This Is How To Kill XT… - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:36:57 AM

and OP is right thats how to kill XT, you listen to what the community wants and you give it to them.

lol no. the comunity does not have a friggin clue about what it wants.

+ that 3 version core is bullshit. you dont want to split 3 bitcoin version, i mean seriously? wtf man. Angry

either you are happy with bitcoin and support it fully, or you dont and go find some other altcoin. but either way you stfu about its development.

not altcoin hitler

member

Activity: 212

Merit: 22

Amazix

This is hegel dialectic.
Problem -> reaction -> solution

(pseudo)Problem: blocksize
reaction: Gavinhearn attack
solution: blocksize increase

You're all being toyed and mindfucked with. If everything goes according to plan none of you have a choice but to agree on a blocksize increase which was the goal from the beginning. You have no choice because "if you don't vote for bigger blocks now Gavinhearn will win".
This whole debate is rigged from the very beginning and XT winning isn't even intended. The goal here is to get everyone to agree on a blocksize increase without a real need for it, not to adopt xt. XT is just the scarecrow to get your consent to blocksize expansion.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 11:00:46 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 23, 2015, 10:56:31 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:16:17 AM

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus fast if the limit is increased only to met the needs of the moment ( double it to 2MB)
i dont want to fork it myself, i want the devs all the devs to agree to a procedure to achieve consensus, having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementation all forked from the dev team as a hole

That's been tried for over a year, and its not happening.
It's even more clear its not happening after the core
devs aren't going for the 2mb proposal.

They are stonewalling and will never agree because
it conflicts with their business interests in Blockstream.

This is becoming increasingly apparent.

they have proposals BIP 100 BIP 101 BIP 102 etc..
they just have no way of getting their little group of devs to commit to one plan of action
we need to have them create different versions for each BIP and see where the community flocks too
they need to surrender the decision making process to the community and they need to do it now!

its not like Greg Maxwell favors Bip 100 and Peter Wuille favors Bip 101
and they just can't agree. None of the Blockstream guys want to
meaningfully raise the limit. (Unless you count Peter Wuille's Bip 103 which
only gets us to 2MB by 2021, but I wouldn't call that a meaningful increase)

Yes, they need to surrender the decision making to the community but
they clearly aren't.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 23, 2015, 10:56:31 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:16:17 AM

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus fast if the limit is increased only to met the needs of the moment ( double it to 2MB)
i dont want to fork it myself, i want the devs all the devs to agree to a procedure to achieve consensus, having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementation all forked from the dev team as a hole

That's been tried for over a year, and its not happening.
It's even more clear its not happening after the core
devs aren't going for the 2mb proposal.

They are stonewalling and will never agree because
it conflicts with their business interests in Blockstream.

This is becoming increasingly apparent.

they have proposals BIP 100 BIP 101 BIP 102 etc..
they just have no way of getting their little group of devs to commit to one plan of action
we need to have them create different versions for each BIP and see where the community flocks too
they need to surrender the decision making process to the community and they need to do it now!

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:16:17 AM

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus fast if the limit is increased only to met the needs of the moment ( double it to 2MB)
i dont want to fork it myself, i want the devs all the devs to agree to a procedure to achieve consensus, having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementation all forked from the dev team as a hole

That's been tried for over a year, and its not happening.
It's even more clear its not happening after the core
devs aren't going for the 2mb proposal.

They are stonewalling and will never agree because
it conflicts with their business interests in Blockstream.

This is becoming increasingly apparent.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

and OP is right thats how to kill XT, you listen to what the community wants and you give it to them.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Demille on August 23, 2015, 10:26:50 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:16:17 AM

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus

It needs to be enlarged but not to 8mb, the only question is when is bitcoins blocks going to be made bigger and how? This is the problem and I think xt was just trying to solve this by taking the initiative.

bottom line is increasing the limit to 20MB wouldn't be a very big deal, XT wants to increase it enough so this limit never becomes an issue again, because its so hard to get poeple to agree everytime the issue comes up.

but with the above proposed solution, they could increase it to 2MB right away pretty sure everyone would agree to that, and a year later if its still an issue because sidechain and or blockstream isn't all it's cracked up to be, just do it again and let the community vote to increase it again maybe this time the community will want to see 8MB block with a set rate of increase so we never see this issue again.

point is its not up to the devs to decide which options is best at which time, let the boss (the community) make that determination, believe it or not it will be easier to get 90% of the entire community to pick one option then to have 9/10 devs agree (that is in fact what gavin is banking on)

Demille

member

Activity: 69

Merit: 10

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 10:16:17 AM

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus

It needs to be enlarged but not to 8mb, the only question is when is bitcoins blocks going to be made bigger and how? This is the problem and I think xt was just trying to solve this by taking the initiative.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 23, 2015, 10:03:20 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 09:58:13 AM

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

there is a thrid path

find some devs willing to fork Core yet again ( excetly how XT did it ) with increased block size and nothing else

then we let the miners and users decide which fork to run,

1)with block limit, Core
2)with minimal block limit increase, Core++
3)with block limit increase and loads of other changes we arent sure about, XT

Edit: fuck it man make like 3 different version of Core each one mines blocks with a different version number corresponding to the different proposed implementation of limit increase

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

feel free to fork this if you don't want it mikes name...

i don't want it to be called XT its i want Core with a different version number thats all
i don't want it to increase blocklimit by much, increasing block limit is both necessary and controversial, i believe we will achieve consensus fast if the limit is increased only to met the needs of the moment ( double it to 2MB)
i dont want to fork it myself, i want the devs all the devs to agree to a procedure to achieve consensus, having different version numbers corresponding to the different proposed implementation all forked from the dev team as a hole
none of this BS "Core Vs XT war", present to us the options in a clam and orderly fashion and let us vote

basicly i want the dev team to all work together, when they can't agree they all submit their proposals to THE BOSS and boss being the community

wouldn't that be wonderful?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 23, 2015, 09:58:13 AM

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

there is a thrid path

find some devs willing to fork Core yet again ( excetly how XT did it ) with increased block size and nothing else

then we let the miners and users decide which fork to run,

1)with block limit, Core
2)with minimal block limit increase, Core++
3)with block limit increase and loads of other changes we arent sure about, XT

Edit: fuck it man make like 3 different version of Core each one mines blocks with a different version number corresponding to the different proposed implementation of limit increase

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

feel free to fork this if you don't want it mikes name...

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

there is a thrid path

find some devs willing to fork Core yet again ( excetly how XT did it ) with increased block size and nothing else

then we let the miners and users decide which fork to run,

1)with block limit, Core
2)with minimal block limit increase, Core++
3)with block limit increase and loads of other changes we arent sure about, XT

Edit: fuck it man make like 3 different version of Core each one mines blocks with a different version number corresponding to the different proposed implementation of limit increase

Delek

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Salí para ver

XT will kill himself. It will never reach 75%.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

Too many FUDs in this forum about Bitcoin XT, but i'm sure increasing blocksize on core is better than use XT Roll Eyes

Too many secret inside Bitcoin XT that we don't know

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: ABCbits on August 23, 2015, 08:48:51 AM

Too many FUDs in this forum about Bitcoin XT, but i'm sure increasing blocksize on core is better than use XT Roll Eyes

Too many secret inside Bitcoin XT that we don't know

how would you increase blocksize?
which secrets do you mean?
...just read github and you know it.. very secret Wink

Alley

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Maybe if this September stress test is for real it will force the core devs to make a change and not think about their bank account size with blockstream.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 23, 2015, 08:22:35 AM

Quote from: Emerge on August 23, 2015, 08:04:23 AM

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

what do you mean? hard fork is necessary for any max blocksize change.

It's also necessary to any changes relating to the blocksize; including a minimum size, unlimited size, market determined sizes etc.

I'm sure jonald didn't mean to confuse the issue by implying that increasing the size to a fixed limit is the only option, isn't that right jonald?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Emerge on August 23, 2015, 08:04:23 AM

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

what do you mean? hard fork is necessary for any max blocksize change.

Stargazer

sr. member

Activity: 641

Merit: 253

▰▰▰ Global Cryptocurrency Paymen

XT will die anyway. I don't believe the majority will choose them because why should they? If its developers really have some CIA connections we'd be shooting ourselves in the knee.

Topic: This Is How To Kill XT… - page 2. (Read 3953 times)