imho, if the community continues to behave like this, separating and arguing which one is alt and which is not, they are both on the way to become sh*tcoins that noone wants.
Also, pushing the notion of alt client has no logic in it; if it's alt client, what is its coin other than alt coin?! Makes no sence to me..
Topic: The tide is turning: Which one is the alt coin now? - page 4. (Read 4140 times)
alt client 
XT is the altcoin.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?
Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
[SNIP]
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?
Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
[SNIP]
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.
You seem quite confused. XT is a client, not a coin. All transactions are compatible with Core and XT. We are a long way away from a fork due to block size cap change, and IF and when that occurs, Core and XT will very likely be on the same page in regards to the change.
The only change in XT that is related to the fork is the block size cap increase - an issue that seems to be fairly well resolved now. The increase is going to happen, whether it takes the form of BIP 100 or BIP 101 (or another form).
The other changes in XT have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential fork. Once again, XT is a client, not a coin.
There are several proposals to increase the block size cap. The choice of XT vs Core is being confused with the choice of BIP 100 vs BIP 101 vs other options. Don't be confused.
XT is the altcoin.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?
Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
Gavin and Mike are obviously now more driven by profit than the desire to see bitcoin succeed. If they wanted bitcoin to succeed, they would have kept negotiations going with BITCOIN instead of breaking off the pack to produce just another altcoin.
You think merchants, vendors and anybody else who actually uses bitcoin as a currency (which is what gives it value) want to change their infrastructure to make it BitcoinXT compatible? I assure you, they do not. They already went through pains to integrate DOGE, BLK and DASH into their systems, now they have to integrate XT, too? Its too much and the scene is obviously becoming unglued.
Gavin is just unnecessarily introducing confusion and chaos into an already very chaotic and uncertain industry. When you see that he is backed by a dozen or so CEOs who think BitcoinXT = greater profitability for their own pockets, the reasoning becomes apparent: Gavin is only in it for the money.
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?
Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
Gavin and Mike are obviously now more driven by profit than the desire to see bitcoin succeed. If they wanted bitcoin to succeed, they would have kept negotiations going with BITCOIN instead of breaking off the pack to produce just another altcoin.
You think merchants, vendors and anybody else who actually uses bitcoin as a currency (which is what gives it value) want to change their infrastructure to make it BitcoinXT compatible? I assure you, they do not. They already went through pains to integrate DOGE, BLK and DASH into their systems, now they have to integrate XT, too? Its too much and the scene is obviously becoming unglued.
Gavin is just unnecessarily introducing confusion and chaos into an already very chaotic and uncertain industry. When you see that he is backed by a dozen or so CEOs who think BitcoinXT = greater profitability for their own pockets, the reasoning becomes apparent: Gavin is only in it for the money.
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.
This is not the "majority"... The majority is seen by the number of blocks mined supporting certain BIP. As for reconsideration if XT is an altcoin or not... I also agree it should be reconsidered.
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
That's the whole point.
Trust ideas, not men.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
-snip-
Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.
Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.
I guess Satoshi never signed using PGP key. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32829545/
Quote from: Btc Drak - http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010329.html
3. While the email is not signed, and there are a number of PGP keys listed
on key servers for him (to vary addresses), he didnt sign any emails with
any PGP keys.
on key servers for him (to vary addresses), he didnt sign any emails with
any PGP keys.
-snip
Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person".
-snip-
Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person".
-snip-
This is quite interesting. If the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" is just an idea, then who really created bitcoin in the first place? To have written such a code like this, I'm sure the person is well-educated in terms of programming, cryptography, politics, economy and society. I mean, bitcoin's concept is perfectly created.
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.
The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
-snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.
Nope.
Maybe someone who has been in the space longer than me, could show us, if Satoshi ever spoke about another definition of consensus than POW.
Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person".
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto - http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?
I did not spread a lie, at least, no knowingly. I and DooMad already ended a peaceful conversation yesterday. There was no lie!
XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
XT is alt when it hardforks as it does not has consensus and XT topics are allowed in this forum but topics discussing only about XT are moved into Altcoin board.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
XT is alt when it hardforks as it does not has consensus and XT topics are allowed in this forum but topics discussing only about XT are moved into Altcoin board.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?
I did not spread a lie, at least, no knowingly. I and DooMad already ended a peaceful conversation yesterday. There was no lie!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12228109
They don't just work for them, they are among the founders.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.
Agreed.
Just to say again, sidechain needs bigger blocks for its existence.
Its no wonder people are confused,even some of the fudsters are posting opposing views to themselves!
We need a Fud community watch and start lighting people up in trust on either side that spread misinformation.
We need a Fud community watch and start lighting people up in trust on either side that spread misinformation.
XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.
They don't just work for them, they are among the founders.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they control them financially.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.
Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.
Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622
Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.
Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12239944
Jump to: