Bitcoin Forum

Time to exercise your voting rights people

Cast your votes - ( Result to be announced after voting ends )

If your opinion changes, you can change your vote too

I voted for XT because it has a more modern feel and Satoshi hand-picked Gavin.

xt for me too, i'm with Gavin on this, because the fork is needed, and there are no better alternative for now, also others dev should provide at least their reason for not accepting the upgrade

I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.

So wait at what price will XT start at 0? and will the specifications be just like Bitcoin apart from its block size?

apparently it has only two new features which are getutxo and double spend relay enhancements.

and Core was not the original name also, XT is returning more to the QT path as a name...

Gavin Andresen is Bitcoin. How could anyone vote against him?

Factually incorrect. Unfortunately, people will never learn the truth. Handing Gavin the paper doesn't mean anything other than handing him the paper. Gavin likes to think he was "chosen" by Satoshi, which is not true.

Before I cast my vote, I need to know more about XT. In which language it is written ? Where do I get to see the source code ? Who are the people in control of the source code ?

XT is a fork of Bitcoin Core. It is written in C/C++ and the code is located at https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt. Mike Hearn is in control of the code and possibly Gavin now too.

I might switch, if I knew what the differences between Core and XT are. Also, XT is very behind on updates to Core and it hasn't been updated in over 5 months.

OK was able to find more info on the github page: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol.
1. Relaying of double spends.
2. Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint.
Bitcoin XT is more experimental than Bitcoin Core, and has a strong emphasis on supporting the needs of app developers and merchants. By running it you not only provide additional services to the network but help build confidence in the implementations, contributing towards consensus for inclusion in a future version of Bitcoin Core.

XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth.

I am also with the XT 'version' ... I have never been in a fork so I do not know what it will happen but I am sure a lot of people will lose a lot of 'real' money. Let's see what it will happen after the complete migration and the new blocksize of 20 MB.

I'm not so secure of this thing http://techforum.it/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/asd.gif, this is what I am thinking that it will be a chaos.

Maybe try it with testnet before using with actual Bitcoins. That way you won't lose any money and you will be able to see whether it works or not.

i also voted for XT and i am also excited for this new fork when it will happen and want to know how people will lose their money for this migration to new blocksize of 20 MB because i was never in a fork so let's see what happens next after this.

I will not lose my money because I will convert all my bitcoin to another altcoin or maybe better convert them to € or $ (this in my opinion is the most reasonable thing to do, or maybe also hold and hope to be in the right chain).



With my "I'm not so secure of this thing" I wanted to say that I lot of people will not keep their money and it will cause themselves a damage also if they are in favour of the Gavin's proposal (because they will not know what they should do).

They can lose money if they buy one of these coins (Bitcoin or XT/GavinCoin) after the fork happens in the case that the one they buy doesn't make it....

Also, if it tanks the price of both coins from fear and uncertainty... then you won't be able to buy as much with what you have as you used to.


Also everyone deciding to sell their Bitcoin before the fork, may tank the price... and people who keep their money in Bitcoin could lose value for their coins too.

i dont understand why this isnt possible ??? maybe someone can explain that.

not sure i have understood
I voted for bitcoin core
I have bitcoin core
I do absolutly not know XT

thx. i guess most people dont have a clue and this is the reason they are afraid.

The core devs disagree on whether or not to implement the fix into core. Therefore, Gavin is thinking about leaving the team and going to Bitcoin XT to implement the change while the other devs stay with Core and not implement the change.

Alright I got Bitcoin XT up to date and running, 16 active connections... looks and feels exactly the same as QT or Core.

https://i.imgur.com/XTDHZeB.png?1

yeah, that makes it more clear. in the end you will have 2 programms but you can switch from one to another without a problem (read above).

How will you be able to use them from one to the other and back in the future?.... after the fork, there will be differences in the 2 different block chain transaction data, right?

I did some research about the alerts, and it appears that Gavin is not the only one with the alert key. According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts, it appears that theymos also holds the alert key. I would also assume then that the other core devs also hold the alert key. Thus, if Gavin sent out an alert to everyone to update, the other devs could cancel the alert and Gavin would then have less power.

"XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth."

as i understand it, these two versions will run together for some time with no problems. when you reach a critical mass with one version, you can make that version the main version.

There might be problems actually. If the blockchain forks, then you will have two blockchains, one that works with core, and the other that works with XT. Once that happens, then you will need two data directories. Furthermore, if the two blockchains coexist, then you will be able to spend your Bitcoins on both chains, effectively doubling the amount of Bitcoin that you have. This could become a major issue if total consensus is not reached.

Will I be able to import my private keys into XT?

Yes, it is just like Bitcoin Core but with a few extra features added.

i dont think that this i likely. i would say: Stormy skies will clear to reveal the stars.  ;)

So whats the big fucking deal (I say politely) we are getting better equip for the future whilst retaining everything we have at the moment. obviously this is going to hurt the price for a while and it would maybe be better to implement into core instead of forcing a hard fork  no ones losing any coins

for the double spend issue can we just delete the bitcoin core from the website and all downloads no longer offically support it and move on to the future.

Turtle, implementing it in Core would still constitute a hard fork, between people using the post-raising-blocksize version and the pre-raising-blocksize version.

A hard fork is absolutely inevitable, because the 1MB cap is not sustainable. It's fine for *this* year, and probably most of *next*, but the bitcoin economy simply can't grow enough if the limit is not raised eventually. I'm 95% certain that Gavin is 'on the right side of history' here.

The fork is inevitable, and IMO so is a short period of uncertainty and hence price stagnation (hah! how would we tell?  :P). What's uncertain is just how disruptive that will be. But I'd be very surprised if 'Gavincoin' didn't emerge as the clear winner after, oh a week, two weeks maximum.

I have heard no convincing arguments for keeping the blocksize at 1MB. But to be fair, I've pretty much only heard from Mircea Popescu, his sockpuppets, and his sycophants. Peter Todd sounds like a reasonable guy, can anyone point me to a long, carefully argued screed from him?

I don't believe uncertainty will bring price stagnation... it will most likely bring price lowering.

This is a discussion with Peter Todd and Gavin today about it.
Audio: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

XT.

I'm tired of obstructionist politics from the the other core developers.

Blocksize limit goes up. Now.

I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads.

Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board:

This is a common misunderstanding from people who haven't seen Gavin's past proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the supermajority of nodes update their clients.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html


This is basically phasing in nodes which are compatible with the old 1MB blockchain, and remain inactive until 80% supermajority is reached, then miners would be allowed to create >1MB blocks which would be accepted into the longest chain, and the 20% minority who rejects the new blocks would find themselves on the shorter chain... and left behind.

Everyone is then compelled to follow the longest chain, thus the network now has a new consensus.

Remember the source: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

FTFY

You dont yet know what China & Russia are thinking. If they stick to bitcoin core and America & Europe goes for XT, then 2 chain will survive.

And what about this problem?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8791/what-happens-to-my-bitcoins-if-theres-a-permanent-fork-in-the-chain

One of the answer :


Is that a true problem?

Yes of course, it is a problem because you will be able to spend 'your' bitcoins twice. We can assume that the supply will double (temporally) and if I will find a buyer I can sell them my coin from the both chains ( the chain-A and also in the Chain-B). When it will remain only 1 valid chain I can buy again bitcoin ( x2 of profit).

 :o
But if the dev team will fork his source code i don't think it will be too easy to route all "old" Btc-Qt to Btc-XT before the hard fork!

Core but...

I want BTC to fork though so I can sell my 20mb BTC on y'all :D!

I support Gavins fork.

I just voted for XT. Not a very difficult choise for me, I will follow Gavin everywhere. I don't understand why it doesn't show how much people have voted.  ???

Because if you read the first post:

I voted XT because after Gavin leaves core, core devs will continue to argue on how to raise the block size limit. I think nearly all devs agree on raising the size limit, they differ on "how". Doesn't take a genius to choose between a well defined direction and a unresolved stagnation.

XT.

The sad thing is, if other devs provided other options they might be supported. Example: A more conservative increase to 2 MB or 5 MB, followed by further algorithmic yet still conservative increases.


+1

I think XT could be used some sort of lab test where they test stuff out, and if it works out well, they they add it to the current "official" Bitcoin. Doesn't this make sense?

I would love a Satoshi comeback to drop some common sense in this times of crucial decision taking and confusion.

I don't see any statistics of XT nodes on this picture, most of the nodes are running 0.9.x -0.10.x

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/#user-agents

I vote for and push for an agreement reached between the devs.
Maybe a middle ground can exist here.

I do not think this is good for Bitcoin/bitcoin.
Nothing good will come from this.
We may all become the losers in this game of chicken.

I vote for a settlement!

Edit: I will not vote in this poll. I choose the middle ground.

My Q&A on why going with XT is the correct and conservative approach if Core fails to upgrade with Gavin's fix to the 1MB problem:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q; What is a conservative course of action?
A: Conservative action (for a successful enterprise) is always to maintain the status quo as much as possible in the face of necessary change. Because Bitcoin has prospered for 6 years the status quo is to maintain the network as it is now.
Unfortunately, neither keeping the 1MB or increasing it can maintain the network how it is now!
This is a dilemma, but all enterprises face dilemmas at some time: necessity for change from competition, customers, technology or regulation. So, a conservative position is to adapt to an external change while maintaining the status quo as much as possible.

Q; Why isn’t “doing nothing” the best approach?
A: Because “doing nothing” has no real fall-back plan.
The fall-back plan for an increase to, say 20MB, is a later soft-fork down to 2 or 3MB. This may or may not become necessary, but at least it can be achieved smoothly. Think: duck paddling hard in a millpond.
If the 1MB limit is kept and causes mayhem to confirmation times, bad publicity etc, then the fall-back “plan” is a painful and panicked hard-fork. Think: duck going through the water-wheel.

Q: When is a hard-fork not a hard-fork?
A: When it is planned so long ahead that 100% of all software instances are upgraded before it takes effect.
In practice, this can’t be achieved but targeting 90+% is desirable and sufficient for a smooth transition.

Q: When is a hard-fork most painful?
A: When it is a rapid decision, forced by circumstances, and everyone has to upgrade in a very short time.
The more delay before acting causes a bigger downside when a fork becomes forced.

Q: What about keeping the 1MB to put upward pressure on fees?
A: That is “Blockchain Economics”. Applying to the blockchain a false economic model of reality, i.e. an economic model which has a hard limit such as the zero-bound in Central Bank interest rate targeting which attempts to set the price of money in a fiat system, but fails in a deflationary economy.
When the rubber hits the road of this reality the result will be a rapid plateau in total fees and then an inexorable decline as users abandon the use of Bitcoin in favour of alternatives, and new cryptocurrency users keen on the future of money are forced to use alternatives from the get-go.

Q: OK, but I’m a determined fan of Blockchain Economics. When is it safe to try it?
A: It’s never safe because of the Trade-Off, but the best time is trying a soft-limit while the hard-limit is higher (safety valve), and when the network is small but viable, and no one is paying attention, such as the situation in 2012, Unfortunately, the time for this has gone because the Bitcoin market capitalisation is in the billions of dollars and the world’s press is closely watching.

Q: What is the Trade-Off?
A: A fundamental of Bitcoin is its confirmation cycle which averages 10 minutes.
When blocks have extra space the transaction counts per block are highly variable, but any given unconfirmed  transaction may expect confirmation in 10 minutes.  
When blocks are full transaction counts per block are stable, but the expected confirmation time for a unconfirmed transaction becomes highly variable.

Q: Is the benefit of very stable block sizes worth the cost of highly variable confirmation times?
A: No!

Q; When is a flooding or spamming attack on Bitcoin most effective and cheapest to execute?
A: When blocks are nearly always full. It is least effective and most expensive when blocks normally have lots of unused space.

Q: Can Bitcoin be a reserve / settlement currency with high-value users, primarily a store of value like an electronic gold?
A: Yes, but not when it can only handle 0.01% (a ten-thousandth) of the world’s transactions. Not when another cryptocurrency is handling even 1%, let alone 10%, 50% or 99.99% of the world’s transactions. Bitcoin can only become a true reserve currency and electronic gold when it scales. Otherwise this remains a dream, a mirage.

Q: What about bandwidth considerations?
A: Satoshi put the 1MB in place when there were no lightweight nodes and all users had to run a full node. That time is nearly five years ago. Global improvements in bandwidth mean that the overhead he allowed for, by selecting 1MB in 2010, is more like 4MB in 2015.

Q: What about technical concerns such as growth of the UTXO set?
A: The smartest way to meet a challenge is to leverage it as an opportunity.
Example : Aligning the demand for blocks larger than 1MB with an incentive to maintain a cleaner UTXO set.
The complexity of this change needs to be weighed against the simplicity of a fixed limit (e.g. 20MB). Sometimes simplicity outweighs a leveraged gain.
Also, the UTXO set could be kept cleaner, as a stand-alone change: allowing free transaction space based upon reducing utxo (negative delta) instead of being based upon the number of days destroyed, which was to encourage old coins being spent, something less important.

Q. What are the implications for decentralisation, particularly: full node counts?
A. Full node counts have been in decline for several years, mostly because of the growth in SPV wallets and lightweight nodes, and mining pools (for minimizing variance), also the increase in blockchain size for users who won’t spend a few $100 on TB disks.
Many node owners are long-term investors and believers in Bitcoin as a major currency and payment system of the future. That is why they hang in there. They are waiting to see it scale and will run non-mining, non-commercial nodes to do it. If the status quo is destabilized (e.g. unstable confirmation times) then full node owners will switch off faster.
Full node counts would be improved by greater adoption and the future use of node payment services where non-mining nodes get micro-payments via off-chain channels for servicing the network.
Keeping the 1MB, because it is the least conservative action, will accelerate the decline in full node counts.

