Topic: question - page 7. (Read 7763 times)

Not necessarily. Gavin has stated he wanted to keep the 750K soft limit a few times.
I just asked him on Twitter for confirmation. Will update when he replies.

All you guys who are so sure this fork is the way to go need to start putting your money where your mouth is. Right now the odds are 12 to 1 against, so there is a decent chunk of change to be made here. Plus, I'm sure if the yes side gets some action, it will be matched rather quickly.

Litecoin to the moon!!!

I don't think that will happen ever. What you just achieved was creating an epic propagandabattle. And tell you what: nobody wants to be part of it and you will loose a lot marketcap the longer it takes.  
Bitcoin is now a constant shouting and namecalling for maybe years or decades. Well done.

No safe place to be invested in anymore. AT ALL!

Short, man! All the way to single digits!
If this condition remains until after next halving you'll be in trouble cuz the halving will do nothing for the price in this condition. New money will not come in. Good luck with this fuckup.

I'm out!
Full altcoins and fiat now until this is resolved which is likely never.

It is not a simple majority, it will be a super-majority (>90%) of all nodes run Bitcoin XT or something that supports the larger blocks. Once that happens, there will be an announcement for when and which block will be the block that hard forks, so it is not random and people will know that it is coming.

So you're forking now the network at an unknown time and date with a simple maority?

Is this serious? Doom now?

Which exchanges will offer Gavincoin/Bitcoin tradingpair?

Do you know why there is a discrepancy?

Also, getaddr.bitnodes.io does show XT in the useragent display. The User agent string begins with /Bitcoin XT... and has the rest of the version string after it. Look again in the list.

It's vote-based. So there's nothing fishy about this.

You have a vote, by running a Bitcoin XT node, to say if you want a blocksize increase. And the increase ONLY goes into effect if a considerable majority are running it, in which case it would make sense because that would mean most people want the changes that way.

If there's NOT a majority, then nothing changes. No harm done. It's a vote.

I get too much contradicting info from all angles. I am selling guys, you can all suck a monkeydick.

Mike Hearn and Gavin are taking the bull by the horns and rescuing bitcoin from the deadly jaws of inaction. The 20MB block max is a lot smaller than the original unlimited block size originally engineered by Satoshi. Just take a deep breath and let our 2 lead developers do what they do best - develop.

Watch this : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-06-09-video-mike-hearn-blocksize-debate-at-the-breaking-point-1085475 {Get the full picture} not just the part about the implementation of the Bitcoin XT node and the built in voting option.

He also mention in this interview, that the people who hosted the Bitcoin node, did not configure the block size correctly. They built in a soft cap {LOWER than the max}, and most people just used the default setting.

Why did they do that? Why not just increase the soft cap to a acceptable size or keep it at it's hard cap maximum?

This situation was perfectly engineered to create a problem. {Possible bottleneck with the way it's implemented} My guess... The block size in Bitcoin XT will have the block size soft capped to it's maximum setting.

All of this just smell wrong... Time will tell, if this is fishy.  

No, if you read carefully he says a certain amount of nodes should switch over to start accepting the chain. That's not a dictatorship.. If you decide to run a node, you can have a vote in this.

So we just give 100% decision making power to one person in the Bitcoin XT fork? {That is what he suggested} What if this person become a dictator? They have the key to the kingdom and they control your money?

Gavin Andresen handed the keys to Wladimir J. van der Laan and Mike Hearn and some other people, feel Wladimir is not strong enough to make big decisions. {They want a dictator style lead developer, who has the final say} To remedy this, they create Bitcoin XT and forced a situation with the whole 20mb block fiasco. {They say.. We will see if Wladimir makes a dicision, IF NOT we will go ahead with XT}

Do we want people, who make decisions like that?

Many countries do not trust Bitcoin, based on it's western dominance in the core development. They supported it to a degree, because the decision making was done with some sort of democratic consensus.

The question : Would you support a Global currency, if one person had 100% control over the final decision making at Core development level?

Yes, the nodes is still decentralized, but the software they host, is in control of one or two people.... with 100% decision making power.

His answer : If you are not a engineer or a core developer, you have no say or opinion on the matter... WTF? We all have opinions.. right or wrong.. It's our money and we have a say. 

If anyone can pull off the feat of keeping MultiBitch clients using the 'right' chain even if it isn't the longest, Mike Hearn can.  I'm sure he'd rather be working on his blacklisting though.

getaddr.bitnodes.io unfortunately does not display all XT nodes in existence when you search for it. It also doesn't show XT at all in the useragent display.

xtnodes.com makes it very clear and simple which nodes are running XT of the total.

Belongs in the altcoin section in my opinion.

Good luck with it though.

What?

---

---

I would be surprised if the network ultimately does not fork to see the larger block size. It is inevitable to have the max block size be increased if bitcoin is going to ever achieve even any kind of niche adoption, let along mass market adoption. Additionally, without the possibility for much higher TX fees, the total block reward will eventually become too small for the network to be sufficiently secured.

While there are many people against the larger block sizes (from what I can see, primarily people with significant amounts of money invested in various shit/altcoins), I have yet to see a viable alternative

So, now it is...

xtnodes.com vs getaddr.bitnodes.io

bitnodes.io itself will play a crucial role as lot of devs cloudhost their nodes over there. So, if they shift to XT, it'll get a big boost. I believe, we wont ultimately see the hard fork. When XT crosses 50%, Maxwell will accept the change for QT.

Yes, finally we have someone who is willing to take some action and get it done. And the voting mechanism is a great way to do it.

This is the best news in the history of Bitcoin! Mike Hearn is a Bitcoin legend!