Topic: The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin - page 4. (Read 5435 times)

Yes, until such time as the network experiences Actual Congestion^® (competitive fees failing to properly prioritize their transactions).

The 'stress tests' were supposed to cause that, but backfired spectacularly as consequent improvements (EG RBF) to nodes/pools/wallets/miners strengthened the network.

That's what happens when you attack an antifragile system.  When (and only when) faced with adversity, Bitcoin gains in resiliency.  

Please note XT displays no such antifragile attributes, and is stagnating/shrinking under the weight of revelations about its suspiciously hidden anti-Tor/privacy invading/blacklisting/centralized "final call" features.

Amazing, so if I create DelekCoin using the same blockchain than Bitcoin but processing transactions like: Inputs are outputs, satoshis value are multiplied by 3.1415962 and every address starting with 1DELEK gets all fees from every transaction it will be part of Bitcoin?, AMAZING. I will do that. Ooooppss, but I will not have consensus   Bingo, that's what is happening with altcoin-Bitcoin XT!!!!!!!!!

i should talk about...

unless you can sure that we could have enough spaces for blockchain, in which majority of the full node users could afford it.

Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  If BIP101 (whether through XT, Core or some other implementation) gains 75% of hash power support, it will become the longest chain and thus it will empirically be "Bitcoin."  The other chain--assuming it doesn't die very quickly--would IMO become largely irrelevant.    

I fully agree, Theymos is taking an odd position. Being inconsistent like this harms his reputation, and doesn't help the issue he favours, as the XT threads he leaves in Discussion are attracting more attention this way.

Even though it's his forum and he can do as he likes, and that's my overriding attitude to the issue, I really wish it wasn't like this. Can't have it all I suppose.

This thread (as well) should be moved into the correct subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

That said, I don't see any logical connection why being against a particular Altcoin could harm Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

Since when THE MAJORITY is harming Bitcoin? Stop saying this SHIT; at least until the XT miners/nodes count reach a no-miserable value. PS: that will never happen. 

icebreaker, just to be clear on your position, are you advocating leaving the 1mb in place ?

The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin. I fixed that for you.

Bigger block size =/= BitcoinXT

Stop cheap manipulation.

Just like Gavin and Mike, you are misleading the public.

In reality, "coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence" has been provided in spades.

Hostile takeover in the bitcoin reality is probably really unlikely to happen. People need to agree and then accept changes and therefore change fork and upgrade core protocol.
This is impossible with small numbers. It is so hard to find unbiased and good arguments to support XT with every changes they propose that XT takeover is impossible.

offering another software and hoping miners will use it is not a hostile takeover.
nobody is forced to do anything

in case of a fork i will own and keep btc and btcxt.

They're already in charge. 

I consider the blockstream devs stonewalling of any reasonable increase proposal to be a hostile takeover.

Fellow above nailed it.

Bigger blocks = fine. Hostile takeover = wrong.

very good example...

it was horrible dealing with EMM386.EXE/HIMEM.SYS under dos to deal with it (=extended blocks).
luckily modern systems dont have this problem any more and can address the whole memory (=bigger blocks).

Adam Back, the Godfather of Bitcoin and boss of Blockstream, proposed an idea called 'extension blocks' which would make the 1mb cap more or less moot.

NMF not enough people are capable of appreciating the elegance of such a brilliant kludge.

The problem is you kids are too young to remember when extended RAM made the 640k (1MiB for all you pedants) limit moot.

You want a big, showy, capital-E Event to make Bitcoin moon, and you rich overnight.

Too bad XT is getting #rekt, and you will lose everything should you be courageous enough to accept XTcoins.   

Interesting idea. Perhaps I agree.

OP basically makes the same argument the Anti-XTers do, only in reverse.  There is a legitimate split of opinion here.  It is a highly charged issue that involves BOTH technical and use/control issues.

The OP is engaging in the same dramatic politics as some of the Anti-XTers.  It is happening on both sides.

To simplify....

The XTers are arguing that their way is best, and they believe so strongly in it that they are willing to do anything to make it happen. This is evidenced by the fact that they HAVE done it - they have started the process, and they most likely do/will have the backing of the Exchanges/majority miners, and 75% will be achieved, and XT will happen.  I think everyone is aware that this is probably a much greater than 50% chance of happening.

The Anti-XTers are arguing that their way is best, and they believe so strongly in it that they are willing to do anything to make it happen. This is evidenced by the fact that they ARE doing it - they are finding a very solid base of people/groups that are rallying to the defense of Core, and they are clearly setting the stage to launch a counter-offensive in order to protect Core if the Hardfork occurs.  I think everyone is aware that this is probably at least a 50% chance of this happening, and even if it goes into a semi-dormancy, it could easily stage a comeback within 6 months or so as Degree of Diffculty in Mining subsequently recedes... and Core takes on an "underground" alt-original-bitcoin status.  And just to be clear - it could easily become established with greater chance than other Alt coins - because their is emotional attachment and loyalty on a pretty deep level to Core.

So I think that BOTH sides better start sipping from the Reality Koolaid and try and work out a compromise - because BOTH sides are trying the same tricks, waging the same warfare, and clearly indicating they are serious and willing to go over the edge of the cliff to get what they want.  The main objections to a compromise as I see it are that (A) XT Players think they have the upper hand and are stubbornly refusing to budge.  (B) Ant-XTers think they have the moral high ground and are stubbornly refusing to budge. But in reality BOTH have some valid points - but they haven't been able to find time out of their busy schedule of politicking for their own side - to actually try and negotiate.

I personally am simply not taking it for granted that all is going to work out well.

i do. thats why i just wait what miners do.
what is in the blockchain or not is THEIR decision... like it or not.
what gets downloaded on your pc is YOUR decision by using the respective client.

no one is forced and anybody can do what HE wants.

i do respect that!

we'll see what the economy does in the end. personal freedom and self-responsibility at its best