Pages:
Author

Topic: The numbers: Bitcoin Xt or Bitcoin Core (Read 1530 times)

full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 19, 2015, 12:52:19 PM
#33
Hashpower Support for bigger blocks is around 70%.

I suppose they are not XT. Right ?
Btw, where can we see this stats ?



Zero i hope you dont jump the gun so quickly next time. I know you have been here a long time. Give Mike or Gavin a benefit of doubt will you? Has Gavin done enough work for bitcoin to grow till today?

You remember the Satoshi dice days right? Many users add rule and compile their own clients to block the dust tx from the website as they considered it as attack.

So this rule isnt a major concern. It can be removed or changed at will.

The important change we're debating is the change of the protocol, the blocksize limit was not in original view of Satoshit. We need to raise the blocksize to move forward
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
donator
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
#31
Hashpower Support for bigger blocks is around 70%.

I suppose they are not XT. Right ?
Btw, where can we see this stats ?

legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 19, 2015, 12:40:26 PM
#30
Any person(s) that would try to manipulate others based on "fake" nodes is shady in my book.  The question is, what are they trying to gain here?  I'll stick with Core.

The definition of what is fake or real will go with the majority of nodes.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 19, 2015, 12:39:23 PM
#29
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.
How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.


Core nodes don't vote, they just work and serve.
But some mates started talking about "voting" with nodes, which is just absurd. Are they pretending that machines have the right to vote for things that can affect people ?

These cloud nodes only create illusion that XT is gaining popularity. There are 14% of these nodes, but XT's real hashing power is less than 0.1% Smiley


Any person(s) that would try to manipulate others based on "fake" nodes is shady in my book.  The question is, what are they trying to gain here?  I'll stick with Core.

Lol the fakenodes are created by the antiXT camp to discredit the bitcoinXT supporters.

And you fell for it beautifully.
full member
Activity: 157
Merit: 100
August 19, 2015, 12:34:26 PM
#28
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.
How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.


Core nodes don't vote, they just work and serve.
But some mates started talking about "voting" with nodes, which is just absurd. Are they pretending that machines have the right to vote for things that can affect people ?

These cloud nodes only create illusion that XT is gaining popularity. There are 14% of these nodes, but XT's real hashing power is less than 0.1% Smiley


Any person(s) that would try to manipulate others based on "fake" nodes is shady in my book.  The question is, what are they trying to gain here?  I'll stick with Core.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
August 19, 2015, 11:50:00 AM
#27
That is not how it works.
The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic.

So, why pushing that hype about the grow of XT nodes number ?

Real XT mining power is less than 0.1% and is declining with time.


Hashpower Support for bigger blocks is around 70%.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
August 19, 2015, 11:47:24 AM
#26
That is not how it works.
The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic.

So, why pushing that hype about the grow of XT nodes number ?

Real XT mining power is less than 0.1% and is declining with time.

That doesn't make sense.
XT mining power is currently exactly 0.1%, since they count the last 1000 blocks to determine that.
How is it declining?

Like I said: The node count is symbolic.
donator
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2015, 11:42:14 AM
#25
That is not how it works.
The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic.

So, why pushing that hype about the grow of XT nodes number ?

Real XT mining power is less than 0.1% and is declining with time.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
August 19, 2015, 11:39:33 AM
#24
You might be against this process but technically this is how it works...

So, why wasting your time posting on forums?

Just buy a huge network and force XT to gain 75% of presence
That is not how it works.
The 75% is about mined blocks. The node count is just symbolic.
sr. member
Activity: 826
Merit: 263
August 19, 2015, 11:35:17 AM
#23
I would go for Bitcoin core not another shit like XT  Grin
donator
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2015, 11:17:46 AM
#22
You might be against this process but technically this is how it works...

So, why wasting your time posting on forums?

Just buy a huge network and force XT to gain 75% of presence
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 19, 2015, 11:15:57 AM
#21
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.
How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.


Core nodes don't vote, they just work and serve.
But some mates started talking about "voting" with nodes, which is just absurd. Are they pretending that machines have the right to vote for things that can affect people ?

These cloud nodes only create illusion that XT is gaining popularity. There are 14% of these nodes, but XT's real hashing power is less than 0.1% Smiley


You might be against this process but technically this is how it works...
donator
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2015, 11:06:19 AM
#20
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.
How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.


Core nodes don't vote, they just work and serve.
But some mates started talking about "voting" with nodes, which is just absurd. Are they pretending that machines have the right to vote for things that can affect people ?

These cloud nodes only create illusion that XT is gaining popularity. There are 14% of these nodes, but XT's real hashing power is less than 0.1% Smiley
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
August 19, 2015, 10:57:37 AM
#19
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.
How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1010
In Satoshi I Trust
August 19, 2015, 10:56:23 AM
#18
Bitcoin Core with bigger blocks...or XT
donator
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
August 19, 2015, 10:52:29 AM
#17
It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.


If you really want to vote do it with a node.


Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers Smiley
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.

hero member
Activity: 639
Merit: 500
August 19, 2015, 10:49:56 AM
#16
If you really want to vote do it with a node.

not all votes, through consensus will be genuine as usual, many will vote what the majority will want to follow, perhaps is true that there is no real decentralization and real 100% consensus, we are always forced to do one thign or another, in my case i would remain with core
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
August 19, 2015, 10:43:27 AM
#15
I think that bitcoin core should adopt the solutions of bitcoin xt,that is the appropiate solution

LOL.... Noooooooooo


They wont do that because they will look bad......admitting that they were just stubborn to agree with Gavin's proposal.


The idea of raising the blocksize sounds good, what doesnt sound good is the fact they are including a lot of stuff in XT that they arent talking about. The idea of "checkpoints" that Gavin talked about (google it) sounds like an evil agenda alone.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
August 19, 2015, 10:39:01 AM
#14
+1 for Core.

Block size must be increased in Core version after reaching consensus among the community.

XT fork is bad solution for this problem. It also includes unannounced anti-Tor patch which makes it really outraging.


It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.
I would also prefer to see these changes implemented in Core. However that does not seem to be possible since some of the other core developers will not compromise and do not want to increase the block size limit at all. Therefore if we decide to stay with Core we will have one megabyte blocks forever.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
Pages:
Jump to: