Topic: The tide is turning: Which one is the alt coin now? - page 2. (Read 4140 times)

This. It seems a lot of noobs are confusing BIP101 for XT. XT is dead at this point, no one wants to support an altcoin, and in any case, "no increase" is still the most voted option as seen on the circular graphic that encompasses all mining pools hashing power (cant find the pic)

1. XT is an alt client, not an alt coin.
2. There isn't a single person who would buy a separate coin called XT.
3. No the core developers do not generally support bigger blocks.  it's been discussed
for three years already. 

When will either of these cases happen?
Is there a timeline?

The whole thing started long before Gavin joined XT. I don't really want to go into the whole history of this debate, since it started before I even joined Bitcoin.
But I think, we can easily agree on, that there was no alternative plan to raise the limit in 2016.

But that wasn't even my question:
My question was: If consensus doesn't mean consensus of the core devs, what should be the action, if core devs don't listen to you? You can look at it as a theoretical question, so we don't waste time on trying to recap what happened before.

Well I'm reading the BIP itself and it doesn't say that, unless you have a verified update?
jgarzik stated on his twitter account ...
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800
... that the draft BIP100 v0.8.1 in June, was:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

BIP100 says:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

Which isn't what you posted.

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

Bitcoin core will always be the Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT is the alt coin.

One of the most important rules for Bitcoin is called consensus, it is critical for its survival, if consensus is raped you have the situation you have now, a huge drop in price due to lack of trust, and the lack of trust is because a coup takes place.

we have 2 possible cases:
case 1:
If bitcoin xt were to reach 75% which I doubt but it could happen, then there will be 2 chains, bitcoin core and bitcoin xt.

that 25 % will most likely keep running bitcoin core based on principle, and most likely on the long run bitcoin core will gain ground, and also do not forget the double spends, bitcoin core will be able to double spend on bitcoin xt.

Also if bitcoin xt broke the rules of consensus once, and took a dictatorial approach for pushing bitcoin xt what guarantee do you have that in the near future other rules are not compromised like the 21million limit, or make bitcoins expire, or create some sort of inflation that does not exist now, anything is possible ones rules start being broken.

The not so bad thing, is that they programmed that for at 75%, that has helped bitcoin from having a complete collapse in price.

case 2:
bitcoin xt fails, and there is only bitcoin core.
This is the best scenario, since there is only one chain, the coup fails, and consensus wins, bitcoin stops dropping in price, there are no double spends since it is only one chain.
Bitcoin XT will become another paypal, of the equivalent of a Bank, that is not good, that is the main reason bitcoin came into existence in the first place.


I am not against larger blocks, but I am against insanity, with 8 MB blocks doubling per year, to reach a limit of 8GB per block, that will certainly without a doubt centralize bitcoin xt, only huge data centers will afford to run a bitcoin node, all independent miners will be out of business, bitcoin xt is doom to fail in the long run due to centralization.

Basic rules for bitcoin to succeed:
consensus is a must, under no circumstances is a coup to be acceptable.
decentralization is a must, under no circumstances is centralization acceptable.
anyone should be free (freedom) to pay anyone without restrictions.
 

if we all want bitcoin to succeed we must stand together for bitcoin core.

only 2 developers are pushing for bitcoin xt, all the rest are supporting bitcoin core, that alone should tell you something.

do not get me wrong many of the bitcoin core developers do support large blocks, but are studying the best method since it is critical that a change like that be done under consensus without destroying the principals behind bitcoin.

other things the bitcoin xt does are impose censorship, there is a list of banned ips, and a list of tor exist nodes, something that does not exist on bitcoin core.
with bitcoin xt if you use tor you become a second class citizen, that should not be acceptable by anyone.

Lets all unite for bitcoin core, do not get fooled by the bitcoin xt propaganda, bitcoin core is not against large blocks, bitcoin core stands for the principals that Satoshi stands for.

Support the revolucion support bitcoin core, not the anti revolution behind bitcoin xt.

Many might argue the price is not important, I will disagree, bitcoin represents store of value, and the value can go down or up due to market reasons, but  pushing a fork and raping consensus are not market reasons, it is sabotage, for all this reasons and the onces about lets all stay behind the core and keep a single chain, otherwise we will end up with 2 chains and there will be double spends.

most of the original bitcoiners the ones the value the financial freedom that bitcoin provide will most likely stay with bitcoin core even if bitcoin xt takes over due to principals, that split will cause a tremendous damage to bitcoin. Money is about trust, and once trust is broken it all goes downhill.

I can assure everyone something Bitcoin core will not go away, so if you guys want a single chain support the original bitcoin, the revolutionary bitcoin, not the alt coin, not the anti revolutionary bitoin xt.

there is nothing wrong if bitcoin xt started its own block chain independently like other alt coins, instead of trying to sabotage the bitcoin core block chain.

  

Protocol changes proposed:

1. Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
2. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
3. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
4. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
5. Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
6. Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

Just ignore that guy and focus on the more important stuff. There is less than 2% support for XT (or BIP 101) from what miners are concerned. It's good to see that your pool is supporting BIP100.
If BIP100 gets support from either Bitfury or China it is quite likely that others will come on board as well.

XT support in the last week 0.57% .

Its not "who" posted it, I am telling about "what" is posted. We can not tell it is a fake nor can we tell it is legit.


No. What they did was actually wrong! No good solutions were found and they just implement a solution they found without any actual theory.


Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?

That has nothing to do with BIP100

Edit: BIP100 starts at 1MB - that is the BIP.
It can grow if the required consensus in the BIP is met for growth, but it starts at 1MB and will stay 1MB after the 'time' passes when XT fails to reach consensus.

He will not only prefer it, he will support it, and so will the majority of his followers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Could you please stop throwing this stupid fake mail around? Only a retard would think, that it came from Satoshi.

Everybody can fork Bitcoin, but it doesn't matter since nobody is forced to use their fork.
All Gavin did, was after years of debating the whole topic, finally providing code in a client, people can install.

What does finding consensus mean? It means persuading people about your idea. So, he couldn't persuade the other core devs and now a lot of people think it should have ended there? If that is true, than the definition of consensus is consensus of the core devs. You already answered that:
So, when consensus doesn't mean, consensus of the core devs, what should have been the next step of Gavin? I'd really love to see your scenario.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians/blockers. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.500
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iest2/watch_out_the_issue_is_not_core_vs_xt_it_is_small/

NO nothing is turning ..if you think that any coin can replace the bitcoin then NO NO NO ,it is not going to happen
and plus i dont see a big difference in price of litecoin as it is halving event today ?

No, it is not a very valid point. Could you please point me out to the implementation (i.e. code) of BIP100 to verify the flaw? Right, there is none. The flaw is only on the paper that is being worked on, not to mention the intensive testing that the code is going to go through.Jeff is hopefully going to answer it here.
It is also possible that someone just misinterpreted this part:
He needs to elaborate on what he means with "most common floor (minimum)".

This XT and block size debate is so inaccessible for people without the knowledge, the average joe already has a hard time understanding the bitcoin protocol, and now suddenly there are technological, moral, and economic issues that those problems raises... that's why it's so easy for forum admins and reddit mods to mold peoples opinion on this subject.

This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD.

 - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102?
 - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit.
 - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon.
 - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence?
 - XT just made this situation worse.