Q: What if someone makes a load of gigablocks?
A: They can’t. If the 1MB disappeared, the message size limit of about 32MB means that this is the maximum block size. Gigablocks are not possible until all nodes support set reconciliation ("bandwidth reduction scheme") such as in IBLT, and block segmentation software.

Q: Why not wait for off-chain solutions which can handle 100x the on-chain volume, like Lightning Networks?
A: There is no time for that, LN is still in the documentation and technical specification stages, also the LN opinion is that 1MB is too small for them in the event that a lot of payment channels need to be closed quickly. 32MB or even 20MB would be sufficient for a long time.

I voted for XT. I really do not see keeping the 1MB blocksize limit as a viable option for Bitcoin. Furthermore I have felt this way for a very long time. I invite anyone to look at my posts on the subject.

It will take time:
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.1/

15 at the moment.

Satoshi picked Gavin to succeed him for a reason. It's not like he picked some random guy from the forum. Why should we now question Satoshi at this late date? The inventor intended for that selection to mean something.

I feel like the best thing to do is let Gavin make the changes as "HE sees fit" and then celebrate with a beer or two!

I personally believe that XT is probably the way to go - I can't see a clear reason why we shouldn't raise the limit now and avoid this issue becoming bigger in the future. We'll be in more trouble if we come to the point where transactions take hours to confirm and have to rush out an update to deal with it.

XT. Upgrade or die.

So XT 0.10.1 has the larger block size implementation ?
It does not say so on the github page.

I don't think it has it yet. However, Gavin is going to leave Bitcoin core development and implement the larger blocks into XT if the core devs cannot agree. At least, that's what it sounds like in the email.

Is there actually any evidence for that? Where?

Silly XT altcoiners :P

No XT is the way to save Bitcoin, and yes there are alt-coin solutions to this problem.

IMHO leave core developer team is wrong.

create a forced fork, is just crazy, if you want to create a fork, must be with FULL DEV consensus, or not do it at all!

this could destroy BITCOIN Trust, not to mention the price.

people easy, out of fear, could start selling what they have in BTC (I know a lot of friends that will do that as soon as they realize that there is only a "slightly"chance, that bitcoin forks)
.
if both chains survive because they haven't reached consensus and doble spending becames possible, this will again, destroy the price of the coin, and the trust.

So, I voted Core, I like XT, I agree that bigger block size will be essential in the near future, but they MUST do it together, is the only way to maintain the trust on the coin.

just my point of view.

I didn't know we were having a name change
That said since it could be related to a fork it makes sense to name it differently so people are more aware
My vote goes to XT for the third gen and back to our trend of two letter names
QT - > Core -> XT

I'll probally have to look at it later though to get more info on it seems like there is some issues here that I need a better background of.
http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-threatens-to-quit-bitcoin-development-and-join-hearns-fork/

I voted for XT its handy and trustworthy..
bitcoin core is easily explained on the other hand XT seems much technical and robust.

it's the same client with two added features and a different name, nothing to worry about

OP hopefully you realize that the poll will produce very inaccurate results?
The best solution isn't Core nor XT. Some updates from the XT should be re-done and then correctly implemented into Core.

So the real poll option should be for XT to be implemented into Core instead of one over the other
Sounds like a good option fuze them together :)
My question then becomes why isn't that possible presently?

Because, according to some, the changes that Gavin made were applied in XT and some are hurtful to the security of Bitcoin.
I'm not sure exactly which those are, although this is possible.
This is what I said that some of them should be re-done (disregarded if needed) and then correctly and safely implemented into the Core. There is no need to split up.

Based on that definition it sounds like XT is an experimentation or Beta and Core would be the Alpha any ideas that would be disregarded because of risks could safely be tested in the XT ecosystem and given the time to develop in a bit of a shell, then when the changes are determined to be safe and non detrimental to Bitcoin it would move to the main client and core.

In that case perhaps the two system idea isn't so bad as it would be a way to avoid lengthy debates about installing new code into that core client that could still be risky while allowing code trials to be experimented on in a relatively secure environment I presume that is what you meant by potentially detrimental to Bitcoin security, so perhaps having both is the best answer or did I fuzz it up somewhere.

That means you want to stick with core. In that case you should vote for core

Let the XT develop and if it is successful, adopt it in core.

Obviously voting XT, as they are the ones interested in forking for bigger blocks. Will change my vote to Core if they announce bigger blocks too.

Not exactly, also two (temporary) chains and a possible problem of the 'double spend' 'the coins' from the two chains.

So is XT going to be a separate Crypto and will its price start at 0 or how should we see it? I guess there will be BTC/XT parity?

I can't really say that I support either side. Gavin's idea sounds interesting but on the other hand, I'm not yet confident about it since many other core devs are still hesitant. In my humble opinion, Gavin should be extremely cautious with his actions and take advice from the core dev team more seriously than the crazy mob mentality that haunts our community from time to time.

No 'Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide. Currently it contains two additional features..'

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

---

but if someone after the fork will continue to use the actual bitcoin core client he will stay in this chain. So the XT chain ( Chain-B) will continue to generate blocks parallel to the core chain (Chain-A).

What if exchanges list xtcoin and bitcoin parity? then xtcoin would be a separate crypto, in case people would use both chains. And you are assuming people would move over to xt, this would mean the current bitcoin would be finished if there would be a trading parity between the two?

An exchange will should only agree to update or not update his bitcoin client, if it will not update the wallet ... then it will stay in the actual chain (1MB block size limit). An exchange will not list another coin, because this is the same coin ...why would someone list bitcoinXT when it is BTC only with 20MB limite block size and other feature?

I wish it was. According to some XT has implemented some patches that were denied on the Core due to security reasons. The problem is that influence and power plays a great role in all of this. Only a few % of people will actually realize the flaws even after someone makes a fine thread about it here.

To a degree yes. The situation now is terrible.
If Gregory Maxwell leaves I'll have to re-evaluate my position.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqbd78

Stop this way of thinking. The world is not that ideal, it is actually grim and corrupt. The chances of everything dying are exponentially higher than the chances of both chains surviving.
There is no way for parallel block generation unless both chains have the same hashpower. Again, mathematically the chances aren't in favor of this.

At the moment they should let the Bitcoin Core as it is and before any change and up gradation in Bitcoin like XT they need to create awareness and advantages and disadvantages and complications should be discussed and foreseen.This increase of block size may harm Bitcoin in long term.Let the powerful players, who really will decide the fate of next tech, do what they think is more good and suitable.

Can you stop with this useless posts (or better FUD)? Try to counteract an opinion or agree with someone or maybe better propose something against the Gavin's proposal, instead to spread FUD and something like "No one will use XT". How do you know this thing?

Turns out Gavin doesn't even support blocks as large as 20 Mb. This misconception was a result of a mathematical miscalculation he made.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/604862985404702721

Well i for one agree with Gavin that changes must be made, better now than later. But his attitude is way off; He sounds like some child; if you dont play with me, ill tell mommy..
If im not mistaken there will be a lot of confusion soon enough, double spending and what not..

That's not Gavin, but Peter Todd. What Gavin is proposing is still 20 MB blocks, even if other people say otherwise.

Yes, the change it will be needed sooner or later but this time it went in this way (because most probable he was so tired about of the 'not-consensus' by other dev). The unique secure thing that with this modify bitcoin will not go mainstream ;), a couple of dev can't agree in something, so what we are talking about? I am still thinking they should not decide for us, let them discuss....

Can someone share this poll on Bitcoin reddit? We can have a wider and better picture of community interests if more people vote

I have used reddit only few times so I don't know if this is correct or not :

- https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37z4py/bitcoin_core_or_xt_poll/

Nice, Thanks

Im undecided. I don't want a fork, but then again, I don't see any of you proposing anything better.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075323.0;topicseen

That is just a nice theory, but where are the alternatives to the fork? the lightning network stuff may take way more than the limit we have for 2016 before the 1MB size limit is reached and becomes a real problem.

I don't think it really matters. Gavin has no intention of allowing majority rule. This is a Gavinopoly and he will prevail.

if he prevails, that means the majority agreed with him. At least the majority of people who matter.

If the miners decide the future then Bitcoin Core would win, as most miners are only chasing profit and money in the end.

Bitcoin XT is essentially an alternate, a $hitcoin at best with some trivial improvements, and Gavin & company are going to discover how hard it is to compete as an alternative.  With the exception of Litecoin and Doge, who are still living off money from the 2013 bubble, I doubt a new $hitcoin of BTC can really propel itself into the top 5.

 ;)
You are welcome.



It is a proposal, the next years will evaluate it and if you do not want to follow the fork simple : don't update the client. What do you mean with a new shitcoin of btc....  bitcoinXT is always *BTC but with 20 MB as blocksize (and other improvements).


*if it will reach a large consensus >51% of people or better client, or am I wrong?

You're not wrong. You are missing the fact that you now have two separate groups of devs each advancing different clients at the same time. What do you suppose that's going to create?

Why 'two'? Afaik there's no general consensus among all of those who oppose XT.

Show me proof that satoshi choose andreesen and that he really exists, if not your talking about a fairytale.
I hate this kinda claims while they are created out of thin air.
If satoshi is a real person and honest he had come forward along time ago.

Back on topic my 2 cents is that i know the size limit will need to be lifted i am not sure why many developers have problems with this solution.
The double spending risk has to be solved before massive adoption i think.

Core and XT - two.

But if there's no consensus in 'core' group (some want 1mb to stay, some want to increase it but not the 'XT' way etc) then you can hardly call them 'group of devs', they'll either further divide or stagnate if no consensus is reached.

I would vote for XT in this case. This has been tackled many times that the current code needs to fork into something better as the need for it arises. I don't have that much care for who proposed the fork, but rather to the improvements that it will give for the benefit of the network, the coin, and the community as well.

There are four key devs supporting core and against XT.

Gregory Maxwell
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Pieter Wuille
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

Luke Dashjr
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem?

Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read?

Look at Greg Maxwells github page.

Can you be more specific? I see a lot of projects in his page.

Here, look at this: https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/065/
And this: http://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfhttp:/blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

All those who blindly follow Gavin and Mike will regret it.

When reading most of the comments here I feel the same atmosphere of group delusion like back in the days when the Bitcoin Foundation was started...

People should at least read and think:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

Bitcoin will not break when the block limit is reached. Gavin and Mike are creating FUD to enforce their specific agenda for Bitcoin when they say that a block increase is urgent.

Under the assumption that voting for XT is voting for block size increase to 20 MiB (nothing more, nothing less).
Under the assumption that voting for core is voting for doing nothing at all.

I voted for XT.

edit: changed my vote to core, see comment below

Stayin' with Core.

Stayin' with Maxwell, Wuille, Corallo, Dashjr, Todd.

It's better to have a secure, decentralized Bitcoin with micro transactions going off-chain than an insecure, centralized Bitcoin just because of the will to support even the tiniest transaction spam.

ya.ya.yo!

I voted Core. We need a fee based system not a free system.  We need to raise fees to stop the spam and all those transactions under 1 cent in value. Do that and you remove like 50% of blocks size

To clarify, he never said he was "leaving" anything.  It's entirely possible for one person to commit code to more than one project.  Stop believing the FUD peddled by MP drones.

There's no guaranteed outcome in either stance.  Doing nothing and leaving a 1MB limit in place could also eventually result in people selling out of fear when transactions start piling up unconfirmed.  People need to stop pretending there's a "safe" option here.  Difficult decisions need to be made and there are clearly people who are going to disagree on what that choice should be.  If the fork doesn't happen in core, then it's only prudent to try it in XT.  One way or another, this is going to happen.  There's always been a certain inevitability about this because the network needs more users to survive in the long term as the block reward diminishes over time.  But in its present form, the network can't support enough users to pay enough fees to incentivise miners to secure the network.  More users equals more fees to gradually replace the income miners get from the block reward.  What "MUST" happen isn't the developers playing happy families and agreeing on everything, it's supporting more users to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network.

I changed my vote to core because it's the lesser evil.

This is what I propose: double the max block size as a "quick bad fix" until a better solution such as lightning TXs are implemented and proven to be working.

however, because 2 MiB block sizes are not an option here but instead gaving pushes 20 MiB I cannot vote for XT.

Gavin must understand that 20 MiB won't solve the problem. If you need your TX confirmed fast, use some dogecoin or other shitcoins. I see cryptocurrencies as a whole and in that sense we already have solved the scaling issue: there are hundreds of coins/bitcoin forks already existing, just use the one that satisfies your needs. bitcoin alone with its sole block chain will never scale up to supporting dust txs for all the people over the world. That's why 20 MiB size limit is just delaying the inevitable and thus a naive and lazy fix.

Yeah, no one really cares about those micro transactions being an issue.
The problem is, when the volume of legitimate transactions (not micro) are too big for the 1MB block size. What then?

Then TX fees will rise and those who cannot afford to pay the fee for their legitimate tx will switch to another block chain.

It's the curse of bitcoin, it really isn't as good as it should have been. Let god sort them out.

I think bitcoin should have a circular block chain so that it will automatically delete the blocks from the beginning when the chain gets too long. UTXOs will simply get deleted in process so that one has to refresh their coins in every 5 years for example in order to prevent them from being deleted. A coin that wishes to be able to handle all the txs of the world should not have a max block size at all.

I know this is a tweet from Peter Todd, but he quotes Gregory Maxwell's post on Reddit where he admits that when talking with Gavin, they found out that some of his calculations were wrong.

Don't take my word for it, here's the exact quote and post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

8 MiB sounds a lot more reasonable. Also, as a programmer, I prefer powers of two in all constants.

If this was the last time we are going to increase block size then I would vote for 8 MiB max size. It gives us 4 extra years to work out the lightning network or a similar solution which I think is enough.

it's not about spam, it's about being prepared for an increase in adoption, which is something that we all want, otherwise bitcoin will never grow, something must be done for sure, 20 mb or blocksteam, there are no other solution apparently

and staying with core isn't an aswer

20 MB is a limit, not the target. It gives us extra time to adapt. 8 MB could also be good.

I voted core because everybody is on XT.  That one vote on core is mine.

So if you are poor you are stuck with the shittier non premium service (your transaction will not be in the official blockchain, therefore defeating the purpose of using BTC above regular payment methods). I would understand it for microtransactions, but not for norma ltransactions. Tat uscks.

I voted for Bitcoin XT and this is the reason:

It is not only about the blocksize debate. It's about progress (XT, Gavin, Hearn and other) vs. non-progress (Core, Bockstream clan https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075323.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075323.0)).
While I agree the decentralization aspect is one of the most important factors for bitcoin, the Blockstream clan is constantly ignoring suggestions about the technical progress of bitcoins. It might be somehow about their cypherpunk background or rather because of their inexperience.
I am sure we would be a big move more into mass adaption without these guys and with a more progress based core team (Hearn, Gavin, even Sathoshi).

But the Blockstream guys don't want progress, they don't want mass adoption. A lot of them are ignorant and simply don't understand economics and how to make bitcoin for the mass.

But progress, changes but also failings are crucial, even with bitcoin. The community will stand behind the project, even if we need to hard fork again, even if we need to roll-over the blockchain, now is the best time to probe. We are still in the pre mass adoption phase.

If you want to send Bitcoins... Pay the fee. Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing the Reddit retards lose their $ following the wrong fork. Kinda mean but w/e

http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i52/5/2/27/fbz_39e666cc2ad2b181414409edfaeced8b.jpg]

One vote? That can't be right. I don't see the results of the poll, probably because OP choose not to shot them but it seems kinda broken to me.

I vote XT for bigger blocks. As I see it there is a handful devs that try to kidnap Bitcoin for their own ideological reasons.
Gavin and Mike are the ones that keeps the promise given from the beginning. If others want something else, i.e. a small altcoin that you can run on your laptop, then work on that. Bitcoin is supposed to be the big global ledger. That needs much bigger block size.

I run my own full node and I will switch to XT when it has the bigger block size implementation.

One of the big selling points of BTC is being able to move millions with very low fees. If we end up paying fees as big as normal banking, then that defeats a big point of what makes BTC amazing.

I can't vote because I'm a newbie but I want to say that I'll be going with XT if its the wrong decision I will bow out i just dont think carrying on the way we are is going to be beneficial and going xt isnt going to effect many people in terms of centerlisation.

Bitcoin has the perfect wealth distribution. All altcoins who started a competition against bitcoin instead of taking a snapshot of btc's ledger and using the same base wealth distribution made a wrong, greedy and selfish decision. To punish those alts for trying to compete with bitcoin with their petty little enhancements I would suggest upgrading bitcoin over time to support hybrid mining ( PoS + PoW similarly to peercoin ) and block chain based stakeholder voting similarly to peershares. This ASIC centralization should be terminated and replaced with PoS mining which is much better security model.

this isn't really an issue, merchants could just accept pending transacction, node propagation can play a big role against any feasible attack to the network

Yes, I wouldn't lower the 10 minute confirmation time. Too much hard code has been written under the assumption that 1 block =  roughly 10 minutes. You can accept pending transactions but only deliver after enough confirmations has been received. it can be solved outside the block chain by merchants.

I am for XT, I like that changes are relatively rare in Bitcoin compared to altcoins, but some things just have to be done no matter if everyone likes it or not. And this is one of those things. It's for the good and bright future of Bitcoin :)

Huh? You're saying all alts should just do a 100% premine and award their coins to whomever happens to hold bitcoin at a given snapshot in time? And that's more fair than altcoins launching with GPU/CPU mining in a competitive environment where anyone with a computer can be involved? I don't follow you.

I'm also far from convinced that PoS is more secure. Can you imagine the kind of weight Satoshi would throw in if he suddenly started staking BTC after a hiatus (if it functioned like the PoS coins I'm familiar with)? He'd be able to double-spend at will. I've inadvertently gotten 20 consecutive confirmations on an altcoin simply by not staking for a while and then jumping in. A coalition of BTC holders could wreak havoc with PoS.

There are alts that can't do such a thing for valid reasons. For example, it doesn't make sense to distribute nubits amongst all bitcoin holders just because they hold bitcoin. However, in many cases alts could have used such a wealth distribution. For example, in the case of dogecoin, litecoin, ethereum and namecoin.


PoS is much more secure because it's cheaper to buy the majority of mining power than buying the majority of all coins. Can you imagine someone trying to buy more than 50% of all bitcoins right now? The price would just go so high that it wouldn't make any sense to buy them.

How many coins Satoshi supposedly has? A million? It's less than 10%. He wouldn't be able to do anything with less than 10%. Also, I don't support pure PoS such as NXT. Pure PoS is weak but a hybrid such as peercoin is the real good solution. Peercoin started as a PoW coin but over time PoS mining was set to become more profitable than PoW mining. The reason for this is that PoS makes the coin weaker in the very beginning because then it is easier to hoard more than 50% of the coins (as it was with nextcoin). However, after enough coins has been distributed conventionally (using PoW) it becomes safe to switch to PoS mining.

edit:
I now switched my vote back to XT since Gavin admitted that 20 MiB was based on wrong calculations. I support increasing the max block size to 8 MiB as a means to postpone the problem for 4 more years and thus give time for the lightning network and similar solutions to be developed.

Bitcoin for everybody not just for the elite, super rich or startup services ....

Voted for XT

uhh I think, that you missed the point. please take your time and read about XT and recent news again..

So what are the recent news?

I am voting for XT under the assumption that THE ONLY THING they would do is to increase the max block size from 1 MiB to 8 MiB. If there anything else they want to implement as a part of the hard fork then I might not vote for XT. This poll sucks in a sense that it is unclear what XT would specifically introduce.

Gavin has said that he would not link the hard-fork with any other changes (even though it would be a real benefit to Bitcoin to get a few technical improvements done at the same time which also need hard-forks, and will probably never happen because of that).

I just didn't see any connection or relation between elite super rich and bitcoin XT. and yes, I thought that major diff is just switch of block size. Is there some official announcement or discussion? It seems that, that nobody knows what exactly is happening.)

Bitcoin has the technical capability to have a provably fair stakeholder voting on its very block chain itself. I can sign my vote with the private key to my X% of bitcoins and publish the vote with the signature. If everyone did it then we could come to a consensus with decentralized and provably fair means. I wonder why hasn't this been put up very much. Who gives a shit what miners and companies think. It's the number of bitcoins that you have which should count as a vote. If a miner wants to vote then they should use their coins to vote. If a company X wants to vote for Bitcoin XT then they should buy some bitcoins to make their vote count.

Has this system actually been implemented into Bitcoin yet? I think that would be a great way to vote, except instead of having more weight for more coins, everyone should have only one vote and that they all be equally weighted (not sure how this would be implemented though). This could ensure consensus.

The vote is quite straight forward: You just dump the coins on the chain that you don't support, and send the coin value on that chain to dust  ;D

When it comes to software upgrade, the newbie users are always eager to upgrade to the latest version, while the service and infrastructure providers are the least eager to upgrade due to stability and compatibility concerns

There won't be two chains when voting occurs, it happens after the fork. The voting happens before the fork to determine whether to fork or not. Thus, this is not a valid way to vote since the fork will only happen after consensus is reached.

So by now not even 16% of the network updated to Gavins' altcoin.

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/dashboard/?days=90

I think this is the page you're looking for: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

I don't know how they ever expect to get 90% when +18% are running a version older than 9.3.

So 18 nodes are running XT's latest version ???

That's less than 1% of the network. So what's the fuss about ?

At this point, we should stop talking about Gavin's project to fork Bitcoin to increase blocksize, because it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Let's move on to more relevant topics.

As if, heh.  Running XT at the moment is a token gesture unless you're interested in it for other reasons.  The update for the increased blocksize hasn't gone live yet.  I'm sure you'd like the current numbers to be representative of support for the fork, but they aren't.  I can assure you this topic isn't going anywhere.

You have been had.

That would be cool, but at the end of the day the miners and node providers are those that make Bitcoin viable. Without them the rest of the votes wouldn't mean anything. I would still like to know both sides.

Some miners comment here:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

Voting ends today

common misconception:

"20MB is too big of a jump"



answer:

It's just a maximum block-size limit. It does not mean we are going to instantly start making 20mb blocks. Blocks will continue growing at their current pace. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that we will somehow suddenly start seeing 20mb blocks just because the limit is raised.

I voted core...

But I am old school.
I am also a professional miner.
If 20MB blocks go through, I will have to shut my node down entirely and go mine another coin.
In my world, it's the core or nothing at all... whilst I want to remain in Bitcoin, I won't be able to save my earnings and will be auto-sold.
Put more downwards selling pressure on the network... I'm just one miner, though not the only one.
I also never lost a satoshi and been in this business for 3-4 years now.
Then I will transfer the coin leftover to a savings coin... like DigiByte.
If anything, this fork will only hurt Bitcoin but Gavin's skin flute players won't hear anything else.

Not just me who pays for their bandwidth... the entire world is going towards a pay-per-bandwidth model.
At $75 for 20GB, I would need 3 separate internet connections minimum and pay around $400 a month on internet alone for blockchain upkeep.
More wasteful than the power used to power the network...
So instead of making power companies richer, now miners will make ISP's richer too.
Other coins don't force me into the red, why would Bitcoin?  #DestructionOfBitcoinViaFIAT

This means I'll go mine another coin and run THEIR core.
No fucking way I can afford $1,000 of internet when it costs me $75 right now.... just to upkeep the core, fuck that.
I'm, also Canadian, so trying to screw over Chinese miners you fuck over everyone who mines.

To me, the devs are nothing but power trippers looking for something to do, to establish their usefulness.
Gavin's just another thoughtless brain dead liberal trying to play follow the leader.
Just like union cock suckers, no one matters to them but themselves and their skin flute orchestra.

GO USE OTHER COINS!!!  BITCOIN IS TOO FUCKING SLOW!!!!
Then you will see that the Btcoin block size is fine the way it is and that Bitcoin really sucks as a crypto.

I thought Gavin's changes would only make 20MB blocks available when needed (years from now)? Most blocks will remain unchanged by the fork.

it will take years before there will be 20MB blocks...

It's disheartening to see that even a miner, the people I would expect to have at least some technical knowledge and be capable of making an informed decision, can get this concept mixed up so easily.  Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend?  You will only be processing the transactions that are there, same as you do now.  It's not like there's going to be an extra 50 million transactions overnight just because the fork goes ahead.  In future, there will likely be more transactions and the network needs to be able to handle that.  The extra users will be including fees with their transactions if they want them processed urgently, just like users do now, so there will be more revenue coming in to help pay for any additional bandwidth costs. 

That's why I support the idea of getting rid of the Proof-of-Work mining altogether and replacing it with Proof-of-Stake. Right now miners are parasites to the network. The only owners of the network are actual bitcoin holders.

this is the reason why they want to avoid it, because it does not scale, and you will end up with so much space that it is no needed, one could argue that in the case bitcoin start to skyrocket randomly within 1 year(not talking about price only, but adoption also, the latter can increase in not time if there is enough interest from people), it would be useful to have more space, but the chances for this, are still to slim, and therefore it is better to increase it step by step

it should not be so hard for dev to implement a code in the client that increase the limit everytime it reach saturation

Fucking altcoiner! ;) :P

Satoshi's invention of mining (which probably should have been called "confirming") not only secures the blockchain but has one very important side-effect: the disbursement of the 21 million coins into as many hands as possible, i.e. distributing BTC wealth. This job is 2/3rds complete.

Would we prefer it if 73 people who happened to be around in the first months of 2009 got all the BTC to begin with?

I'm an old school Bitcoiner, mining since 2011,
to preserve the fundamentals in the protocol
I'll be voting with an XT node. 

Debate is settled. Proposal denied. Gavin just a waste of everyones' time.

But i think it was good Gavin came out the altcoin closet so now we know where he's at. We all hope he'll resign rather sooner than later to not cause everyone more trouble.

When will ICO for Gavincoin2 start?

Is really people going to change to bitcoin xt? how does that work? a new coin ? or I keep having my bitcoins in xt?

Finally, we're getting what we need ... an iron-willed individual ready to take the bull by the horns and steer Bitcoin into victory lane.

lol, the drunken Goldcoin-guy  ::)

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes.  That chart says there's 6k.   ???

nothing changes for every day users if the majority switches, (or doesn't switch for that matter) what does change is the centralized core development team becomes a little more decentralized with less centralized power to co-opt all force changes on all nodes.

ultimately you would want 3 or 4 or more versions of node software all running the same protocol, that way no core developers could propose radical changes without the majority consensus of the network of users choosing a path.  

XT is the first viable option to achieving this balance, the centralized Bitcoin Core Development team have discouraged competition and could be subconsciously or consciously limiting the growth of Bitcoin to leverage new technologies they have in development.  

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks.  Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Nick: QuestionAuthority. ROTFL.

And it would continue to drop with Gavincoin. In the end you'll ask yourself "why not use visa instead?".

So sarcasm is lost on you I see.

What's wrong with a 4MB upgrade this year?

Classic move. Ask for 20 and accept 4.

Here's a quote from luke-Jr conceding that limiting block size will result in transaction costs higher than credit cards today and Bitcoin being good for just paying your credit card bill.

It would be fine but I don't think they want to have to go through this mess again in a couple years.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

I would say you're incorrect.  A network with only a few nodes would be susceptible to a cyber attack.

All the nodes are the same in that they do the same base stuff. They are different as they have added features that become real once enough miners uses that node type.

Sure but how many do you need? Nodes maintain the protocol and store the blockchain, the incentive to run a node is to protect the value one has stored on the blockchain and ensure miners abide by the rules.

Not everyone needs to run a node, I suspect businesses high net worth individuals, and a myriad of services will have a need to run a node, (preserve the protocol and have at hand, proof the blockchain is correct.) So long as there is competition nodes will not collude, and the network will be resilient as miners are the ones that validate transactions and miners do what nodes allow them to do.

This number isn't an arbitrary but a function of the distribution of of value stored on the blockchain and the services that are dependent on it. Referencing  a number from the past isn't a reliable comparison, back then there were other methods used to count and everyone has to download the full blockchain if they were to use Bitcoin.

The most effective way to attack the network is to have a private corporation employ developers to wright the code for Bitcoin and have it be the single source for all nodes.

That is the situation today that's why I am running a Bitcoin XT node.

My XT node shows up as a Core 10.0.1 lets recount closer to Feb next year.

Satoshi's PoW was very good for the initial distribution of coins but only for that. I don't support 100% PoS coins at all, that's the reason I hate NextCoin for example because 100% PoS is corrupt and unfair distribution. However, a hybrid between PoW and Pos (such as Peercoin) is the best approach. You have the coin slowly transforming from PoW to PoS over time. To put it into the context of Bitcoin, now would be the time when we should start seeing PoS blocks around and perhaps over the next 4 years PoS mining should become dominant to PoW mining.

A hybrid PoW/PoS mining model gives us the best from the both sides. It's the fairest initial coin distribution and energy efficient in the long term. As a bonus it makes network development decisions much easier to have a PoS coin because in PoS mining the miners and coin holders are the same people, so they can use their private keys to their stash to vote democratically what protocol changes to implement and what not.

so current poll looks like a united states election... 56 to 44 so far. 
no majority by any means and not even close to the supposed 90% xt changes activation point. 
anyways its all worthless. 
if you choose xt then...
you're a moron follower who doesn't understand whats going on and want to devalue the btc. 
OR...
chances are you aren't the other side who is a very early adopter who cashed out and is trying to take advantage of btc by changing it so your companies investments can use the blockchain for "software development"

I think you got that the wrong way around, its the VC's who haven't yet cashed out of Fiat who are trying to change Bitcoin to there advantage, its the early adopters if you could even call me that (in late 2011 everyone before me was an early adopter) that are invested in preserving the value that will materialize in Bitcoin.

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT!  ;D

https://i.imgur.com/F2j1sko.png

Actually, I think that your suggestion is what is needed eventually, perhaps when the block reward gets below < 1BTC.

There is a long-term threat to the PoW model when the reward gets very small, "re-mining", where miners deliberately ignore recent blocks en-masse in order to grab the transaction fees for themselves. The incentive structure dissipates. However, IBLT should help a lot in this situation as it gives non-mining nodes some influence over the miners to only take tx from the mempools instead of orphaning. Might not be enough of a force and a PoS element could help.


Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say :)

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

That is an interesting picture it does makes sense that the developers run nodes for fun over there.


If MS did get serious in the embracing stage of Bitcoin the economic potential of a client on every MS computer as a default app or skin to pay for services would add signifcant leverage to the XT implementation, plus nodes would by default join XT a sort of a join the borg mentality, and break a stalemate.

But that's super speculation  ;)

Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute.

btw my vote is core.

your right we the usurers with an invested interest in the success of Bitcoin should choose what node software to run, the protocol is guarded by the node software we choose to run the more nodes using alternate code running the same protocol the less centralized Bitcoin will become. (promoting decentralization by centralizing control is an oxymoron) 

I was just referring to the hand full of central controllers spreading fear uncertainty and doubt that want to keep control of the code that runs on 99% of nodes, they are using PR and Politics to maintain their control, they can't actual force you, but they can do things like prevent new users from using Satoshi Bitcoin (the idea of limited quantity not limited transactions) by only offering them a choice as agreed by the central governing comity, which is exactly what www.bitcoin.org is threatening to do to anyone who wants to run a code-base the central governing comity defines as controversial. 

so much FUD you know i think the Bitcoin community is the most skeptical group of people I have ever seen in one place I love it.
I trust no one here.

Anyway have you read Google is not what it seems (https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/) given I run Microsoft on just 1 platform and Google torches everything that uses data in my world Microsoft seems like a crippled puppy by comparison.

Well after reading that, Eric Schmidt seems more politically motivated than I ever thought (I'm not surprised China kicked Google out) and he has invested millions in the one company who employs the majority of the core developers to change the incentive structure inherent in the Bitcoin protocol, but has not invested in BTC the currency that is supposed to benefit from the change.

Interestingly it's those developers funded by Eric Schmidt that make up the majority of the block who oppose the max size increase too.

In the absence of real consensus wrt changes to core, Bitcoin-XT should be considered an altcoin with a promising future. Call it BXT. Let them have their own independent block chain instead of piggy backing on bitcoin. May the best chain win.

Proceeding without consensus sets a bad precedent and increases the risk that additional future changes will be made without consensus.

Core

"just let bitcoin split into multiple children of itself. people will choose whichever they like. like it already is with the existence of altcoins, it is inevitable that the future will be one of competing cryptos. just let it be."

A post from a guy called "guy" in the comment's section...  https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/

I was leaning towards Core, but after reading that comment.  I agree.  Just let it be. 

Core,Isn't that obvious? Does it make sense to change to a fork now?

The code rolled out to XT requires 90 % nodes participating before the fork occurs. I sure would hate to be on the chain with 10% of the hashing power and 10% of the nodes.

The obvious choice is Bitcoin the way you think of it free of centralized control and limited by 21M but unlimited in the number of transactions you can make. Nothing is set in stone but you need to understand that a good percentage of Core developers now work for an employer - a for profit company looking to change Bitcoin to implement off blockchain scaling technology so no its not that obvious.

Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

I am not sure if that is wise.


In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho.

If two sides can not agree, you can not blame the other side for not folding and going your way. It takes two idiots to have a fight, so to speak. Both sides are too blame for the dispute.



Actually this debate is trending in the wrong direction, in terms of getting more personal and using ad-hominem attacks (from both sides).

Both sides need to respect others choices and opinions. A 'civil war' would be bad for bitcoin.

From the video he isn't suggesting he would support adding multiple checkpoint to ignore the most mining power but merely discussing a hypothetical worst case scenario. I agree , that would be a horrible scenario that we should never consider, although may happen and would be disastrous as it would undermine our trust in PoW.


Agreed. I.E... Even though Hearn upsets people with some of his thought experiments(blacklists), he has been a valuable member to our community - Lighthouse is one example, showing he cares about decentralization as well.

Well, I hope they do not try and push it through if they do not have majority (85%+) mining, node and services on board.

Trying to go ahead without that consensus, would be damaging I think.

Apart from that I guess they have a right to try.


tbh Most likely they are doing it now to just try and put some pressure on the other side to yield.

its in our best interest to not have a central control code base that runs on 99% of all nodes,

XT is the first option for making the split. no one is going to do anything stupid we all want Bitcoin to go to the moon, there is a lot of FUD out there, from the people who stand to loos control over Bitcoin.

some other options in the wind are libbitcoin and BTCD.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized if its controlled by a handful of centralized developers. a decentralized solution would look like 3 or 4 versions of different implementations running the same protocol, one where Core had just 33% or so.

Change name to Gavincoin.

Yep.  The reason why I transferred to LTC.  Looking for other alts to park tho...  LTC shot up wtf?

This is the sort of talk that should be avoided. Lets stick to the arguments instead of trying to slander the other side by questioning their motivations.


Both sides do this.

Your comment just confirms this:


We can't have a sane discussion if people keep referring to the 20 MB proposal as “Gavincoin”.

Well, a website wouldn't be able to vote on this poll, but bitcoin.org doesn't stand behind Mike's and Gavin's vision for a fork to increase the block size. Theymos' signature stands behind this decision.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894

If the Core's block limit is raised to 8 MB, most people will use Core.

wtf is this? are you aware that XT is core with the block limit increased? still people think that there will be two different bitcoin respectively with their client..i'm astonished in the bad way

I totally support 8 MiB. But after that we should not increase it any more and find some long term solution.

I would go for XT. I'm in support of raising the block size limit or removing it completely.

XT is not Core in a sense that it's not maintained by an experienced team of developers; it contains controversial changes that were implemented without reaching consensus. I can fork Core, change numbers and release it, but it wouldn't be Core anymore. Core is a reference implementation of protocol, XT is not.

Do you know that larger (and especially unlimited) block sizes increase centralization and provide better opportunuties for attacks on the network?
Do you know that Core developers do want, and actually do a lot coding for Bitcoin to scale; I believe most of them agree that the limit should be raised. But the difference is that Core developers have an established system (BIP) for importang changes in the protocol. Yes, this system is not ideal and slow, but it allows devs and experts to thoroughly discuss all the problems, possible downsides and ways to prevent or manage them. This is a way for Bitcoin to be stable, secure and robust, not the XT stuff.

I also recommend reading Jeff Garzik paper BIP 100, where he suggests a way to increase blocks.
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Guys, what will happen after the fork with my old Bitcoins? I think XT won't resolve the "real problem".

Well, Im not tech, Im not economist, just a crypto enthusiast, but this is my point of view. I always have seen BTC like Gold, is too hard to be used as a "currency" for the mainstream operations:  you have to use it in very very very little fractions, have to wait lot of time to get a confirmation...

But Bitcoin is the mother of crytpo, it has a value accepted and has resisted a big crisis, guys. In the near future will come more alts, not only created by techs, or by some bump-and-dump guy, the biggest corporations will create them. BTC has been the reference since the begining... And so will be for the rest of time, BTC is the king of the crypto ecosystem.

BTC XT is trying to evolve BTC to try to be what BTC will never be. The problem is that is not evolving enough. Other alts better designed for merchants use can emerge and win the market; I hope the winner won't be a private alt...

So I think you should create and "Official altcoin", related with Bitcoin, with some inflation options, managed by the same community. That alt must be "cheap" and must has a real estable value to support a massive selling pressure. The alt would be build over a Community Central Bank.

Ecommerce in 2014 was around USD 1.5 trillion. If the "Offical Alt" could move just 1 %... it means USD 15 billions, so it need  a monetary mass around 750 mlls-1.5 billions of coins -to preserve a 1 to USD 1 similarity. How many coins will be needed to cover the 10 % of eCommerce?

Of course, I dont mean we must have an USD parity, just I'm saying that mass monetary required is too high respecfully BTC and BTC XT can offer.

A BTC fork would be sad, that's my point of view.

Considering Bitcoin was designed as an “electronic cash system”, your point of view doesn't match what Bitcoin is actually about. Also, you don't need to wait for confirmations when buying most things online.


Corporations creating altcoins seem like a publicity stunt that won't go very far. They would become some sort of coupons, but not more.


Seems like a contradiction. Is the problem that Bitcoin is not evolving, or that it is evolving?


A “Community Central Bank”, i.e. a central entity, something which Bitcoin has been against since the beginning.

Well, the definition of cash needs for it to the fungible and anonymous. Bitcoin is not anonymous, or not enough due the fact the ledger is public, and fungibility is at least arguable. If you knew the BTC you just recieved comes from some illegal activity, would you still take it?
With cash, you would say yes because cash is untraceable, you wouldn't even know, the problem is with Bitcoin it's traceable due the public ledger. So im not sure about "electronic cash". I think Monero meets the electronic cash definition way better. I wish Bitcoin was as anonymous, but with anonymity other problems arise..

Been reading on twitter the idea of bitcoin denominated creditcards or giftcards.

That is a thing that can 'rival visa' and is easy possible with defensible small blocks.
The issuer of such cards handles most transactions off chain.
So bitcoin can 'rival visa' already in its current state.

The GavinHearncoin looks more ridiculus by the day.

Such things significantly complicate the goal of tapping a revenue stream based on individual tracking.  It cannot be done efficiently at a single point as would be the case by simply monitoring a single global blockchain.  Disaster.

It will also be much more difficult to exercise control if one cannot grab a single choke-point through tainting and such.  Disaster on top of disaster.

It also makes likely adversaries out of potential friends to have relatively large players such as gift-card issuers be able to realize a value autonomously.  Such more important players would be happy to cut out the middle-men from the equation if they can operate autonomously on a free blockchain.

No wonder these control freaks are in a state of panic.

i think the consensus on who the control freaks are, is still out.

Such a coin already exists and is doing pretty well: NuBits (https://nubits.com/). It's the first cryptocurrency that solved the volatility problem and has been holding a 1$ per nubit price peg for 10 months already since it was created.