You're not making a very good argument
Why are you against XT?
Topic: What's wrong with XT? - page 3. (Read 2276 times)
You're not making a very good argument
Why are you against XT?
I didn't know much about XT until this past week but I fail to understand why support for it is so divided. The most controversial elements are the IP blacklist, disenfranchisement, and the hard fork.
Personally I see nothing sinister about the IP blacklist, all it is, is protection against DoS attacks. If you're still skeptical you can just disable the list:
As for disenfranchisement this sums it up:
Having a hard fork is inevitable in Bitcoin's future even if Core turns out to be the winner in this battle. Let's make the switch to XT now and get the hard fork over with.
For every other issue that's been brought up Mike Hearn has strong counterarguments
An XT FAQ
On consensus and forks
As of right now I don't see any disadvantages with XT and I'd consider myself a supporter. Please attempt to change my opinion
Personally I see nothing sinister about the IP blacklist, all it is, is protection against DoS attacks. If you're still skeptical you can just disable the list:
Code:
disableipprio=1
As for disenfranchisement this sums it up:
Quote
Money is inherently a social tool and to use a currency is to accept its rules, even if you don’t like them. You can’t use the dollar whilst opting out of quantitiative easing. Even if this were technically possible (maybe you are a large bank), you’re going to start receiving “eased” dollars instead of “real” dollars in payment sooner or later and arguing with your customers about this is a quick route to commercial death.
Any change to Bitcoin that is accepted by the majority inherently “disenfranchises” the people who didn’t want that change. This has nothing to do with hard or soft forks: regardless of which technique is used, if transactions using the new rules start to enter widespread circulation then sooner or later you will receive coins in payment that trace back to a new-rule transaction. And then you have two choices. You can verify the new rule, or you can not verify it. But the only thing not verifying does is reduce your own security: it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in practice everyone always upgrades. To disagree with a soft fork that is adopted by the majority is no different than disagreeing with a hard fork: if you don’t like the new rules ….. tough cookies. That’s trade.
We can see proof of this in P2SH itself. The competing proposal had some miner and developer support, but in the end everyone accepted the version we have today. They had no choice in the matter, or rather, they chose to accept the change and continue using Bitcoin. It being a soft fork made no difference.
So the idea that hard forks vs soft forks is some epic struggle for personal rights over oppression just doesn’t make any technical sense. The distinction is not just wrong: it’s completely irrelevant.
Any change to Bitcoin that is accepted by the majority inherently “disenfranchises” the people who didn’t want that change. This has nothing to do with hard or soft forks: regardless of which technique is used, if transactions using the new rules start to enter widespread circulation then sooner or later you will receive coins in payment that trace back to a new-rule transaction. And then you have two choices. You can verify the new rule, or you can not verify it. But the only thing not verifying does is reduce your own security: it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in practice everyone always upgrades. To disagree with a soft fork that is adopted by the majority is no different than disagreeing with a hard fork: if you don’t like the new rules ….. tough cookies. That’s trade.
We can see proof of this in P2SH itself. The competing proposal had some miner and developer support, but in the end everyone accepted the version we have today. They had no choice in the matter, or rather, they chose to accept the change and continue using Bitcoin. It being a soft fork made no difference.
So the idea that hard forks vs soft forks is some epic struggle for personal rights over oppression just doesn’t make any technical sense. The distinction is not just wrong: it’s completely irrelevant.
Having a hard fork is inevitable in Bitcoin's future even if Core turns out to be the winner in this battle. Let's make the switch to XT now and get the hard fork over with.
For every other issue that's been brought up Mike Hearn has strong counterarguments
An XT FAQ
On consensus and forks
As of right now I don't see any disadvantages with XT and I'd consider myself a supporter. Please attempt to change my opinion
Jump to: