Topic: The tide is turning: Which one is the alt coin now? (Read 4087 times)

The Tide is Turning:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3x58yo/the_tide_is_turning_rbtc_is_slowly_dethroning/

I dont know why you repeat yourself. Nobody said that BIP100 will support BIP101.

Again, a 2MB BIP100 would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

I'm not sure why I have to repeat that fact.

However, unrelated to that statement, no one has even supplied a source for a new BIP100 version with 2MB, so either way, it's still a 1MB BIP100, and either way, 1MB or 2MB, BIP100 will not support BIP101

[–]jgarzikJeff Garzik - Bitcoin Expert 192 Punkte vor 2 Tagen*

- Prefer my own proposals, unsurprisingly.
- If not accepted, BIP 101 is preferred over (a) no change or (b) too-slow change, e.g. 2M in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cudzcji

Shocking that a newbie can grasp this concept yet many hero members cant...... They tend to try speak the loudest tho.

This is why i stop saying " how stupid can you be?" As they take it as a challenge.

That doesn't answer my question. theymos says, that even one Bitcoin Core committer can veto a fork. So, that means you need the consensus of all Bitcoin Core committers, which is what you specifically said is not what consensus means.

True but he went one trying enforcing BIP 101.


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12243511

We might never need more than 32 MB.

32 MB limit gives us more than enough time to find a better solution. It is not at all a serious issue.

Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 

I have.  Perhaps you can explain something about the following:

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap.  That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover).  Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all?  Why not use the median vote?

I have, and I see your point. The veto (actually 10%)  only applies from the change from a 1 MB hard fork to a 1 MB soft fork and not the the voting mechanism for changing  the soft fork limit. There does remain a second hard fork at 32 MB presumably subject to a 10% veto.

You got it backwards. BIP 101 is the proposal for a fork. Thus if a person supports BIP 101, then he/she supports a fork.
Bitcoin XT is simply one client that implements this proposal, there can be any number of these with different features as long as they are compatible with BIP 101.

I'd like to see more fork proposals written into software. Choice is good and let the best BIP win.

[edit, not directed to LaudaM, just a general observation]
So far I think most of the discussion on BCT has been attacks against person, spreading FUD or cheering for ones own team. Seems like people with least knowledge hold the strongest opinions. Let's just discuss technical merits of different proposals?

XT's epitaph:

"First you reason with them,
Then they fight you,
Then they laugh at you
Then they ign.......  .. . . ."

XT only activates Bigger blocks if 75% of the mining agrees, correct?  So then it wouldn't be incompatible.  Not sure why youre spinning this.

You are accusing someone of mis-information then spouting three giant ones?  Awesome.

1.  A 'coin' is synonymous with a 'protocol'.  XT is absolutely and 'alt' unless the current incompatible protocol is fully abandoned.  The chances of that happening are effectively zero.

2.  I despise everything about XT from the creators on down.  I would 'buy' separate XT coins in certain conditions.  The biggest one is that if I could use it in a Google Wallet and get discounts on merchandise which they sponsor.  Of course I'd use a real crypto-currency for important stuff.

3.  Every person I can think of and I myself have some serious questions about the current transaction rate and have stated so.  We simply want to change this critical aspect of the system based on real-world data once a workable scaling solution is in place and tested.  Some of the more promising possibilities are highly technical but are moving forward at a good rate of speed.  At present there is no need whatsoever to panic over the block size.  It is more and more clear that all of the scare stories about overload were puffed-up psyops nonsense and probably well coordinated.  Even if congestion problems do occur, that is a good thing since they need to be worked on no matter what the block size and there is little incentive to do this when there are no signs of problems.

You are right though...the fear-mongering about block size has been going on for at least three years now.

I have tried to stay on the side and ignore this issue, but it is getting ridiculous. Every other thread is about this. Team Jacob and Team Edward need to come to a compromise. Meet somewhere in the middle and stop having a pissing contest.

Yes they are, but it doesn't make much difference if they are increased now or in a year, we are still halfway through the total network usage. Bitcoin is still a tiny niche. So im all for a small increment in the blocksize as long as we can keep running full nodes and not some centralized entity which is were Bitcoin XT/incrementing 8MB every 2 year whatever BIP that is, would drive us.

Please to me the favor and don't reply with an edit. I just saw your edit because someone else quoted you.

It's funny that you see a quote of your self as "attacks and nonsense".  Either we restrain from using  a person as an argument or we don't. What is it? There is a lot of controversy about Theymos and Luke in the Bitcoin world, even if you don't want to see it.

True.  However, "no increase" is shrinking.  Bitfury just started voting for Bip 100.

Bigger blocks are inevitable.