Topic: XTnodes.com added a new chart: The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks - page 3. (Read 3890 times)

LOL WUT??

Did you just run out of ideas to talk down about bicoinXT ? Are you implying the ppl who support bitcoinXT are just a bunch of idiots?

Until the 'C' word is reached, there's no change.  It conforms to all the current limits and is following the current protocol to the letter.  Ergo, it's Bitcoin but with a vote for a possible future change.  It sends and receives Bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.  It. Is. Bitcoin.   If it had already forked and was producing 8mb blocks on a separate blockchain without a majority agreeing, then and only then would it be an altcoin.  

Imagine if I came up with a new IP protocol (for argument's sake we'll call it IPvXT   ) that added support for new features for the internet but only if the majority of the internet used it.  Until then it remains fully compatible with the current IPv4 or IPv6 implementations and you argued that using it means you aren't using the internet anymore.  You're using an altnet.  It just sounds farcical.

If XT deviates from Bitcoin's blockchain without consensus then I'll be right there with you dismissing it as an altcoin, but until then you either sound like you're calling it an altcoin out of ignorance or malice.  I honestly can't decide which it is.



It's disheartening to see this from forum staff [//EDIT: retracted].  Just because someone installs version 1 of a piece of software, doesn't mean they're automatically going to install version 2 without seeing what the changes are.  For example, I'm certainly in no rush to upgrade to Windows 10 and will stick with 7 for the foreseeable future.  Similarly, if people agree with the code in XT 0.11A they can choose to run it, but it doesn't mean they're going to run the next version if it introduces further changes that users don't approve of.  They don't necessarily have to switch back to core if the present version of XT does what they want it to.  They could stay with the present version of XT until it requires a bugfix or other such update, or instead wait until yet another developer releases a version they do like, whether it be core, XT or something else entirely.  The users decide.

But, what if all this block size stuff is just a bait to make everyone do the switch (let's leave aside the probabilites of that IRL) and only after the world has been conquered, do the controversial changes start to come in? (eg. that "redlisting" thing that MH was all for). The world is not going to switch back even if Bitcoin Core supports bigger blocks.

Yes, it would become Bitcoin, but until then it would be a stupid altcoin. In the current process, consensus must be reached before a fork happens. Until it's reached, it's not Bitcoin. That's a safe approach to changes in a decentralized payment network.

What Bitcoin is is decided by consensus (that buzzword, lol). XT protocol (in its entirety) does not have consensus, thus is not Bitcoin.

If the majority of Bitcoin users were crazy enough to support those changes and consensus was reached, like it or not, that would then become Bitcoin.  Bitcoin Core is not a permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is".  Nor are its developers.  Any developer can propose a change to Bitcoin, but only the users securing the network can permit that change to go ahead.  If it forks without consensus of the Bitcoin network, it becomes an altcoin and Bitcoin carries on in it's existing state.  If it forks with consensus, it becomes Bitcoin and the old chain becomes the alt.  There is literally no arguing with this.  You can't rationally tout the merits of open source decentralisation and then start to cry "altcoin" or "dictatorship" when someone proposes a change.  Either the network agrees to the change, or it carries on as before.  Consensus is king.  If you don't like that, go use Ripple or some other closed-source coin where the developers make all the decisions for you. 

How on earth are you able to derive this conclusion? Armory, MultiBit and Electrum are clients strictly following the current protocol, and they don't propose any changes to it. XT is following a different protocol, even if changes are not activated yet -- they are still in the code (are they already?).

I can create a NewBitcoin which forks after some future block, and then uses SHA3 hashing with unlimited coin supply. It would be an altcoin, even if I try to argue for pushing it to Core. The only difference between me and Gavin&Mike is that they have some authority, reasoning and expertise while I don't.

That's only partially true. Because many users can't make really informed decisions but they can be convinced by some authority. There are currently some serious issues with raising blocksize limit, yet many people choose Gavin's very aggressive increases (doubling every 2 years? I can't believe he proposes this for real).

I'd personally favor a technical discussion than a political one.

Clearly he has quite a few controversial ideas, many of which I don't agree with, like whitelisting or ignoring the longest chain.  If he ever enacts such changes, I won't be supporting it.  And no, he can't "force some weird changes" because if the next release of XT 0.11B or whatever it ends up being called introduces any such changes, people can stick with the current release that doesn't have those changes.  

Repeated with bolding in case it didn't register last time:  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits.  If developers introduced a change in a client that the majority didn't agree with, that change would not be propagated across the network.

The users decide, not the developers.  How many more times does it need to be explained?

You keep using that word, i dont think you know what it means

Maybe you can go and live in China to understand what dictationship means

Tl;dr version of the events that will occur: Hearn forces some weird changes and tells others to make their own fork if they don't like it.
It's one thing to support bigger blocks, and another to support Bitcoin XT with its (potential) dictator. I was actually supporting XT at first until he started proposing weird ideas, such as the dictatorship or ignoring the 'longest chain' using 'checkpoints'. Ignoring consensus and dictating is one of the prime reasons for which I do not think that it should be considered as a valid hard fork candidate.

---

---

Update: How many times do I need to say this. You're essentially agreeing to a risky path for future development. If people reject Hearn and Gavin at some point due to a controversial change, who will continue with the development (it will be very hard to reach consensus for this, since we can't even achieve it for a simple change)? This will ultimately cause unnecessary trouble for Bitcoin.
If XT forks without consensus and thus creating chain A (old) and chain B (new) then you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.

You're talking too much sense. These idiots start to lose ground so they resort in politics debate.

LoL

If future versions of XT have further changes, those changes will only be implemented if users download and run the new code.  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits.  If developers introduced a change in a client that the majority didn't agree with, that change would not be propagated across the network.  This applies to all clients, whether it be XT, Core or something else entirely.  Developers can only release code to the public, they can't force the public to run it.

XT probably can change the features of the bitcoin protocol without consensus from majority and just because the devs of XT wish to do so.
Bitcoin core does not allow sudden changes and follow strict rules regarding what blocks will be accepted in the chain and which ones will not be.

No they cant because people have to follow them.

But I feel that people are afraid that Bitcoin Core gives too much power to developers - and they are right.

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

2 MB blocks in November 2015 is the proposed backup plan.

---

---

It is the current policy to move XT threads to the altcoin section. Whoever proposes this within the topic has not made a mistake but rather is following the policy (which is controversial according to some). XT has caused so many unneeded problems, and has yielded so many pointless discussions.

If >75% say otherwise, then by definition, Bitcoin XT is Bitcoin. And this "Bitcoin Core" you're referring to is the altcoin that needs to be moved to an appropriate section.

Anyway, I *really* hope the core devs can find a compromise between a sudden switch 8MB or no growth at all, so that Bitcoin doesn't have to be split into Core and XT.

Please read BIP101 before you try to comment

Node count is not a good indicator of consensus. If you rely on that, you're fucked as a botnet can trump all these nodes count.

Economic majority is what matters. Its how it works in EVERY peer2peer network.

qt is an altcoin too but some people are too young to know that  


@thejaytiesto

i dont think so:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-will-support-bigger-blocks-and-you-should-too-1141086