Pages:
Author

Topic: The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin - page 5. (Read 5465 times)

sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
August 22, 2015, 11:24:27 AM
#74
You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.

i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

we dont need an elitist currency only usable by 0.0001% of world population

That's a good point. But we can't just go with a limit with uncertain possibility. Its better to wait sometime for a better solution than to implement something with uncertain possibility which may or may not cause problems.

how long do you want to wait?

it takes much time to roll out such a change.

forecasts say that in maybe a year the current blocksize limit is hit
and btw: the blocksize limit is discussed for more than a year: imho ANY technical argument has been told and analyzed; its only politic, fud and fear now.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3083
August 22, 2015, 11:24:06 AM
#73

You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.


i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

The other part was it to be permissionless, trustless and apolitical. Don't leave that part out, if you actually respect Satoshi's idea. If you're going to be selective about the founding principles, you should look up in the dictionary what the definition of the word "principle" is, as applied to this context.
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 22, 2015, 11:23:11 AM
#72
You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.

i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

we dont need an elitist currency only usable by 0.0001% of world population

That's a good point. But we can't just go with a limit with uncertain possibility. Its better to wait sometime for a better solution than to implement something with uncertain possibility which may or may not cause problems.

Any solution will have uncertain possibilities don't fool yourself. There is a time we must have the balls to move forward.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
August 22, 2015, 11:20:51 AM
#71
You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.

i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

we dont need an elitist currency only usable by 0.0001% of world population

That's a good point. But we can't just go with a limit with uncertain possibility. Its better to wait sometime for a better solution than to implement something with uncertain possibility which may or may not cause problems.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
August 22, 2015, 11:14:38 AM
#70

You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.


i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

we dont need an elitist currency only usable by 0.0001% of world population
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Never ending parties are what Im into.
August 22, 2015, 11:11:41 AM
#69
Why not create a new coin?

because we want bitcoin to succeed

Why the need for IP tracking?

fud




You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
August 22, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
#68
miners are still free to choose which transactions too include in a block.
no one forces them to put spam transactions in there.

That doesn't effect blockchain. We have faced serious Bitcoin Core syncing problems before. Dust spam attacks shouldn't be that easy. Imagine with 8 MB block size how much spam attack we get.

what do sync issues have to do with block size?

you obviously have no idea what you are talking about...

and well... its easy to calculate how "much spam attack" we can get with 8mb. just imagine how expansive a 1tb drive is today and how long it takes to get filled... really a big problem Wink
sr. member
Activity: 240
Merit: 250
August 22, 2015, 11:07:49 AM
#67
miners are still free to choose which transactions too include in a block.
no one forces them to put spam transactions in there.

That doesn't effect blockchain. We have faced serious Bitcoin Core syncing problems before. Dust spam attacks shouldn't be that easy. Imagine with 8 MB block size how much spam attack we get.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
August 22, 2015, 11:03:41 AM
#66
I think the exact opposite. XT and its supporters are harming Bitcoin generally. We definitely don't need 8 mb block size now. Why do we need to raise it to 8 times suddenly? That system would be open for spam attacks. It does bad for Bitcoin than good.

miners are still free to choose which transactions too include in a block.
no one forces them to put spam transactions in there.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
August 22, 2015, 11:02:54 AM
#65
Why not create a new coin?

because we want bitcoin to succeed

Why the need for IP tracking?

fud


sr. member
Activity: 240
Merit: 250
August 22, 2015, 11:02:15 AM
#64
I think the exact opposite. XT and its supporters are harming Bitcoin generally. We definitely don't need 8 mb block size now. Why do we need to raise it to 8 times suddenly? That system would be open for spam attacks. It does bad for Bitcoin than good.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Never ending parties are what Im into.
August 22, 2015, 11:00:42 AM
#63
Every thread I see on this topic is looking like FUD. May not be what people are reaching for but the idea is being pushed to hard to not look like a agenda driven tactic.

Why not create a new coin?
Why the need for IP tracking?

The only positive I see is bigger blocks and thats a horrible thing to chase when you look at all the other changes.
Bitcoin to me is about non regulation and once you start building a database its over. Its no longer relevant for me to use if that day comes.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
August 22, 2015, 10:48:22 AM
#62
-snip-

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

He is still doing this and moreover, he is doing thins without consensus.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12211930

blacklisting of IPs by nodes isnt the same thing as blacklisting of coins.
Its not a threat to fungibility. 

Again, given the two choices, I'd rather take my chances with Mike's fork
than be subservient to Blockstream and their plans to keep the 1mb in
place forever.

You were not talking about "blacklisting of coins" explicitly, but "questionable activities" in general. And my reply was that he is still doing it.

That's your personal opinion. I understand. FWIW mentioning, I am still neutral.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 22, 2015, 10:32:37 AM
#61
-snip-

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

He is still doing this and moreover, he is doing thins without consensus.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12211930

blacklisting of IPs by nodes isnt the same thing as blacklisting of coins.
Its not a threat to fungibility. 

Again, given the two choices, I'd rather take my chances with Mike's fork
than be subservient to Blockstream and their plans to keep the 1mb in
place forever.
full member
Activity: 139
Merit: 103
August 22, 2015, 10:29:35 AM
#60
I keep reading a lot of people saying that " if Core would raise block limit, they would say fuck you to XT ". There's the rub. They won't. The question that everyone should be asking is why?  Could it be because more than 2 or 3 of them also work for a company that is counting on lower blocksize as their business model?       I'm just sayin!

Well it's true. If the core developers were to add BIP 101 (which they should and they know) then there is no reason to consent to BitcoinXT. Also don't forget that moving to BitcoinXT would put BTC in control of a new group of people since they would have control over the repository, pull requests and so on. Do you want that? I don't. If we go down that route we might as well throw BTC in the bin and pick an altcoin to support instead of BTC. There is no need for "new", "old" works fine the core just needs updating to support BTC's growth which is just part of BTC's evolution.

Bottom line is that the core developers need to stop twisting their finger in their nostrils and just freaking do some work and do it right.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1038
Trusted Bitcoiner
August 22, 2015, 10:25:08 AM
#59

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!
i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

No one and that's the point but I doubt a kick the can down the road solution from Core would be enough for most XT proponent to let XT in the dust.

i will... i just want a kick the can down the road solution NOW and the blockstream / sidechains ultimate solution next year.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
August 22, 2015, 10:24:14 AM
#58
-snip-

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

He is still doing this and moreover, he is doing thins without consensus.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12211930
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 22, 2015, 10:23:22 AM
#57

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!
i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

No one and that's the point but I doubt a kick the can down the road solution from Core would be enough for most XT proponent to let XT in the dust.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1038
Trusted Bitcoiner
August 22, 2015, 10:22:46 AM
#56

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!
i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

Those in control of core won't do it despite the fact that everyone wants it.  It would ruin their plans for
making lots of money with Blockstream.  The writing is finally on the wall.


when faced with a fork in the road, take the third path, we're going to need ANOTHER FORK!   Cool
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
August 22, 2015, 10:22:36 AM
#55
I keep reading a lot of people saying that " if Core would raise block limit, they would say fuck you to XT ". There's the rub. They won't. The question that everyone should be asking is why?  Could it be because more than 2 or 3 of them also work for a company that is counting on lower blocksize as their business model?       I'm just sayin!
Pages:
Jump to: