Bitcoin Forum

So what are the proposed solutions that aren't the 20MB blocksize fork? I want a list.

What if you don't run either client & 90% of your stash is in cold storage?

What if you don't run either client & 90% of your stash is in cold storage?

What if you don't run either client & 90% of your stash is in cold storage?

So what are the proposed solutions that aren't the 20MB blocksize fork? I want a list.

So what are the proposed solutions that aren't the 20MB blocksize fork? I want a list.

The same applies. If you keep your wallet stored 'cold', in the event of a fork you will still be able to use that cold wallet with either or both networks.

That's not as easy to put in simple terms and possibly shouldn't be included in this thread, but the XT project proposes immediately increasing the max block size to 20MB whereas the Bitcoin Core project has yet to reach a solution. This might help inform you more:
http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-threatens-to-quit-bitcoin-development-and-join-hearns-fork/

Thanks for the simple explanation. What are the implications if someone uses other wallets? Example blockchain.info wallet, electrum, and many others? I think this will cause serious uncertainty in the beginning if the blockchain forks. It is best to avoid a fork if possible.  :-[

Thank you for this! This cleared up a lot. so since you said you can pick what network you want to import the private keys to if you have cold storage, does this mean that essentially you double your BTC? Also if you choose to import on one network, can you ever send a transaction to the other network? I would guess if ou wanted this you could just make a paper wallet and then send the money back to cold storage and then import the wallet on the other network?

Thanks

when electrum or any other client require you to choose the path of your bitcoin client, you simply tell him to use core or xt, no difference

for the OP, there will be a dump in the price(50%) if we can really double our coin with this fork, i don't like that at all

This can be quite the problem if everybody suddenly has double coins (although different. Especially if they don't go 50/50 in price, but one becomes dominant. Early sellers of the weaker coin can make huge gains this way..

my question is how does this affect mining? Can I solo mine with Bitcoin XT, and since nobody else is mining on it find blocks quickly?
I am supposing that mining is necessary for it to be effective - how else can it implement 20mb blocks?
How will core and XT affect the mining difficulty?

If/when the two change dramatically enough, that may no longer be true, in which case the network will 'fork', resulting in a new Bitcoin XT network incompatible with the Bitcoin Core network, which would require different wallets. But the important thing to bear in mind is that if you have a backup of your current wallet now, you can run both clients/networks - essentially, if you have 1 Bitcoin, after the fork (if you have today's wallet backed up) you will have 1 Bitcoin, and 1 'BitcoinXT', each with independent values based on their popular adoption.

As only block size is being increased, wont bitcoin core coins be compatible to bitcoin XT as their block size is lower than the proposed one for bitcoin XT ? Just wondering ::)

As only block size is being increased, wont bitcoin core coins be compatible to bitcoin XT as their block size is lower than the proposed one for bitcoin XT ? Just wondering ::)

If you keep running 0.10.2 then yes, but if Gavin leaves the Core team and the Core changes to include side chains then those versions of Bitcoin Core will not be compatible with Bitcoin XT and a full fork will occur, which is why I say make a backup of your wallet NOW. It's also more important than ever to check what changes are being made to the client you're using so you know whether or not they cause a fork.

What about those who are not using QT/XT, i.e. using blockchain.info, electrum, armory etc. ? What would happen to the coins which are kept on paper wallet and p2sh addresses ?

blockstream, basically sidechains, 20 of those is like having the current limit raised to 20

as a far as i know there are no others alternative, either 20mb or sidechains

Yep a larger discussion on the benefits of blockstream and its sidechains and then what the benefits of a 20MB fork would make a good expansion to the topic.
Also someone to answer why we can't do both or one before the other and then fork it back

I am still a little confused. I have all of my BTC in paper wallets. so if the fork does happen, I can choose what network to import the keys into when I decide to spend them? also what if I want to switch networks? do I just make a new paper wallet and then import it into the other network? I also cant see how both wallets can exist in both networks, since they allow us to have double the coins. will their just be a blockchain.info that shows the balance for your paper wallet on bitcoin QT and a blockchainXT that shows the balance for the paper wallet on the XT network?

Thanks

Thanks for this thread... we need some sanity in here sometimes ;D

As for both options on the table... Both are valid, but why sidechains instead of just increasing block size? Is the usage of sidechains documented enough for it to be a powerful solution comparing to increasing block size?

FabulousPandaCo 2 points 4 hours ago

Thanks for the linkage - FYI I don't personally know any of the individuals on the dev teams, and wrote that article as a result of it not being too easy to at a glance figure out what was going on. I think perhaps Gavin has expressed support for XT as a means of convincing the core team to agree on some important issues they've failed to which have been apparent since at least 2011. I have had some limited contact with luke-jr on github and I used eligius.st but I am not declaring support for any team or individual in this. I do believe however that there are significant issues that need to be addressed, and that a raised max block size (even were it 2MB rather than 20) would be best for now, and the issues regarding maintaining decentralization and/or implementing sidechains should be explored fully, but not immediately forced upon us.


luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 0 points an hour ago

   But the debate over the block size limit and how to manage it has caused some of the best known developers to set up another client for bitcoin, here:

Bitcoin XT actually predates the block size matter entirely, and was forked by Mike Hearn (not a Core developer) to merge some relatively ill-advised things appropriately rejected from Core (because they don't/can't work): particularly, double spend relaying/detection.

   essentially, if you have 1 Bitcoin, after the fork (if you have today's wallet backed up) you will have 1 Bitcoin, and 1 'BitcoinXT', each with independent values based on their popular adoption.

To complicate matters a bit: if you send 1 BTC, you also send 1 BTCXT, and vice versa. Unless the bitcoins being redeemed (essentially chosen at random) happen to only exist on one or the other blockchain.


FabulousPandaCo 1 point 6 minutes ago

Thanks for the response luke, I will update to address and clarify on that, however from what I've read (and I'm not as in the loop as I have been) it doesn't seem that clear cut. Mike Hearn certainly set up the other github some time ago, although it attributes the double spend relaying to Gavin Andresen and Tom Harding. It freely admits not to completely solve the double spend issue, but aims to improve it, could you please expand on the advantages/disadvantages of the implementation proposed in XT?

As far as I can tell, supporters of the changes in XT are willing to allow for increased data usage in order to allow for increased usage of Bitcoin in the short term, whereas the opposition would prefer to allow necessary transaction fees to rise as we approach/hit the max block size ceiling for transactions to be successful on the basis that such data requirements would cause increased centralization. But as it stands we don't have an accepted viable alternative - only a brief whitepaper on sidechains which leaves a lot to the imagination, and would require a significant period of testing and some real world implementation before the community would trust it, and I'm sure you're aware of the fears that Blockstream may result in centralization - can you do anything to allay those?

Gavin also seems to be claiming that his support for the increase in max block size and to a lesser extent the other changes in XT are a call for action on the part of the Core team to adopt some change to max block size whether set specifically or adaptive as that change on it's own is not a deviation from the initial spec of Bitcoin. Surely if that minor change were implemented the risk of a hard fork to XT would be drastically reduced, and it's role limited to a a beta branch of Core?

Regarding the fork, as long as the Core protocol doesn't change significantly and XT doesn't reach 90% adoption it's not going to happen, right? Can we get some clarification on the future of the Core - for instance, is Gavin still going to have influence on it?

I would agree that just allowing the max block size to increase indefinitely is fraught with problems, but problems that are a way down the road and also not a deviation from the Bitcoin whitepaper. For that reason I wonder why Blockstream don't start their own cryptocurrency to start pegging sidestreams to?

There are already so much confusion from people about Bitcoin... If you now tell them, that they are making it even more complex, by splitting it into 2 versions... you will be doing more harm than good.

I had a uphill battle trying to explain Bitcoin to NEW people... I can just imagine what they will be thinking now...

We have to make some hard choices NOW.... and this would not have been neccesarry, IF these developers had put their self interest and agenda's aside, and made the success of Bitcoin their main goal.

This will either make or break Bitcoin... We will soon see.