I do not think that the split in two in which one side has 75% and the other 25% is dangerous at all. If the 75% prevails, it is just natural as it has the numbers by its side. If the 25% side prevails, it is just because it would be awesome to prevail in such minority!.
I don't think the third case "they both will be destroyed" would happen. And, if that happens, probably other coin (litecoin?) might take its place.
What I think: Most people will remain waiting, without adopting XT... and will adopt XT progressively if they see a real problem with the blocks and a lack of solutions by Core.
I am more with core, but are also happy that XT is there as an alternative if things are not solved. It is kind of a lifeboat with the potential to become a ship if the actual ship wrecks.
Topic: The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin - page 6. (Read 5466 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
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!
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.
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!
It's nothing new really and just like any other industry.. "money grabbing whores" pretty much sums it up. It's kinda disgusting to see how the so called elite is no different to the bankers and industrials we're apparently trying to get away from with our "alternative and decentralized solutions".
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!
who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?
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 do not against raising the blocksize, but I strongly against any kind of decision that is not done through consensus-building, making it a competitive debate instead of cooperative discussion
I totally agree but unfortunately those times are gone. Today we live in a world (market) controlled by the so called "bitcoin elite" meeting at secret locations for their round table ala Bilderberg to decide on "the future of bitcoin" and the consensus comes from the market makers, manufacturers and the large mining pools / farms. The days where the "miners" had a say are sadly over.
I do not against raising the blocksize, but I strongly against any kind of decision that is not done through consensus-building, making it a competitive debate instead of cooperative discussion
Consensus Decision Making is what bitcoin needed
www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/consensus-decision-making-is-what-bitcoin-needed-1158988
Consensus Decision Making is what bitcoin needed
www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/consensus-decision-making-is-what-bitcoin-needed-1158988
i'm switching camps, i am now a Anti-XTers
"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver
Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?
Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.
What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.
if core increase blocksize ( I couldn't care less how they do it ) XT can go fuck itself.
yes well pro xt want everyone to believe the fight is about blocksize
"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver
Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?
Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.
What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.
if core increase blocksize ( I couldn't care less how they do it ) XT can go fuck itself.
XT isn't the problem. Blockstream is.
Let's ask the obvious questions:
Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?
More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money? How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?
Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit? Is that a coincidence ?
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.
Let's ask the obvious questions:
Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?
More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money? How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?
Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit? Is that a coincidence ?
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.
the plot thickens
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
XT isn't the problem. Blockstream is.
Let's ask the obvious questions:
Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?
More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money? How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?
Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit? Is that a coincidence ?
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.
Let's ask the obvious questions:
Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?
More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money? How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?
Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit? Is that a coincidence ?
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.
"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver
Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?
Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.
What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.
yeah because is very easy for anyone to run a full node with some tera disk space especcialy in developing world. This scam BitcoinXT has created from banks to serve banks and nothing more.
"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver
Try to create your new altcoin not to hijack bitcoin.
You don't agree with Bitcoin Jesus?:
Quote
"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver
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.
I have no interest in XT sorry. CORE with block size increase is welcomed.
You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions.
You do realize that democratic voting capabilities that are transparent and can be seen via the Bitcoin blockchain have been available for quite a long time with the Counterparty protocol?
Was this implemented so all could have a vote within a certain time frame, miners, users et all? Nope. One of the major utilities for Bitcoin blockchain use was completely ignored.
Whichever proposals were voted for that gained a majority would have been clear to see and transparent, so everyone would have been able to move forward at least knowing this was a democratic decision, not a decision made by the few for the many.
I find it more than a bit insulting that a users opinion is considered close to worthless bearing in mind we pump that fiat in there and more often than not keep it there, or use it within the Bitcoin economy to buy things, thus helping it expand.
A democratic decision was possible, yet ignored.
Jump to: