Topic: XT: It's On! First block was mined by an XT miner (Read 3220 times)

Then there is also a grace period of two weeks to get everyone to switch to XT before that actual fork and creation of a greater than 1 MB block.

You're not getting it.
It's not done. 750 blocks must be mined in LAST 1000, to allow fork to happen.

This two mined blocks won't even count, as the window of 1000 blocks is moving.

It dosen't make sense then , why would they said it should stay up for two weeks . If blocks are mined then it's done ... so why the wait of 2 weeks  or both nodes   & mined blocks should be available

You can change now if you want, fork is only triggered if those conditions are met, if they don't, nothing happens.

750 blocks mined from LAST 1000.

Looong time to go...
Funny thing, this two mined blocks won't even count.

It seems like the second block has been mined aswell looking at this  : http://xtnodes.com/xt_blocks.php , when we are supposed to upgrade to XT though ? I know it's on January and stuff however do we need 75% nodes running or we need 750 block mined from 1000

At this point, the debate is no longer technical. The consensus is generally to raise the block size, as shown by BIPs 100-104. The problem I see is the way to do so which is more political. It is basically a contest between which BIP will actually get used. Of course, XT has a head start since it already has an implementation while I have not yet seen any implementation of the other BIPs.

You guys are like my troll entourage!  Maybe I'll take one of you on as an intern.  Either of you any good with an Aeropress?

Is that a fact.

In that case you're a wasted talent cos comic strips are over here.

Aww poor thing.  You are obviously upset because you'll never be Legendary and resent my ability to research contentious topics, analyze, form opinions, and defend those opinions.

You can buy my account for 100 BTC and I'll promise not to make another one.   

If you're too poor to afford that, please consider fucking off to DashScamTalk or voat's /v/bitcoinxt subverse (places where I won't hurt your feelings).



BIPs 100-104 demonstrate the devs have not been sitting on their hands.  Please calm down and stop exaggerating.

The debate is technical, regardless of your desire to make it a popularity contest:

And a few posts down on that maillist, said by P. Todd: "OP may have been looking at the wrong code"
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html

iCEBREAKER, stop lying and spreading FUD.

You do know you are lying right. But your signature shows how honest you are...

FUD. They are not talking about XT code but QT(core) proposal

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010388.html
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010435.html

Read first...

Seriously, how can you make an alt by forking bitcoin and use the same name?

That's not what's happening. Blacklisting people on bitrcointalk is actual blacklisting.

The longest bitcoin chain is still the longest bitcoin chain - not altcoin chain - whether it's mined by a million solo miners or 5-6 pools.

What's happening with XT is just par for the course in open source software and I'm surprised it hasn't happened sooner. There doesn't need to be developer consensus and people can release whatever version they like, when they like, so the whole paradigm might as well get tested sooner rather than later as to how the "economy" deals with such diversification.

As to who gets a "say" in what version prevails, it's true that individual end users probably don't have much of a direct influence - relatively speaking. But they do have an aggregated indirect impact I imagine. Miners can migrate between pools or stop mining if they don't like the block acceptance policy, users vote with what clients, exchanges and commercial retailers they use etc.

How the whole ecosystem nets out is anybody's guess but I think it's slightly more complex than just a few pools deciding on behalf of everyone.

At any rate, you can't accuse a developer of wanting to "hijack" the system just for releasing a diversified version when that very diversification is the essence of open source, decentralised software assets such as bitcoin.

Many of the anti-XT lobby seem to have some legitimate technical concerns but the real reason they've sat on their hands in the "scaleability" debate and lost the initiative is strategic, not technical...

"Should bitcoin continue to evolve as an independent, universally accessible, decentralised monetary medium or should its existence and serviceability be made dependent on a proprietary superstructure the way the fiat system is".

Those in the latter camp are in the passive role because bitcoin's design objectives call for the former option and it's incumbent on the developer community to support those objectives IMO.

I've only just started catching up on this XT, so excuse me if I'm missing something obvious or have it wrong, but I have seen lots of posts similar to this.

It seems to me that the major problem is that 99.9% of users/miners will have no say whatsoever in this decision, given that the 5-6 biggest pools which mainly have their own hardware control over 75% of the hashrate it is them that will make the decision not us.

Especially for drivel merchants with a fetish for antagonising and tribalising every contentious topic on bitcointalk and who achieve "legendary" status with it.

Theymos sure gives good value  

It's not about sides anymore.  It's about the fact XT is designed to spy on and blacklist its users.

Bitcoin XTs Tor IP blacklist downloading system has significant privacy leaks.

With you on his side, he can't lose.