Topic: The tide is turning: Which one is the alt coin now? - page 3. (Read 4140 times)

Please read the BIP at least once.

Yes. This is a very valid point.

The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

The problem with your argument is that there are way to many "average people" in the world for even an infinitesimal fraction of them to be able to use Bitcoin with the kind of blocksize limits you are supporting. What exactly is the point of being able to download the blockchain if one cannot use Bitcoin? As for "hard drives" here is an example from 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg Capacity about 4 GB and only the most powerful and wealthy superpower of the day could afford it.

Edit: In any case if Bitcoin in what ever form does not do what is really needed to "disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic forces" somebody else will.

The problem is not that some forum members are confused. The problem is that some of those members who are confused are making posts that propagate their misconceptions, masquerading as facts.  You have joined this group and are actively making the problem worse.

If you can point to a single thing in my post that is factually incorrect, please do so.

I sympathize with what you're saying. I think a lot of people are taking the approach that average, casual users like you and I won't be able to run full nodes. Just like casual users without immense capital can't profitably mine when our competition is highly capitalized. I'm a bit ambivalent; this seems unsatisfactory, but is it a truth? I don't know. Many take the position that if bitcoin is to achieve increasing (and exponential) adoption, then these are simply realities that are built in.

I normally don't follow dev politics, thanks for the wrap up.

I for one am all for keeping blocks limited at 1 mb. If this is simply impractical, raise to 2 mb. If you raise much more, the blockchain will be more unwieldy than it already is, and you are limiting the usability of bitcoin to people with expensive PCs. You are cutting out a global audience by raising the technological requirements one must have to operate a client.

I've said it before, feel free to disagree: the whole point behind bitcoin was to disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic Forces That be, and put power back in the hands of the average person. The average person, as it turns out, is quite poor, even moreso than just 7 years ago. I've watched first-hand the movement away from this idealism and the focus shift to greed. Now BTC is regarded as "a toy of the 1%."

While transaction fees may decrease with XT (I personally doubt it), having the bandwidth, time and hard drive space to download a 100+ GB blockchain is an unachievable luxury for many. I don't care what your storage is on your computer. What do you think the average hard drive size is globally? Please, be honest and realistic in your guess.

So, what's it all about? The opportunity for some spoiled nerds to make even more money or the opportunity to change global finance for the better on a worldwide level?

I'd love to see where you got that "many" information from ...

I don't see it in any of my discussion logs starting the addition of /BIP100/ to the sig.

The BIP100 choice is a choice to go against XT+BIP101 but allow future block size increases.
BIP100 is not a vote for the XT alt-coin trying to hijack bitcoin through misinformation.

XT is not just a vote for bigger blocks, it is a vote for more that clearly a lot of people have no idea about.

BIP100 allows for blocksize scaling. It is not as extreme than XT, and also still limited, but an increase nonetheless. Those who support XT want larger blocksizes, and that is also what BIP100 changes. For many, I assume it is a compromise, and if people think XT won't gain the support it needs then BIP100 is a good vote to choose.

BIP 100, http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf, has merit in that it does not propose a 8GB hard limit as XT, but still why two hard forks one at 1 MB and one at 32 MB? The key here is to take care of the long term, and the short term will take care of it self.

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

XT is quite specifically counter to BIP100 since the block rules of XT's BIP101 will not allow BIP100.

BIP100 handles block size by sig voting.

BIP101 tells you what the block size must be, based on a random decision using insufficient data.

Oh? I thought it was going to be one of the other dozens of cryptos that are supposedly slated to overtake BTC.

Anyway, to the XT/alt question..... I fully support BIP 100 and would love to see a real alternative to XT that addresses the block size issue at the forefront. I prefer a conservative approach that takes into account real transaction volume.....not the transaction volume that XT proponents want to see in the future (whether or not reality measures up).

shadowcash will be the new bitcoin

If the blocksize debate is resolved and Bitcoin is allowed to scale then confidence will be restored and Bitcoin will likely exceed its previous all time high and continue as the dominant coin. The longer this fight continues the more confidence is eroded and the probalilty of both "Core" and "XT" becoming alt-coins increases. Money is after all fundamentally about confidence.

As for which alt would replace Bitcoin in such a scenario. There are way more opinions on the subject than there are alt-coins. My take is that if the problem in Bitcoin is caused by a fixed blocksize limit baked into the protocol, it would make sense to look at those alt-coins that do not have this problem.

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

Its not going to continue. Price of BTC is already back up to $222. I highly doubt - though I am no financial advisor - that it will break below $200. Too many people buying in at $200 up to $225.

If both Core and XT became altcoins, what would be the main coin? LTC?

 

If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.

IMHO Bitcoin doesn't need to prove anything. It has proven itself; it will not become a "shitcoin that no one wants" any time in the near future.

We just had some pretty notable breakthroughs in terms of cryptocurrency adaptations, and now Mike & Gavin want to tear up the script and start over on Page 1. They are shooting all of us in the foot. The worst part is that they are using the bitcoin name. Most other alts were courteous enough to come up with their own name. Its obvious Mike & Gavin are just trying to ride on bitcoin's coat tails, which is sad, because it demonstrates their greed has no bounds.

Meanwhile they are fragmenting the market and community, and all they are really creating is a cheap buy-in price for BTC, I'm pretty certain time will tell. So I am not worried about BTC's future, just annoyed at the simplicity of human psychology. Even our "heroes" are bound to its limits.

Um, you just made things way more confusing, thanks! Why the new name, then? What's with OP's post and title then? He and everybody else (except you, obviously) who commented on it must be _completely_ confused.

OK I get it, so XT won't be an altcoin until the fork happens. OK fair enough. And when that happens, there will still be BTC and a bunch of altcoins. Nice political manuvering though, A for effort.