Topic: XTnodes.com added a new chart: The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks (Read 3877 times)

http://XTnodes.com

When the new indicator light turns green, we have won gentlemen.

That means 75%+ of blocks supporting the blocksize increase has been reached.

The bigger-blocks patch is activated after 2 additional weeks from that point.

If you don't want to be moderated for discussing NotXT and Pseudnodes obvious implications for XTnodes.com, I made a new thread here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12177000

You keep using the inapplicable, emotionally overwrought word "censor" when you mean "moderate."  What a cunt move.



lol rekt


XT --> Trash   

Your hyperbolic whining about your "freedom" to post anything anywhere you like on another person's server is insufferable.

This forum is private property.  The only freedom at issue is theymos's freedom to moderate it as he sees fit.

Why don't you go live in Mainland China for a year, then get back to us about what "limit the freedom of the people" really means?

http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/07/05/25-shocking-facts-about-chinese-censorship.

I wonder how it is relevant here, but yes, I believe Bitcoin would be in trouble already. I suppose you think the 1Mb cap was introduced for no reason?

You're fighting a straw man here. I never said I can't handle Bitcoin forking if enough users want it (the so-called economic majority). I said that I don't consider 75% of miners being enough users.

It must be very convenient to ignore the very essence of my post while commenting only less important parts, and even there you manage to fight a straw man. Well done! What's the point of arguing then?

Keep telling yourself that.

nice to see a staff that doesnt censor us.... bravo. Cheers


EDIT: lol right after my post he moved the thread. What a cunt move.

v0.11A released:
https://bitcoinxt.software
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/_YeEuaUu3Xk/R1n7ZGcnAwAJ

Ok, I stand corrected and retract my statement. Sorry.

You're taking things out of context. I was telling others the current policy of the forum. I never stated that I fully approve nor disprove this, nor am I going to comment it. I just said that people aren't mistaken if they want the thread moved due to that being the policy.
Also your post contains wrong information as Hearn is the one trying to centralize the system with a dictatorship and the core developers are working on a increase (BIP100 and 102).

This 'let X,Y,B decide' won't work in such a case. It is much easier to manipulate people that do not know the full story of something (it's being done on a global scale right now, is it not?). Exactly what percentage of users checks the commits on github, 2-3% maybe or even less? There you have it.

---

---

Update: Several corrections and additions.

No problem, all is well.

You're advocating the policy of moving XT topics to the alt section. It is clear that the only reason why that is done is to limit the freedom of people to choose whether they want the core dev's version or the larger block's version. The fact that the core dev's are even playing this game is because they want full control.

The fact that you are advocating the "policy", shows that you are (maybe subconsciously) happy with the centralized system.

If it were decentralized the powers that be would let the miners decide.

I made a point about the distinction between what theymos does (moderation) and what Mainland China does (censorship).

Your reaction was to start ranting about "terrorists...iraq...weapons of mass destruction...osama...[and]...the world trade center."

That rant was a defensive reaction, to defend censorship in Mainland China and/or smoothie the drama queen's mischaracterization of moderation.

you're losing me here, what exactly would i be being defensive about?

Mike cant make a final decisions regardless of consensus. At the moment he supports a good idea that has value. dont look at the people, look at the idea/code.

He cant force people to use something else in the future. people will have the same choice as today with core and xt.

It's also interesting when they confuse moderation and censorship, then vote to hide theymos' responses explaining their mistake.   

Which Downfall sub would be funnier?

A.  Hearn, in his Fuherbunker, being told XT is stuck at ~2% of the network, with no propensity for future growth
B.  Theymos, in his Fuherbunker, being told some Gavinista sock (IE Hearn) has created a BitcoinXT subreddit (with all of 350 users), thus defeating his mighty attempt at censorship

I vote for the first one.   

Exactly how is this proof of anything? I'm just a unknown entity who is stating his opinions. I have no relations with anybody from Core nor XT.

Interestingly they come here complaining that theymos is censoring things (which he is not), but they support Hearns who proposed the idea of a benevolent dictator.  

---

---

I still don't understand why people do not go with BIP 100 or 102 and our problems would be solved for now. Hearn and Gavin have caused so much unnecessary drama and problems for nothing.

Exactly. This is something that I've been trying to explain to others. Since Hearn likes the idea of a 'bitcoin dictator' that can make the final decisions regardless of consensus, it can't be good. At some point in time he can tell people to either upgrade to some version containing who knows what or make their own fork. With him calling all the shots, who knows what could happen to the network (if XT = Bitcoin).

Gentlemen, this is proof that Bitcoin Core is centralized.

thats something nice .. would be keeping eye on it from now on

Let's stick to my open question and the subject of censorship, instead of wandering off into unrelated (although distracting) Dubya vs Saddam vs 9-11 melodrama.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that "in the US there's a label for civilians standing in the way of tanks; terrorists."

In (mainland) China, is there even a label for Tank Man and Tank Driver?  Or is knowledge of their heroic, patriotic actions (and mere existence) denied to those who should most cherish and honor their memories?

If you haven't noticed, attempting to deflect attention from the PLA's authoritarian censorship onto other issues has no effect on me, and only makes you look defensive.   

in the US there's a label for civilians standing in the way of tanks; terrorists  and iraq had weapons of mass destruction (and of course the US wouldn't be armed to the teeth itself with WMDs, but if it did it as leader of the free world has every right too   )and with osama in charge iraq destroyed the world trade center ....  

In (mainland) China, are the names of the two heroes in the above picture renowned and appropriately celebrated?

I have been led to believe they are not, but perhaps that's just "USA propaganda."

Please correct my misapprehension and improve my understanding.   

You two's XT white knighting warms my usually aloof Fire Dragon's heart.

So selfless.  So courageous.  

fixed it for you both

Assuming this is a real offer and they are using the current stable xt client I would buy them all.

Get real.

$25 for the lot and I'll take them off your hands.

So you're saying its not a altcoin?

Really?

Pretty sure there has been no fork yet.

Omg the last paragraph made me laugh ahaha!

Oh the free entertainment from the Bitcoin community.

Priceless!

After reading this thread I can say one thing. Stop argue people. You are all like children who think their toy is the best and better than their friends.
That is the major flaw of bitcoin in my opinion, democracy is not always good, everyone have their own opinion and it is hard to find the best solution.
Usually you need to sacrifice something to gain another and it is not easy choice. With XT vs Core is exactly the same, only time will tell who was right.

I have 100 bitcoins on my XT client.  I will sell them for $50 each.  But I guess since its just a altcoin nobody here would be interested?

Incorrect.  Bitcoin is not a democracy.  EG, even if 99% of the drooling masses want to raise the 21e6 coin limit, La Serenissima will simply ignore them.

Fixed it for you.   

The drooling masses are clamoring for a Strong Man to take them into space faster than the free world, IE a Stalin for Satoshi's Gagarin.

What is it with dictators and checkpoints anyway?  Hearn (not theymos) is the "epitome of authoritarianism."   

Incorrect.  Nodes and miners are irrelevant.  The economic majority is what matters:


Stay in school, kid.   

Please read

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy

before you try to comment.

And/or most people understand the technical issues and risks involved with bigger blocks and contentious hard forks.

Keep making more creative excuses for XT's utter failure.  You're going to need them!   

OMG WHO CENSORED THAT CHART?  WAS IT HITLER-THERMOS?!?  EPITOME OF AUTHORITARIANISM CONFIRMED!!1!

 

You should be thankful we didn't need a hard fork to introduce the 1MB cap in the first place, otherwise there's a possibility it might still be 32MB (or was it 33.5MB?).  I suppose you think Bitcoin would have broken and died by now if the 1MB cap hadn't happened?  



You can detest it all you like, but if you use Bitcoin, this is what you're signing up for.  Bitcoin can fork at any time for any reason if enough users want it to.  If you can't handle that, there are plenty of closed-source projects that might suit you better.  You have a vote if you choose to use it, but that's all.  Either go with the flow or go somewhere else.  It's up to you.  



I never said it was a good analogy, it's not like there's anything else I can really compare Bitcoin to, is there?  Still doesn't make it an altcoin, though.



I'm not one of those people who are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong (as per my previous post).  If you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll concede.  It's not my fault you're doing a really bad job of convincing me.  

Not.  An.  Altcoin.

I wonder if you call 75% of miners a consensus. Because it's not, it's ridiculous. There's a high probability it can possibly go wrong with this approach, I simply detest it.

It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.

It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.
The analogy is flawed, because internet is not a consensus-critical network. There can be any number of protocols in use, e.g. IPv4 and IPv6 currently. Internet is not defined by a single universal protocol, Bitcoin is.
Oh ok, so I'm either ignorant or malicious. The possibility of yourself being wrong is not even considered, I guess.

Actually, you're quite right in that regard.  My apologies.  I shouldn't hold admins, moderators or other staff members to a higher standard than others (unless they're using their mod-powers to move legitimate threads into altcoins unilaterally).  That's no different to people holding developers to a higher standard than others.  At the end of the day we should all remain objective and consider all views on an equal footing.

I stopped reading at this point. WTF people, does having a stupid label make me a kind oh God or something like that?

*goes register an alt NAO (edit: and not visiting this thread again)

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

Good luck with it it but the XT nodes vs total nodes graph show a really marginal amount of nodes vs the core ones. I think it will be near impossible to reach the consensus needed to get away with a hard fork. It seems most people are too lazy to even care about the blocksize debate and they will keep running Core out of habit.

You're not checking hard enough, then.  If XT belongs in the altcoin section, so does Armory, MultiBit and Electrum.  They're alternative clients, not altcoins.  Altcoins don't relay bitcoin transactions on Bitcoin's blockchain.  XT does.

LOL ,..... when was it? Last month? or last week ?

You forgot to add a picture of the chart...

To anyone who is considering to censor this post: Any Bitcoin XT blocks, with version 0x20000007, are perfectly valid Bitcoin blocks and will be accepted by any version of Bitcoin Core. This will remain true until at least 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.

ref: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki

Yup its the chart to watch for.

3,2,1 ...alt-section   ? hopefully not.

the site was updated every 1-2 days recently.

http://XTnodes.com added a new features:

- The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks in the past 1000 blocks. This is important because 750 blocks = adoption of bigger blocks (75%)

- When the indicator light (see top right corner of the webpage) turns green we have won, gentlemen. That means 75%+ of blocks supporting the blocksize increase has been reached. The bigger-blocks patch is activated after 2 additional weeks from that point.