Topic: question - page 2. (Read 7763 times)

If the 1mb limit stays tx fees will rise higher then visa.

So basically XT is meant to be the "rich man's bitcoin" whereas bitcoin the original will now have a better chance at being utilized on a global scale.

I'm telling you guys, the entire reason crypto was interesting in the first place is because of its cost-cutting mechanisms. Digital money transfer has been around for a long, long time. It was just inordinately expensive and middle-manned to the max.

If its now cheaper to work with fiat (Facebook thinks it is) and you need a 1 Terabyte hard drive just to store your coin's blockchain, the coin no longer works to the benefit of those it was meant to help in the first place and is therefore useless.

Going back to my initial point which was related to trying to figure out whether Mike and/or Gavin have any affiliation with intel agencies, it doesn't matter much whether the exploit impacted Bitcoin.  The observation was that one of the relatively few things which Gavin worked diligently on over the last few years was getting the code stuck into core, and Mike was a driving force behind him doing so.  As I recall things.  If the protocol was never to be used then why was it shoved in there?  I recall that there was fairly widespread discomfort at building in a reliance on x.509 but those who had qualms about it capitulated eventually.

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. You can't attack a protocol that isn't being used.

You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

All that shit, lol. If nobody would care about Gavincoin and these people in general it wouldn't matter. Why do you people even pay attention? Nobody going to "update".

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

Remember Gavin Andreeson is the same CIA scum who went wagging his tail like an obedient dog. Even Satoshi dumped him after that. For all we know, he's still working undercover. What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Well, it's not a modification of the blockchain ... she (?) have already use the 33,5MB limite in the past.

How was Mike Hearn able to publish Bitcoin XT with an adoption threshold by miners of only 75%? Something as important as a Bitcoin hard fork should require a 90% yes vote by miners. Billions of dollars of OPM are at stake here. This is a dangerous game he is playing.

Obviously the difficulty is in jump-starting to the solution of unleashing the capacity and codebase management structure we need as expressed by Mr. Hearn.  He has a solution which involves a temporary augmentation of data supplied to SPV leaf nodes (known to most as wallets on cell phones.)  It would be best to just go for it with XT right now or very soon while 'we' enjoy the broad consensus you speak of because there are some people who are outside of this consensus and could interfere with the obviously correct path forward if given the time to work on their subversive code.  It is time.  Go! Go! Go!

the broad consensus (after alot of discussions) is that we start at 8MB and stay there for 2 years. that is very conservative and realistic in my view.

But didn't Gavin basically said that the idea of 20MB was not a good idea after all and that he would from now on push the 8mb increment each year model? I dont understand. Is Gavin still going for 20MB or he is going for this?

I'm sorta curious how the BTC supporters will react when we hit the 1 MB limit with 30 cent fees per transaction.

but then iam already running a software that supports bigger blocks - probably XT - Satoshis path. 

And now 2 weeks has passed since you noted more than 2 weeks have passed. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are running behind schedule, but it seems to still be in the works. Hearn posted about it on reddit ... 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy

I'm not as worried as I was. It looks to me like XT won't get anywhere near 50% of nodes, and especially not 75% of miners. I'm sorta curious how the forking supporters will react.

The cloudy period between both chains will come (in my view) if XT nodes hit the ~50% consensus mark. At that time some merchants/users may be confused as to which chain to accept bitcoin payments on for goods and services.

Will definitely be interesting to see how things work during that "adjustment" period.

No one really knows how long the adjustment period will take.

It is possible that the % could go from 49% -> 50% -> 51% -> 49%...in that time that makes things interesting as it crosses that threshold.

More than 2 weeks has passed...

Let me first say that we agree that if the Core-chain drops to only 5% of the mining power, it's likely not to survive.

I do, however, think there are many plausible scenarios in which the Core-chain survives. It only needs to make it through the first two difficulty adjustments after the fork. I suspect this will be easiest if the real fork happens (the first >1MB block is successfully mined) approximately halfway through the adjustment period.

Suppose Gavin's threshold of 75% of miners is met, but only just. With 25% of the miners still mining on the original chain, the Core-chain would drop to approximately one block every 40 minutes and the difficulty adjustment would come within 2 months. That's survivable. Once it's clear it can survive, it's even possible some miners come back. A lot would depend on the Core price vs. XT price, if that can even be measured during those first few days and weeks.

Here's an even more likely scenario. It's easy to imagine the XT miner votes plateauing at, say, 60% for a few months. I've read enough of these threads to feel confident that the reaction to that will not be, "oh well, we can't get the miners on board, so let's stick with the 1MB cap." The reaction will be to lower the threshold. This became very clear to me after seeing that clip of Mike Hearn saying that he would support the fork even with a minority of the hashing power. It's very clear to me that if the Core-chain can maintain at least 40% of the mining power than it will survive.

Don't get me wrong. I think a fork will be a disaster for the price of both coins. Not to mention colored coins and counterparty. A fork of bitcoin will fork those too.

I'm not a miner, so I don't really need to pick a side here. There are good arguments both for and against raising the block size limit. I get the feeling those in favor of raising the block size limit have convinced themselves they're 95% and there are 5% of holdouts, roughly. If they're right, then probably this hard fork won't be nearly as dramatic as it could've been. But I think they're wrong, and I think there's no way to convince them they're wrong except through the fork itself.

Sorry for the wall of text. This issue's been keeping my mind busy.