hijacking Bitcoin (through consensus?). Though the reality is the other way around, if we can not do a hard fork then it is Core that has hijacked Bitcoin, unless that is what the consensus has decided. I was specificity referring to the block size increase, however these other issues you mention are not as serous as you make them sound, there is plenty of information on the forums to show that these other changes are relatively innocent. However I do agree with you, I would have preferred if there was only a blocksize increase in XT since having more in there does complicate the issue. However for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

If there is a fork, make high fee transactions on the Core chain (a high fee will entice miners to mine on the Core chain). You could also make it clear you are willing to trade things of value for Core coins. Try to purchase more Core coins.

If there is enough demand, some miners will continue to mine on the Core chain. (Some will do it simply because, like you, they do not want XT.)

Taint your coins on the XT chain with some inputs that only exist on the XT chain (XTaint), by sending your coins plus the XTaint to another address you control. (You can now spend XT coins without worrying about your Core coins.)

Sell your XT coins.

Buy Core coins with the proceeds from that sale.

its been hardforked in the past and i'm sure there'll be hardforks needed in the future. but the hardfork mike hearn is trying to pull off has little to do with keeping the development team in check.


now please realise, to this point i've tolerated your post as i don't wish to simply delete opposing points of view (i welcome them)
however there is 101 million bitcoincore vs bitcoinxt threads already on this forum and i didn't start this to be another (u can debate me that elsewhere preferrably in an xt thread in the alt section).

this thread is about option for people who want to stay with the bitcoincore no matter what, ignoring the altcoin bitcoinxt. it can continue if it has support no matter the outcome.

I encourage you to read this article on why we shouldn't work:
http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

And I wonder where did satoshi said that he agreed with everything that Bitcoin XT does? Because I don't reckon reading anything about double spends, check points, tor blacklists and so on?

I will ask you directly, do you think that Bitcoin should never hardfork? If you truly believe that I would love to hear a rebuttal of my arguments from you. Specificity in response to why you think that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the Core development team in check should never be used?

bitcoincore won't be the losing side.

but yeah being blackmailed with fear ones coins may become worthless is the incentive xt is pushing.

BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin.


"The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code then he'll fully control.

I don't necessarily suppport XT but how does a fork mean the end of bitcoin.  Bitcoin is designed to fork, especially in situations where the miner community decides that a better option has come along.  This whole  nonsense that bitcoin will end if it forks is just fear mongering. If bitcoin needs the core development team to survive the bitcoin is in BIG trouble.

The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever the majority are using to transact. Apart from an honourable, or deluded, few ideology will be chucked away the moment it looks like they're on the losing side.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

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. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. 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 miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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