Topic: Will you use old Bitcoin if XT wins? - page 2. (Read 3671 times)

i will use XT if many people use too.
nevertheless, old bitcoin is more love than XT, i think.

I pretty much agree with you, on both reasons, theologically and economically. Long run, XT. highly likely. But that short term store of core value can certainly grow and there's no exact way to know that new adopters won't look into the whole XT thing themselves and see the same things we do, that perhaps the core chain is more secure.

Where money is concerned people often choose security over innovation, and ironically enough, Bitcoin (core) might end up as just that. Not saying it will though, but it's theoretically possible.

That's a hard question.... Theologically I would say core but economically I would say XT. I guess I would HODL both, 1 for moral reasons and 1 for less than moral. I would assume that in a fork most merchants and exchanges would switch as it would make more sence. In this case the Money would follow XT in the long run while killing most the value in both in the short term.

It could still be argued that XT is the alt chain. It even has a new name and branding, which never happened before. This huge schism also didn't happen before. Bitcoin's value comes from consensus, is that consensus based on its fast transaction utility or it's store of value? You can buy things with Bitcoin now, Bitcoin isn't broken.

Even if 75% is reached, it can't be 100% sure that the Bitcoin core chain won't retain its own value and consensus. To say otherwise would necessitate the use of crystal ball 2.0 technology.

That's not to say that the odds of higher value wouldn't rest with XT, because it probably would (assuming the 75%)... but the swathes of people who are hoped to come to Bitcoin are still some years away. There are still many in the Bitcoin world who have educated themselves on the technology enough to know that XT hasn't been tried and tested yet. Why wouldn't they hedge their bets so to speak?

XT needs to pretty much totally eradicate core, but if core still keeps a 'hardcore' group value (sorry for the pun) what's to stop core going to the exchanges as a group and saying 'Hey, we've got nodes, we want representation, and we're called 'Bitcoin', not XT, not Bitcoin fudge, just Bitcoin, and we can prove it.

Many exchanges have alts that are worthless (Correction: virtually worthless) and questionable in their existence, yet the exchanges still list them, will they turn away Bitcoin core that still has value - and considerably more value than the vast majority of alts?

Bitcoins value comes from consensus first, and yes, one of the reasons for that consensus was its use as a transaction ledger for payments, but it wasn't the only one. Ideology played a large part, as does store of value that can't be messed with... yet it is true to say that XT messes with the idea of that store of value.

I can only see that logically it'll pay to hold value in both chains and wait and watch. Yet if a group of us does that (which this poll can be seen to show will at this current time) then core retains value, and if it retains value read above.

The XT discussion is a circle essentially, because the consensus value of Bitcoin itself is circular in nature.

IF XT reaches the 75% supermajority, Core will absolutely, positively adopt BIP 101 (or an alternative which is compatible with > 1MB blocks, such as BIP 102)

You can of course continue to run 1-MB-Cap-Core if you choose.  Bear in mind, though, that this is not the first hard fork.  Users who are running Bitoin Core from 2 years ago are on an alt-chain, just as you will be if you choose to stick with the Core version you have today. (Again, IF XT reaches 75%)

I dont think it will win with 3 blocks iin 20 days now. BitcoinXT is a personal disaster for Gavin and Hearn.

You don't understand it.

If miners continue on the Core chain after the fork, there will be two identical chains the moment after they split. Hence "fork". You will have coins on both forks. Double the coins. 20 BTC and 20 XT BTC. Not 40 BTC. 20 of each. This is why people call XT an altcoin: it will be a parallel system once the fork take place. You will not be able to send XT coins to the Core chain, or vice versa. They will not interoperate after the fork. They will interoperate before the fork. Hence "fork".

Uhhh...No. You're not going to magically double your holdings. It's not going to work that way.

Will anyone have a choice?

This question is a bit like some one from France asking "will you still use francs if France adopts the Euro?"

If the network moves to XT, what choice will we have?

Well I then better keep my Trezor very well and safe from today since it seems that I have double amount of coins in there than it shows! Not bad at all!

Is that going to help when ISP's are beginning to change the service provision culture in their industry? Unlimited data plans are becoming either prohibitively expensive or unavailable completely. Some ISP's are beginning to charge like the mobile operators do; per MB.

Is it really such a great plan to make predictions about what technology we'll be running the bitcoin network on decades into the future? I would argue that as we approach the steeper part of the curve of technological progress, making accurate predictions will become increasingly more difficult. Perhaps it is worth taking an optimistic view of progress when conducting some aspects of long term planning. But when you're designing something vital, prudence and conservatism is a much more appropriate strategy. Only the absolute basics in life are more vital than monetary systems.

Yes. Disastrous precedent.


Haha   . Let's see how Moore's law will go after the impending deflationary spiral and possible financial meltdown. There are some limits, you know. We can't see 20 years into the future. What if in 10 years we will struggle to find any working computer?

At least go with Peter Wuille (sipa)'s block size limit increase BIP, which proposes 17.7%/yr increase iirc.

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

I dont know yet what will I really do as it is too early to assume results.Let the guys to reach at some decision and if this happens then too price can go temporarily down but on long term Bitcoin will win anyway because we love it.If XT is good for Bitcoin then why not to accept it.

Network capacity – According to Gerry/Gerald Butters,[128][129] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,[130] a formulation that deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butter's law says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months.[131] Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of wavelength-division multiplexing (sometimes called WDM) increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the dot-com bubble. Nielsen's Law says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.[132]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

We can change that again if we need it. anyway, have you heard abput moore law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Are you going to shutdown your node because blocks are going 8mb? really?

I was talking about node centralization. You know that XT doubles the limit every 2 years until it gets to 8 GB. You think there will be more nodes running?

Old users, the ones that make this thing happend signed up for that vision, and that vision is XT

if you think that XT will bring mining centralization you are not doing your homework

wake up today 5 pools are in control of 76% of hash rate users are not miners.

Theree is no differnce to miners if blocks are 1, 2 4 or 8 mb,

The miners fee market is not related with capacity,miners can choose what transactions to mine with or without limit,

The limit prevents people from using bitcoin or force centralized transactions coinbase stile

That is debatable, but who cares about Satoshi's vision. Why should we care? Why should you listen to him or to anyone? Is he the boss of bitcoin? Wasn't the vision telling that the bitcoin should have no bosses?

Because it needs a hard fork and that requires consensus. Forcing it will completely destabilize bitcoin.