Topic: What is bitcoin XT? (Read 2595 times)

Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/thoughts-from-russia-on-the-block-size-situation-and-blockstream-1164828

I still intend on giving a proper response to your post, sorry it is taking so long. Part of the reason why I have been so busy is because I gave a speech on the subject and turned it into an article as well. I look forward to turning my attention to your post, since insightful and sincere posts are always enlightening for the development of my own thinking as well and help me to further develop my own arguments.

To answer this question,  I do support BIP100 as a compromise over BIP101. However I am skeptical of the 32MEG limit within BIP100. So I do still prefer BIP101. However I do trust Proof of Work more then I would any development team lol, so in principle I do like the idea of giving the miners control over the block size, though as I said earlier it would be better if there was no limit build into BIP100 or at the very least the limit should be bigger. Since I would prefer it if we did not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now when we will need to increase this limit again.

I have one more concern with BIP100 however, which is that no client that I can download now has BIP100 implemented and no plans for a hard fork have yet been made. Which means that for me to truly and wholeheartedly support BIP100 we would need these things in place and introduced in similar way that Bitcoin XT was. Since I do not want to just trust or believe that the Core team will implement BIP100 into the client themselves, since that was the entire reason for the existence of XT in the first place, since the Core development team seems to be unable to implement any of the BIP proposals. Which is why it will most likely need to be another alternative client that should push for this change. However since this does not exist yet, is why on some levels BIP100 is not a viable solution yet. I do hope that this will change in the future.

Here is the article I have written on this subject:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12267335

VeritasSapere, I know you said you will answer in sever days. (I understand scope of my post got quite out of hand.)
But I have some simpler answer: Today I have carefully read BIP100 and I very much like the reasoning presented there. Although I have stated and explained my position which somewhat differs from BIP100, I can accept such change and such approach in reaching change. If it gains consensus approval (like here in step 5 - virtually no veto-like blocking from anyone, little number of stand asides, not too many reservations, and big active support).

I dont have so much information about XT coz i cant understand it. wWhat i know is XT is the reason why btc price is falling down.

Oh. This will be a "little" longer than I expected.

Answer
Personally, I will wait for other alternatives than BIP101. I do not like the idea of doubling max block size every two years up to 8 GB in 2036. I do not like the change which is so controversial. If there ever is block size change, I tend to support dynamic resize based on algorithmic rules and influenced as little as possible  by politics and economics.
I also think that no block size change is quite good solution (but not the only possible one and the only right one). I do not think that network overload (if it means filled blocks and competition for free space in blocks and/or reach of transaction per second limit) is a big problem.
So, personally, I am quite close to the "never ever increase max block size" opinion. But if there is reasonable consensus (not judged by quantity, economic or political power of supportive majority, but rather by absence of reasonable opposition) about block size changes, I will switch.

Foundation of the answer
Perhaps I should explain my reasons for this opinion. (Although I might be called blockstrem proponent and opposing natural Bitcoin development. - I will get to this.) I was not part of blocksize increase debate, so I might be repeating some things already said.
My main reason is this: Bitcoin is what it is and it should remain this way as unique alternative. People (economics, business, politics, security habits of general public, etc.) should adapt to Bitcoin (original proposal and hardcoded rules), not the other way around. Or they should use something else. The former (BTC protocol and rules) is relatively easy to objectively define, the latter (people opinions and interests) is very subjective, varied and prone to manipulation.
Bitcoin is unique in some of its rules, is offers an alternative which is absent elsewhere. All these voices about "Bitcoin should support this and Bitcoin should support that..." call for something which is already there, which is close to something which is already there, or for something which can easily be constructed separately from Bitcoin. One of the most valuable things about Bitcoin is its predictability. Even if it sometimes goes against some ideas of fairness or utility. People base their decisions, security habits, investments, business plans according to these set rules. It is not right to change rules on the go, even if majority (by the number of votes, economic strength or political power) thinks so. Ideologically, this is question whether popular democracy (with "everything is subject to voting and majority overrule") is better or constitutional republic (with almost unchangeable Constitution everybody can rely on) is better.

Where I see dangers of XT-like path of Bitcoin development and decision-making
Sorry for several straw-man arguments in the bellow examples. They are here to demonstrate principles. I do not actually believe this is the way of thinking of XT proponents and their intentions or "next goal".
Let me state several examples: coin cap leading to natural deflation, big bitcoin wealth of early adopters, destroyed bitcoins, all money laundering/crime fighting/counterterrorism concerns. What if someone designs Bitcoin hardfork (client distributed primarily in the form of mass-user-friendly and business-friendly binaries, distributed as part of Windows OS/iOS/official Android distro, but with verifiable open source and clearly stated intentions). Doing this:

• remove of coin cap (block reward halving) - because it is "unfair" to the late miners. Also there is prevailing economic opinion (not among the early bitcoiners, but among general public and respected economists) that inflation is necessary for debts to work and decrease, that hoarding is worse than malinvestment, etc.
• blocking bitcoins older than 2011 which did not move since then -  just imagine someone designs client ignoring such bitcoins and rejecting blocks containing transactions with them. Offering this client widely to the miners and users, selling this as "You will profit on this! Only ones who will lose are some undeserved long forgotten early adopters!"
• recycling bitcoins unmoved for longer than 5 (or 10, or 25) years and slowly distributing them to the block rewards -  all miners would jump on this!!! Who cares about few lunatics with hoarded BTC and plans for century. They probably lost their privkeys and do not contribute to the society, right? Right??
• implementing some AML/KYC/anti-terrorism/anti-pedo/anti-gunmen4hire/anti-blackmail features - with simultaneous (or closely preceding) clear commitment of governments and/or big business: "If this is implemented, we will allow BTC, endorse BTC, jump in"

Is it right to construct such client (implementing some or all of above) and throw it into wild for "public vote"?? Yes, it is possible (and actually quite easy) to do such a thing, it will happen more and more and free market will decide. However we must be very, very careful to change core rules according to some group interests and perceived good. Because once we open this Pandora box, we will never stop and there will always be some next one and next one majority group hijacking the rules.

Concerning Blockstream... and LTC counterexample
This is a part, where I will be like... I do not know much about it, but nevertheless I dare to have a strong opinion. Also more straw-man-like arguments for clarification of some unreasonable principles. Again, I do not believe that all (or even majority) of XT proponents would actually say that.
Accusation of side interests of many core developers is serous thing. And it means their proposals should be subject to greater scrutiny and discussion because of that. But what it they are right nevertheless? If we can not reasonably refute their arguments, we should not reject them just because it (also) serves their interests.
I do know almost nothing about Blockstream. I should read about it, what exactly it is, what it does and how. I understand it is project (where core developers are participating) addressing some perceived flaws and limitations of Bitcoin. For example allowing higher transaction rate and transactions aggregation using Bitcoin blockchain as source of settlement and trust and so on. So what? Some people are using current, expected, well known Bitcoin characteristics to build business project around it (and to earn money, and fame and influence). They are not the first nor the last. Anyone can do that or even copy and improve their solution.
I was not around when Litecoin was created. But I think, it was also created to address some perceived flaws. Eg. faster block generation and resistance to ASIC. Imagine dispute in those times. Nobody knew if Litecoin will take over due ti its "advantages". Imagine people fiercely accusing Litecoin creators of blocking natural Bitcoin development (ASIC-resistance for example) so their child Litecoin could be only viable alternative. "Because ASIC-resistance and scrypt is CLEARLY way to go for cryptocurencies if we do not want big-miners centralization... we are FORCED to use their LTC if they block such changes in Bitcoin core." I would probably say in those times: "Yes, scrypt is advantageous to some people. So let them use Litecoin if they believe so. Others can create another solutions (now called Altcoins). Perhaps they will be (eventually) right and some altcoin will prevail. But let the ones who believe in core Bitcon rules their alternative!"
So nowadays, I am not convinced that bigger block is CLEARLY way to go for cryptocurencies. I see how it can benefit some groups of people. But I do not think that even small groups with "extreme" views such as "Bitcoin should be exclusive to small responsible tech-savvy group and majority of population should use some user-friendly solutions build on top of (predictable and stone-ruled) Bitcoin." should be overruled. This is not because I entirely agree with them. This is because I do not know how exactly limited block size will affect different groups and I am not convinced it will surely prohibit mass adoption of Bitcoin technology. I see Bitcoin working for 6 years with unparalleled resistance to all problems. An it is due to fact that Bitcoin is what it is and it is unique.

Status quo is the most natural state of things for Bitcoin! "Opposing the natural development of Bitcoin" is problematic assessment, because people disagree on what is the natural development and what it should be. People promoting block size limit (staying fixed) expressed such opinions long before Blockstream. Blockstream was created from the preexisting conviction that rules should not change. Not the other way around.
It might seem little insidious to make your business plan with the assumption that Bitcoin rules will not change and you will make money of this. (By offering some solution which bridges the gaps and disadvantages.) But many people do this! Many subject did and do relay on (very strongly) fixed rules and make their competing business plans. Do we accuse SPV wallets designers like Multibit, Electrum, Mycellium to block changes that would make Bitcoin more accessible and easy to use? Did we accuse Slush in 2010 of blocking changes in mining rules, so that he can profit from his pooled mining? Or do we accuse hardware wallet developers of blocking Bitcoin security changes (that would made their hardware wallets uninteresting)? No. All these started with the deep understanding how Bitcoin works, assumption that Bitcoin is not perfect, that it will reasonably stay this way for a very long time, identified their view of disadvantages an opportunities and adapted.
It is much more insidious to make your business plan with the assumption that Bitcoin will change exactly the way you want it to change and then force that change as necessary. If you tailor the changes the way you feel right then only people thinking like you or with similar interests can compete with you. This can create difficult to reproduce solutions, because if you know that Bitcoin will change some specific way, you can prepare in advance.
If Bitcoin changes or evolves too much too often, which changes should you then expect and plan for? On the other hand if people can expect that almost nothing will change then overwhelming number of subjects can plan for this and try to come up with their competing solutions built on top of the Bitcoin infrastructure.

Well said, you should know that there is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features should be irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

You ask many good questions here, and I think that it is important. Sometimes I think that some people are only looking at it from one perspective. For instance it might be true that from an engineers or IT specialist perspective it makes more sense to not increase the block size, however from a political or economic perspective the answer to that question could be different. A centralized network is certainly more efficient then a decentralized one, however from a political and economics perspective, a network that is decentralized is "better" depending on your ideology. What I am trying to say I suppose is that it is a question about politics and economics and should not just be perceived from the perspective of an engineer or IT specialist.

I would like to ask you the question since you seem like a reasonable person. How long would you wait for Core to switch to BIP101 if they do not increase the block size? I hope that you would switch over to BIP101 before the network becomes overloaded.

Nobody can be sure of that.
There are people who believe in the first option (that is block limit should never be raised). This is different opinion than something like the second option "Wait (until full blocks are generated and transactions rejected) then, after several weeks or months (but not years) of this situation, change Core implementation to address this issue".

Of course, situation is complicated by number of people who say "Lets wait, lets discuss more", but in reality they want to postpone block size increase forever. (But not all of them are such dishonest. Staying with Core for now, rejecting both XT and BIP101 does not mean block size limit 1MB forever.)
On the other side there are also dishonest people who say "Lets increase block size limit", but actually want to disrupt economics of mining or piggyback and enforce some other changes (not, they are not bitcoins blacklisting, yes they are unfriendly to TOR, security risk and a potential pre-step to higher government-friendly/business-friendly control).
Fierce discussions stem from the fact that Bitcoin is many (different) things to many people and they have different interests (financial and others). Should Bitcoin serve more the early adopters, recent adopters, new adopters, general public or business startups? Should it serve as store of value, payment system, underlying technology for other projects? Should it promote anonymity, responsibility and freedom or rather social utility, security and regulation? What to what extent?

I do not believe that this is accurate, right now we do only have two options. Since the BIP proposals you mention are a part of the Bitcoin Core and have not been implemented, and as far as I understand it, never will. So unless you can point me towards an alternative hard fork away from core that is not XT, then unfortunately we do still only have two options.

Just something from other thread. Someone might find it interesting:

There are actually more than two options. Is is not either "Core" or "XT".

At least these options should be considered (and their popularity with devs/pools/merchants/nodes clarified):

• Core (and never changing block size, coins cap, block interval, etc.)
• Core for now (with clear intention not to increase block size until (dev) consensus is reached peacefully, with clear commitment not to enforce any forking BIP or put it into wild without thorough* discussion, but with clear intention and commitment to increase block size eventually and not to block it at 1MB forever)
• Some Block size solution (such as BIP100, or dynamical changing block size which includes even possibility to block size decrease if underutilized such as this**)
• Block size increase (to some "reasonable value" 1.2MB-4MB, as a quick fix, using other BIPs than BIP101, formulating new BIP)
• Block size increase to 8MB without XT (for now, postponing any other size increases)
• Block size increase according to BIP101 without XT (block size doubling even after 8MB, final block size 8GB, ..., no XT-like "anti DDOS")
• XT

* - Lengthy does not necessarily mean thorough. "It has been discussed for two years now" does not mean "It has been discussed enough and we ought to make change now!"
** - tl;dr: "Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is bigger than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now.
If it is found that more than 75% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size.
If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 35% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size.
If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is."

Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree with each other on this issue. So the only way that the Bitcoin block size can be increased is by a hard fork. What matters here is not the agreement of the Core developers but the consensus of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses, It would also be better to keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often entirely different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people or what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This is no clarification. This guys don't understand a damn thing of how this works.

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core.
XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth.
 You will keep and continue updating the same block chain.

Thanks for the clarification

The "bans" only activate if a node is full, so if all nodes on the ENTIRE bitcoin network are being DDOS-ed to capacity - then YES this code would ban everyone on the blacklist from the network until their is excess network capacity again. In all other circumstances this code DOES NOT BAN ANYONE from using the network. Either way this is optional and can be deactivated by the user of that node.

Please stop will all that FUD.

About LN, the market will decide if its good for it. Is big players want to shift their operations to that network is still uncertain. From now on it seems they want bitcoin itself to scale and now. LN network is years away from being fully operational.

Too add to the above; it adds some other enhancements to the software too.

To OP: the reason it is so contentious is not really because of the software, it is because of the way it has been implemented. The Bitcoin world has been debating block size for about 2 years.

Some core devs think it's bad, and don't like the guys who did it. They think everyone should agree 100% on every change before it is released. One of those lads controls this forum and another big bitcoin forum, and has been accused of censoring debate. They also claim the extra enhancements are bad too as they sort of enable censorship on the Bitcoin network itself.

Two core devs think it's good (and they created it) and are annoyed at the reaction of the guys who don't like it.

So the second group has released it into the wild to see what everyone else thinks; some people are adopting it as they don't like the forum censorship, some people are adopting it because they believe it is in their financial interests to do so, some people are adopting it because they distrust the fact that the core devs against it all work for the same company, some people are adopting it because they think it is better for the Bitcoin network's long term viability, some people are adopting it see the world burn.

Most people are waiting to see what the nodes and miners will do, as their actions will pretty much seal the fate one way or the other.

In my personal opinion the approach of releasing it to the wild to see what everyone else thinks, despite the strong opposition, is exactly the way Satoshi wanted consensus to happen. i.e. anyone makes a change, releases it, and users flock to the version they prefer. In my opinion once some big users of Bitcoin (the PSPs and miners) make a decision on what THEY want, then that's where consensus and the money will flow.

The reason the price is dropping is that that this is the first time the process of consensus has been really executed via a hard fork. Despite the fact that this is exactly what was envisioned by Bitcoin's creator, it has frightened some holders in to selling bitcoin till it blows over.

Do not lie.

Bitcoin XT does not only increase the blocksize limit (in a pretty arbitrarily and not well-thought enough way btw) it also includes a lot of "goodies" like TOR blacklists and other stuff that will for sure be used to kill any improvements in privacy. Also, you are delusional if you think you will not need something like LN to scale bitcoin up no matter how much you increase blocksize.

Do not lie.

Bitcoin XT is a fork of bitcoin core which implemented BIP101, the most widely accepted proposition for rising the blocksize. The way BIP101 works prohibits a split.

It's all about providing room for new users to utilize the blockchain.

Blockstream(Core devs) have the agenda of suppressing the natural evolution of bitcoin and moving users to their payment hubs and channels.

All have shared very nice information in the comment. Thanks for sharing.

The thing is, this situation was inevitable from the whole beginning. The ability to fork the code and throw it in the wild is trivial. It happens now and will certainly happen again. If the economic consensus that makes bitcoin what it is works just fine, there is nothing to fear about. The market will find its way and this experimentation will clear out a lot of doubts. The more bitcoin grows, the more different and opposite views it will encounters. What will be interesting is how it will reaches consensus each time it will be forked or attempted to be forked.

Even all the fuss and chaos in anticipation of whatever the outcome will be, is already extremely damaging to Bitcoin's reputation and success.