It takes time to build a reputation for a new coin and also to establish a secure network with loads of hashing power. Mike wants to push the Lightning network on a established network
Topic: Why not just make BitcoinXT a separate coin? (Read 783 times)
It's all about the hashing power backed by Bitcoin Core and the security it provides to the whole network. The more hashing power you have, the more secure the network is. Mike and his gang cannot afford to launch a new coin with only 15% of the hashing power backing it, they would rather fight for the whole cake.
It takes time to build a reputation for a new coin and also to establish a secure network with loads of hashing power. Mike wants to push the Lightning network on a established network for it to grow quicker, not start from the bottom and fight with 1000's of other Alt coins to get to the top.
It takes time to build a reputation for a new coin and also to establish a secure network with loads of hashing power. Mike wants to push the Lightning network on a established network
I want no part of XT harboring IPs
Good because it doesnt.
Time to put your worries to rest.
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
It's tough to say which would be the alt coin at this point.
I am for bigger blocks too, but if (for the foreseeable future) forced between 1MB or 8MB + doubling, I am for the former. I think such a jump is risky -- we simply don't know the future implications regarding blockchain bloat and keeping the blockchain secure on a path to 8GB blocks. Some kind of middle ground would be nice....
I want no part of XT harboring IPs
Which it doesn't.
I want no part of XT harboring IPs
Bitcoin has forked before. Bitcoin will fork again.
XT would make a dandy sidechain. All of the bloat, monitoring, black/white-listing, centralization, state licensing, etc, that anyone could wish for, and all backed up by Bitcoin without harming Bitcoin in the least.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
No you wouldn't have to sell your bitcoins. You'd also have the equivalent share in BitcoinXT, although its price would presumably be much, much lower to start. Over time, if it works better, BitcoinXT price would increase relative to Bitcoin.
Well, its "an idea" but not one i'm interested in and I'm sure I'm not alone.
The main problem is we still won't have big blocks in "Bitcoin".
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
No you wouldn't have to sell your bitcoins. You'd also have the equivalent share in BitcoinXT, although its price would presumably be much, much lower to start. Over time, if it works better, BitcoinXT price would increase relative to Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin hard forks, I feel like one the forks would rapidly crash and burn.
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
No you wouldn't have to sell your bitcoins. You'd also have the equivalent share in BitcoinXT, although its price would presumably be much, much lower to start. Over time, if it works better, BitcoinXT price would increase relative to Bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
We have not even reached the level where bigger blocks even matter right? That's what I dont even understand. People are causing all this controversy and splitting the community up along a dotted line over something that is not even a problem yet.
Waiting for it to become a problem would be pretty weckless. Considering the fact that finding consensus seem to be a real pain in the ass. Better now than later.
Yep.
Blocks occasionally become full and this will only be happening more and more frequently. If we wait,
it will hamper adoption and put the brakes on Bitcoin because companies won't be able to use it effectively.
I see no benefit to waiting when we can fix the issue now. When Gavin said "we are running out of time",
he was right.
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
We have not even reached the level where bigger blocks even matter right? That's what I dont even understand. People are causing all this controversy and splitting the community up along a dotted line over something that is not even a problem yet.
Waiting for it to become a problem would be pretty wreckless. Considering the fact that finding consensus seem to be a real pain in the ass. Better now than later.
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
We have not even reached the level where bigger blocks even matter right? That's what I dont even understand. People are causing all this controversy and splitting the community up along a dotted line over something that is not even a problem yet.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Few people want XT for any other reason than it offers big blocks.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
That's what we really want. Bigger blocks in Bitcoin. Freakin simple.
XT just happens to be the only implementation that offers that right now.
I want big blocks. You really expect me to sell all my bitcoins, and hope
merchants start the altcoin? Please.
Because XT proponents don't want to split the ecosystem in 2 as most of the Core proponents either. There is an economic incentive to try to reach consensus among all market participants.
I'm wondering why it is necessary to take over the original bitcoin's blockchain over many months? What if XT proponents simply forked the blockchain right away instead and called it BitcoinXT? They could then try to get exchanges to carry it along with the original bitcoin. If at some point more and more people got fed up with fees and transactions on bitcoin core, people would vote with their money by slowly moving Bitcoin core funds into BitcoinXT and raising the price. If the larger block size became preferable merchants might start accepting BitcoinXT as well.
I think bug fixes for bitcoin core at this time are understandable, but block size really isn't clearly a bug, but more like a limitation. Also there is the matter of time; this isn't a change they are trying to institute on a newly launched technology. Bitcoin has been around for many years now and I'm starting to think this could be a dangerous precedent.
So what's so bad about just launching a separate coin called BitcoinXT?
I think bug fixes for bitcoin core at this time are understandable, but block size really isn't clearly a bug, but more like a limitation. Also there is the matter of time; this isn't a change they are trying to institute on a newly launched technology. Bitcoin has been around for many years now and I'm starting to think this could be a dangerous precedent.
So what's so bad about just launching a separate coin called BitcoinXT?
The bad thing is that it would not be Bitcoin. People moving towards it would risk too much (as with other kind of altcoin). It is better to launch it just as they have done it. Many people will think "ok, if I switch to XT I have nothing to lose" as they are regular Bitcoins, with the same value.
Also, doing it has they have done, they do not need to compete with thousands of other altcoins, not even with Bitcoin really. They will only move away safely if they have some popularity already.
I'm wondering why it is necessary to take over the original bitcoin's blockchain over many months? What if XT proponents simply forked the blockchain right away instead and called it BitcoinXT? They could then try to get exchanges to carry it along with the original bitcoin. If at some point more and more people got fed up with fees and transactions on bitcoin core, people would vote with their money by slowly moving Bitcoin core funds into BitcoinXT and raising the price. If the larger block size became preferable merchants might start accepting BitcoinXT as well.
I think bug fixes for bitcoin core at this time are understandable, but block size really isn't clearly a bug, but more like a limitation. Also there is the matter of time; this isn't a change they are trying to institute on a newly launched technology. Bitcoin has been around for many years now and I'm starting to think this could be a dangerous precedent.
So what's so bad about just launching a separate coin called BitcoinXT?
I think bug fixes for bitcoin core at this time are understandable, but block size really isn't clearly a bug, but more like a limitation. Also there is the matter of time; this isn't a change they are trying to institute on a newly launched technology. Bitcoin has been around for many years now and I'm starting to think this could be a dangerous precedent.
So what's so bad about just launching a separate coin called BitcoinXT?
Jump to: