XT Fork is necessary , IMO | Bitcointalksearch.org

Jacobit

member

Activity: 72

Merit: 10

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 05:45:09 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: dodgecharger on August 22, 2015, 12:59:36 PM

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

There are few that disagree with your statement. However, letting 2 ______ hijack Bitcoin because their own egos have grown to be too large for a community project is not the answer. Don't let yourself be brainwashed into supporting what is clearly not the correct path forward for Bitcoin. Gavin & Mike have already shamefully shown that they can be bought and will place their egos ahead of the project. If XT succeeds, you can kiss the block limit goodbye, as well as any privacy protection offered by Bitcoin. It will simply become digital fiat where those in power will make and break the rules to appease whoever is cutting them a check. Be smarter. Don't let them use this block size debate to hijack Bitcoin.

Gavin and Mike can be bought? Perhaps. But the rest of the core devs already have been bought for $21M in venture capital via Blockstream. If those guys weren't stonewalling the blocksize increase, XT wouldn't even exist right now.

100% agree with this view.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: jwinterm on August 23, 2015, 09:55:13 AM

Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies.

There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

This is what I'm planning to run.

sweet! This is what we want!

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1116

Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies.

There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

This is what I'm planning to run.

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.

KurtB

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Quote from: dodgecharger on August 22, 2015, 12:59:36 PM

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

This is the fallacy at the core of this dilemma. As you can't point to one single distributed ledger that was suddenly abandon because it wouldn't grow indefinite your argument has no base.

- Maybe you want to revisit this post in 5 years time and apologize.

KurtB

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 06:01:33 AM

Quote from: KurtB on August 22, 2015, 04:12:00 AM

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 03:40:39 AM

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

That seems so much smarter than a brute increase of block size. At least it would increase the speed and the volume.
Ethereum has 12s block time.
- Yet, I would not support either at this point.

Satoshi chose the 10 minute block interval as another careful, conservative limit. Sergio is an incredibly accomplished computer scientist, he would not suggest this change if he wasn't confident that Satoshi's concerns can be mitigated.

I'm not sure how much this helps though; it's two broad issues rolled into one, so it has the potential to just create a whole new set of arguments. However, if 95% of people agreed to do this tomorrow, and the technical aspects were convincing to me, I'd get on board.

It is "a whole new set of arguments" indeed. A categorical "no" to every hard fork is probably the best answer to invite more creativity. I like to see Bitcoin as the core of the 'onion' protected by a host of other solutions that can also serve for experiments.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: dodgecharger on August 22, 2015, 12:59:36 PM

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

There are few that disagree with your statement. However, letting 2 ______ hijack Bitcoin because their own egos have grown to be too large for a community project is not the answer. Don't let yourself be brainwashed into supporting what is clearly not the correct path forward for Bitcoin. Gavin & Mike have already shamefully shown that they can be bought and will place their egos ahead of the project. If XT succeeds, you can kiss the block limit goodbye, as well as any privacy protection offered by Bitcoin. It will simply become digital fiat where those in power will make and break the rules to appease whoever is cutting them a check. Be smarter. Don't let them use this block size debate to hijack Bitcoin.

Gavin and Mike can be bought? Perhaps. But the rest of the core devs already have been bought for $21M in venture capital via Blockstream. If those guys weren't stonewalling the blocksize increase, XT wouldn't even exist right now.

SimpleIn

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: bassclef on August 22, 2015, 11:32:32 AM

Quote from: balu2 on August 22, 2015, 11:11:12 AM

The quickest solution is if the community could start expressing the real consensus which is: "go home, Gavin and Mike"

If the nodes and miners don't start jumping on board, that is exactly what will happen regardless how loudly one can make his argument.

It is necessary to bring the argument that they jumped.

dodgecharger

hero member

Activity: 1005

Merit: 500

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

bassclef

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: balu2 on August 22, 2015, 11:11:12 AM

The quickest solution is if the community could start expressing the real consensus which is: "go home, Gavin and Mike"

If the nodes and miners don't start jumping on board, that is exactly what will happen regardless how loudly one can make his argument.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 03:40:39 AM

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

I don't see how this is an improvement on Jeff's 2mb proposal
as this will be equivalent to the same blockchain growth.
(2 MB every ten min = 1 MB every 5 min). Also requires
a hardfork just the same.

@Lauda: Gavin has done extensive testing already.
And we will be getting many full blocks in about a year.
Don't you see the core devs are stonewalling because
of their interests in Blockstream?

Za1n

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1011

Quote from: coinableS on August 22, 2015, 10:45:27 AM

Quote

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

Under this model would we still have reward halvings every 210,000 blocks? If so, the coin distribution phase will be doubled where the last coin will be mined in ~50 years instead of ~100 years which could be very bad. We would have to reduce the rewards in half as well if blocks were found every 5 minutes. To me that sounds much more drastic than lifting the blocksize.
There's also those miners that are not validating previous blocks because it takes 10 seconds away where they could be hashing. If we reduced the blocktime to 5 minutes, that will take an even larger percentage out of their hashing times where we can almost guarantee miners won't be validating newly found blocks.

These were also my thoughts when reading about Sergio's proposal. I think your last point about the miners not validating previous blocks nails the reason this proposal would be a bad idea square on the head. To me everyone seems to be ignoring this problem in that even with an increase in blocksize, what is the incentive to miners to fill up a block, as if they are worried in doing so they could end up with an orphan. I believe this is the worry of Chinese miners as they already have borderline network connectivity problems.

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

What about this?

Quote

Bigger blocks would take longer to propagate to other miners when first found. A longer propagation time should lead to a higher orphan rate, as more miners would be mining on older blocks, while newer blocks are still finding their way through the network.

balu2

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

The quickest solution is if the community could start expressing the real consensus which is: "go home, Gavin and Mike"

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: coinableS on August 22, 2015, 10:45:27 AM

Under this model would we still have reward halvings every 210,000 blocks? If so, the coin distribution phase will be doubled where the last coin will be mined in ~50 years instead of ~100 years which could be very bad. We would have to reduce the rewards in half as well if blocks were found every 5 minutes. To me that sounds much more drastic than lifting the blocksize.
There's also those miners that are not validating previous blocks because it takes 10 seconds away where they could be hashing. If we reduced the blocktime to 5 minutes, that will take an even larger percentage out of their hashing times where we can almost guarantee miners won't be validating newly found blocks.

While I am unaware of the exact thing that he has proposed, this is not drastic at all. Just to explain this to your; simplified: halve the block times to 5 minutes, and decrease the coin generation by half = problem solved and we are back on the ~100 years track. Note: I'm not saying that I support such a proposal.

XT is not necessary, stop spreading wrong information. There is no urgency to increase the block size limit. It needs to happen eventually, but not without proper testing and consensus.
To elaborate further why XT is dangerous and risky (technical part):

Quote

bug fix:
If "relay the first observed double spend" were generally accepted as a bug with a clean fix available, it'd be fixed in Core; superficial searching says it got reverted as problematic and contentious but I don't know the whole story, nor do I have an opinion on the change.
two minor things:
One is for Hearn's Lighthouse project, and also got merged, found buggy, and reverted. Without those eyeballs, would the lack of testing have been addressed and the bug in getutxos have been spotted before it was widely rolled out?
The other is adding back the bitnodes seed node that was removed for behaving in fishy ways, and adding a seed run by Mike

Is XT basically going to be every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core? Where does that road take you as a user of XT?

Simplified:

Automatic blacklisting controlled by the Tor project (AFAIK without their consent).
Buggy block size validation.
Lighthouse slave support.
Incomplete/buggy double spend detection.

coinableS

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1186

Quote

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

Under this model would we still have reward halvings every 210,000 blocks? If so, the coin distribution phase will be doubled where the last coin will be mined in ~50 years instead of ~100 years which could be very bad. We would have to reduce the rewards in half as well if blocks were found every 5 minutes. To me that sounds much more drastic than lifting the blocksize.
There's also those miners that are not validating previous blocks because it takes 10 seconds away where they could be hashing. If we reduced the blocktime to 5 minutes, that will take an even larger percentage out of their hashing times where we can almost guarantee miners won't be validating newly found blocks.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: KurtB on August 22, 2015, 04:12:00 AM

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 03:40:39 AM

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

That seems so much smarter than a brute increase of block size. At least it would increase the speed and the volume.
Ethereum has 12s block time.
- Yet, I would not support either at this point.

Satoshi chose the 10 minute block interval as another careful, conservative limit. Sergio is an incredibly accomplished computer scientist, he would not suggest this change if he wasn't confident that Satoshi's concerns can be mitigated.

I'm not sure how much this helps though; it's two broad issues rolled into one, so it has the potential to just create a whole new set of arguments. However, if 95% of people agreed to do this tomorrow, and the technical aspects were convincing to me, I'd get on board.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 22, 2015, 03:59:59 AM

Changes are necessary and bigger blocks as well. Lets hope that everybody will just sit together and get to some sort of consensus that will be implemented to the core itself.

This would be the best possible outcome, the best also from the confidence point of view for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem.

100% agree.

KurtB

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Quote from: tadakaluri on August 22, 2015, 03:40:39 AM

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

That seems so much smarter than a brute increase of block size. At least it would increase the speed and the volume.
Ethereum has 12s block time.
- Yet, I would not support either at this point.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Changes are necessary and bigger blocks as well. Lets hope that everybody will just sit together and get to some sort of consensus that will be implemented to the core itself.

This would be the best possible outcome, the best also from the confidence point of view for the whole Bitcoin ecosystem.

Topic: XT Fork is necessary , IMO (Read 1557 times)