Pages:
Author

Topic: The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 5466 times)

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
August 23, 2015, 11:16:18 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin101.
Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option. Smiley

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.

It would be better if it was a developer or ideally a group of developers, since it would gather more support that way. But you are right anyone can just copy it and rename it. lol Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 10:51:34 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin101.
Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option. Smiley

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
August 23, 2015, 10:47:28 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin101.
Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1010
August 23, 2015, 10:43:32 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin101.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 10:38:28 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?
legendary
Activity: 3178
Merit: 1119
August 23, 2015, 10:36:22 PM
...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
August 23, 2015, 10:34:56 PM

Yup .. Im gonna fork XT with no block size limit at all, instead it will penalize miner centralization. Let economic incentic do the governing. Satoshi never wanted to have block size limit. It was a quick fix to spam attacks. However spam attack isnt a problem anymore.

Pffft!  Yes, of course you are.  I think I hear you mom calling out that dinner is ready.  You can hack it out when you get back to your bedroom.

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1010
August 23, 2015, 10:33:23 PM
Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

It's already done:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.
legendary
Activity: 3178
Merit: 1119
August 23, 2015, 10:17:14 PM
Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

It's already done:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 23, 2015, 09:26:21 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

Not at all. Mike and Gavin just showed how trivial it is to just fork the code and throw it in the wild if one does not agree with the actual implementation. If Mike and Gavin did it, than anybody can even if XT succeeds.


Yup .. Im gonna fork XT with no block size limit at all, instead it will penalize miner centralization. Let economic incentic do the governing. Satoshi never wanted to have block size limit. It was a quick fix to spam attacks. However spam attack isnt a problem anymore.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 23, 2015, 09:20:41 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

Not at all. Mike and Gavin just showed how trivial it is to just fork the code and throw it in the wild if one does not agree with the actual implementation. If Mike and Gavin did it, than anybody can even if XT succeeds.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 23, 2015, 09:14:30 PM
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

XT is open source.  How could they possibly have "complete control of Bitcoin"?  Fork the code, do what you like.  Get consensus and your fork is the new client. 

If they get consensus, the CONSENSUS has the control.  As it always does.

You dont need consensus for forking a wallet client. So really this " control of the bitcoin network" is just a bullshit someone spit out because they're lack of rational argument.
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
August 23, 2015, 09:11:59 PM
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

XT is open source.  How could they possibly have "complete control of Bitcoin"?  Fork the code, do what you like.  Get consensus and your fork is the new client. 

If they get consensus, the CONSENSUS has the control.  As it always does.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
August 22, 2015, 11:27:59 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over.

Via the Peter Principle, Gavin reached his level of incompetence when he stopped writing code and started mingling with TPTB in smoke filled back rooms at the CIA, Pentagon, A16's SandHillRoad HQ, etc.

He's old and busted.  Blockstream is the new hotness.  Upward and outward!

legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1189
August 22, 2015, 11:19:23 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over.
sr. member
Activity: 322
Merit: 250
August 22, 2015, 10:19:20 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
Neither.  Go read Jeffs BIP100 white paper.  I did earlier tonight and I'm glad I did.  I can fully support a proposal such as that - it's reasonable, and I think a very good solution to the block size issue, especially from the miners' perspective in being able to majority control the block size in a dynamic fashion.

This gets us to where we need to be, with Core, and without all the crap baggage that comes along with XT.  And, it doesn't go anywhere near the outrageous 8gb potential block size which will certainly aid centralization. 
hero member
Activity: 835
Merit: 1000
There is NO Freedom without Privacy
August 22, 2015, 10:11:42 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.
hero member
Activity: 835
Merit: 1000
There is NO Freedom without Privacy
August 22, 2015, 10:09:25 PM
The market says it's the pro XT crowd hurting BTC. The price dropped (flash crash) right after the first XT block was mined.  Cry
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
August 22, 2015, 10:01:59 PM
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 22, 2015, 09:17:00 PM
Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?
I think this really is what a lot of people on the fringes are wanting to know, and feeling left in the dark as to what is really going on.  Because it seems like such a easy solution to which there really is general consensus.  I think this is why so many people are getting pissed off.  If Core has an easy solution to end the war, then why not just get it over with.  Or is there more to it, in which case someone needs to come clean.

And silly childlike behavior like a few lines up from Icebreaker really does harm the overall cryptocurrency reputation.  People that aren't coders will always feela little bit of a need to trust those tecnologist that can make the changes.  Such immature Sh!tty "Gotcha" behavior sure isn't giving anyone confidence.

probably the coding changes are minimal but obviously needs testing and really should be shepherded by someone with credentials like Jeff or Gavin so that the community can get behind it.

As I've been screaming about for the last 24 hours, do not expect anyone from Blockstream to support this.
Pages:
Jump to: