Bitcoin Forum

question was answered.

This is the best news in the history of Bitcoin! Mike Hearn is a Bitcoin legend!  :)

Yes, finally we have someone who is willing to take some action and get it done. And the voting mechanism is a great way to do it.

So, now it is...

xtnodes.com vs getaddr.bitnodes.io

bitnodes.io itself will play a crucial role as lot of devs cloudhost their nodes over there. So, if they shift to XT, it'll get a big boost. I believe, we wont ultimately see the hard fork. When XT crosses 50%, Maxwell will accept the change for QT.

??? What?

---

---

I would be surprised if the network ultimately does not fork to see the larger block size. It is inevitable to have the max block size be increased if bitcoin is going to ever achieve even any kind of niche adoption, let along mass market adoption. Additionally, without the possibility for much higher TX fees, the total block reward will eventually become too small for the network to be sufficiently secured.

While there are many people against the larger block sizes (from what I can see, primarily people with significant amounts of money invested in various shit/altcoins), I have yet to see a viable alternative

Belongs in the altcoin section in my opinion.

Good luck with it though.

If anyone can pull off the feat of keeping MultiBitch clients using the 'right' chain even if it isn't the longest, Mike Hearn can.  I'm sure he'd rather be working on his blacklisting though.

So we just give 100% decision making power to one person in the Bitcoin XT fork? {That is what he suggested} What if this person become a dictator? They have the key to the kingdom and they control your money?

Gavin Andresen handed the keys to Wladimir J. van der Laan and Mike Hearn and some other people, feel Wladimir is not strong enough to make big decisions. {They want a dictator style lead developer, who has the final say} To remedy this, they create Bitcoin XT and forced a situation with the whole 20mb block fiasco. {They say.. We will see if Wladimir makes a dicision, IF NOT we will go ahead with XT}

Do we want people, who make decisions like that?

Many countries do not trust Bitcoin, based on it's western dominance in the core development. They supported it to a degree, because the decision making was done with some sort of democratic consensus.

The question : Would you support a Global currency, if one person had 100% control over the final decision making at Core development level?

Yes, the nodes is still decentralized, but the software they host, is in control of one or two people.... with 100% decision making power.

His answer : If you are not a engineer or a core developer, you have no say or opinion on the matter... WTF? We all have opinions.. right or wrong.. It's our money and we have a say.  >:(

No, if you read carefully he says a certain amount of nodes should switch over to start accepting the chain. That's not a dictatorship.. If you decide to run a node, you can have a vote in this.

Watch this : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1085475.0 {Get the full picture} not just the part about the implementation of the Bitcoin XT node and the built in voting option.

He also mention in this interview, that the people who hosted the Bitcoin node, did not configure the block size correctly. They built in a soft cap {LOWER than the max}, and most people just used the default setting.

Why did they do that? Why not just increase the soft cap to a acceptable size or keep it at it's hard cap maximum?

This situation was perfectly engineered to create a problem. {Possible bottleneck with the way it's implemented} My guess... The block size in Bitcoin XT will have the block size soft capped to it's maximum setting.

All of this just smell wrong... Time will tell, if this is fishy.  ???

Mike Hearn and Gavin are taking the bull by the horns and rescuing bitcoin from the deadly jaws of inaction. The 20MB block max is a lot smaller than the original unlimited block size originally engineered by Satoshi. Just take a deep breath and let our 2 lead developers do what they do best - develop.

I get too much contradicting info from all angles. I am selling guys, you can all suck a monkeydick.

Do you know why there is a discrepancy?

Also, getaddr.bitnodes.io does show XT in the useragent display. The User agent string begins with /Bitcoin XT... and has the rest of the version string after it. Look again in the list.

So you're forking now the network at an unknown time and date with a simple maority?

Is this serious? Doom now?

Which exchanges will offer Gavincoin/Bitcoin tradingpair?

It is not a simple majority, it will be a super-majority (>90%) of all nodes run Bitcoin XT or something that supports the larger blocks. Once that happens, there will be an announcement for when and which block will be the block that hard forks, so it is not random and people will know that it is coming.

I don't think that will happen ever. What you just achieved was creating an epic propagandabattle. And tell you what: nobody wants to be part of it and you will loose a lot marketcap the longer it takes.  
Bitcoin is now a constant shouting and namecalling for maybe years or decades. Well done.

No safe place to be invested in anymore. AT ALL!

Short, man! All the way to single digits!
If this condition remains until after next halving you'll be in trouble cuz the halving will do nothing for the price in this condition. New money will not come in. Good luck with this fuckup.

I'm out!
Full altcoins and fiat now until this is resolved which is likely never.

All you guys who are so sure this fork is the way to go need to start putting your money where your mouth is (https://bitbet.us/bet/1093/bitcoin-main-net-block-size-to-increase-in/?ref=19dRVts7U1NaiTT69xWtvwXsSJ2yxFxw4M). Right now the odds are 12 to 1 against (http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=05-06-2015#1155141), so there is a decent chunk of change to be made here. Plus, I'm sure if the yes side gets some action, it will be matched rather quickly.

Not necessarily. Gavin has stated he wanted to keep the 750K soft limit a few times.
I just asked him on Twitter for confirmation. Will update when he replies.

If the majority of the network doesn't like Bitcoin XT then you have nothing to worry about. Choosing which software fork to be on is the ultimate trump card.

I just switched to xt.  20mb block is needed.

The info in (the first few posts of) this topic is not "contradicting", and it is great news. Glad to see this will be resolved in the near future.  :)

At the bitcoin core development level there is nobody with a 100% control. If the miners do not accept the changes the developers can do nothing about it. Bitcoin holders still hold a lot of power, they could easily trade for an alt.

Beware hidden referral link.  Loser.

I found this 3 minute video helpful to get more clarity.

Recommended:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

He never will come around to reply to anything anymore. He drowns in a shitstorm currently. All the shitstorm happening @gavinandresen

Backing-up his comment about super-majority for the change:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3947ck/multiple_polls_results_regarding_bitcoin/

I agree 100% ... the software is centralized even if the nodes are decentral.  Too much decision making power rests with the core devs. This is the biggest problem with bitcoin

I guess XT is a pilot project by Gavin and Mike to test their support rate, but the way of voting is useless, someone could easily setup hundreds or thousands of nodes with either core or XT clients and affect the vote result

Vote is not a solution for bitcoin. Consensus is based on general understanding and facts, currently too many talks, no facts. I suggest this article

https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-4-simulating-practical-capacity

I guess majority of people that have serious investment in bitcoin ecosystem will take a "wait and see" approach, hold on to the universal wisdom in IT projects: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". From the simulation time line, we have at least 6 months before we see some major slowdown in transactions, and even if we reached that stage, a more conservative approach like 4MB blocks might be adopted: When people are facing future financial uncertainty, they tends to reduce the risk exposure

Think it's about time this gets implemented. The more it get dragged on the more insecurity arising from speculation and the fudsters are obviously having a good time spreading lies to fulfill their agenda. People generally would not take in or accept a change unless the see the results so if we don't start right now then when? However to imply that its a do or die mission is kinda of misleading and i hope to see this getting applied asap.

yes, but only with Bitcoin - because they are brothers.  ;)


Bitcoin XT? Great! lets go folks!

It frustrates me to the point where I want to say... F#$% it!

You have the strangest scenario here...

The protocol has been doing fine... They have been managing bottle necks on the fly... Tweaking small things here and there.. Now suddenly the block size is a mayor issue.

Then Mike says.. And b.t.w we have this side-chain thingy with all the solutions, if Wladimir does not want to play by our rules. We want these changes in Bitcoin Core, but it does not seem like Wladimir wants to take decisions... So we will force a fork to do this anyways. 

When we do fork, and you follow our little side-chain, we will have better control and we can make the hard decisions for you, trust us.  ::)

Very coincidental indeed? 

Well this thread is more useful than most that were made in regards to XT. This is going to inform people that XT is rolling out (even though I found out a few days earlier via reddit).
I do have a question though.
What is preventing someone from making 20 MB blocks? If we factor in the current fees since 0.10.2 such blocks shouldn't be too expensive for one to make?

Where can i buy Bitcoin XT?

Its not an altcoin. If you have Bitcoin then you also have "Bitcoin XT" ;)

IF there is a big controversy and split in the eco system merchants might require that your TX is accepted on both chains for a while, but ultimately the chain with bigger blocks will win.

Do i need to download the XT version to possess Bitcoin XT (depending whether i have bitcoins in the core version)? and can i not sell the XT bitcoins while holding the Bitcoin core bitcoins? And last thing is there a possibility that XT and Core will have different prices?

Whatever coins you have before the fork you will get an equal number in the individual Core and XT forks, IF the fork were indeed to happen. You don't need to run an XT Client before the fork for this to happen. I would imagine that XT and Core would quickly end up having vastly different prices, with one of them approaching 0.

You just have to install XT later and copy over your wallet if I understood it correctly. The process is simple and if we fork you're going to have double money.
Some people are actually liking the idea of forking because of the potential to sell twice.

Seriously - you are still repeating this?

No-one is going to be "doubling their money".

"Bitcoin XT" absolutely is a altcoin.

Honestly, I don't even understand why this topic hasn't been moved to the altcoin section...

If you had Bitcoin, Litecoin or Dogecoin on May 12th, 2014 you also have CLAMS.  That doesn't make it "Bitcoin".

I've seen this ">90%" claim a lot, but Hearn clearly just says "majority" in that interview. In fact, he says if it comes down to a conflict between the "economic majority" and the "hash majority" (miners), he will add checkpoints to XT to ensure the "economic majority" wins. Here's the relevant part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0&feature=youtu.be)

I don't have a problem going along with 20MB (or some compromise limit) if it's really 90% of the miners. If it's 90% of the "nodes" but 50% (or less) of the miners, then I expect very bad results. And it's clear to me from that interview that Hearn is willing to do the 20MB XT fork even if it's less than 50% of the mining power.

If both Chains survive for a period of time how is that not doubling? If you have 10 BTC on Chain X (current), you're going to have 10 BTC on Chain Y (XT) if we fork.
Isn't this correct?

This is just something that caught my eye from one of the discussion. People were saying that it is fine because there is a chance to sell twice which I doubt.

Yeah, only those on the Hearndresen-fork will be zeroing their money... :D

I really hope that Maxwell's proposal is accepted now and a real solution for microtransactions based on sidechains is deployed later.

One thing is for sure: I will not support XT.

ya.ya.yo!

If it really became so bad that people could "double their money" then I think that Bitcoin would be over and judged as a "failed experiment".

There's no way to double your money because the hard fork will only be effective after 90% of consensus is reached, which in practice means by the time this happens the coin that has 10% of nodes on it will be pretty much useless.

I don't think this is the way litecoin wants to rise in value.

I would think most alt coins would sink if bitcoin does too.

One exception might be Ripple, which is already trial testing in the financial tech sector.

if that was the case, then xt should be really considered an altcoin, and this is why it will not happen, because it isn't an alt, but just an upgrade to the existing core

if you move your 10 btc, they will be moved from any qt or xt client at the same time

it's like having two client running with the same wallet

Actually, Mike Hearn (who controls the code for XT) is willing to go ahead with a hard fork even with less than 50% of the miners, using checkpoints to ignore the chain with more work. He explained this in a recent interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0)

I made a post about this yesterday, but I think it's worth repeating whenever this ">90%" claim is made. Maybe when the time comes to download the relevant XT code, someone should actually check if the block size limit is only raised after 90% of the miners indicate agreement.

Personally I think that the Bitcoin community should be worried about what Mike Hearn is trying to do.

If he does that, then he will seriously fuck up Bitcoin and completely discredit it. If it does happen, then people should definitely NOT use Bitcoin XT.

I will look at it, but we should definitely get some others too, such as the core devs or Bitcoin Experts on this forum.

People who sit on value in the blockchain prior to a fork could very well 'double their money' and probably much more.  The catch is that the sum of all of one's crypto-currency will be much less in, say, USD denominated terms because the credibility of bitcoin-based distributed crypto-currency will be severely eroded and every fork will suffer.  Indeed, crypto-currencies generally will suffer a black-eye and alts will probably not be spared.

The good news, though, is that crypto-currencies are generally more useful when there is a genuine need for them.  If fiat systems become less desirable (through collapse, degradation into 'cashless' systems, increased surveillance which is abused, etc) free crypto-currencies become a much more tangible value proposition.  Probably at least one of the Bitcoin forks will survive as the most viable foil to fiat malfeasance.  One will have to choose the right one (maybe, if forced by the designers) and be willing to sit on one's hands for an extended period of time.  If I have to choose, I'll be choosing the fork which focuses most highly on defense and that absolutely will not be the one which promises to carry everyone's morning coffee purchase on it's native chain.

I think the military checkpoints discussed below will ensure that the Chinese miners are isolated and the "correct chain" (Bitcoin XT) maintains its integrity.

Checkpoints to ignore longest chain >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

Why would Litecoin go to the moon in this scenario when it has a similar maximum blocksize problem as Bitcoin? Furthermore if Bitcoin resolves the maximum blocksize problem, the problem will still remain in Litecoin. If one wants to hedge against the maximum blocksize problem in Bitcoin using alt-coins it only makes sense to pick an alt-coin that has an adaptive blocksize limit that can grow with time such as Monero.

Edit: Strikethrough added to quote.

Unless the majority run XT, at which point anyone running 1MB block Bitcoin Core will be on the altcoin path. Of course, it won't come down to that. Should it be that the majority of nodes run XT, Bitcoin Core will add 20MB blocks and we'll be back to consensus.

lol...  This sentiment from some of the Bitcoiners scare me a bit.

Where to buy the ICO?

HAHAHAHA!!!  Well played!

why?  we don't need change.  change is scary. 
so is bitcoin a financial instrument or a programming project?

you can buy Bitcoin XT and Blockchains on Crypsy.

No. That's not how forking works. Doing a hard fork doesn't mean that we're upgrading the current chain, but rather starting a new one from some point (e.g. after a certain block; or when consensus is reached) with some changes/additions to the code.
As I've already stated: if you have 10 BTC on Bitcoin core, you're going to have 10 BTC on XT too. Moving your coins on Bitcoin Core won't move your coins on XT.

This confirms it:

Thank you for sharing this. I knew that Hearn's intentions were wrong from the start. I wonder what he is really up to?

Ah, hell; I bit. Now, I'm synchronizing my first ever Bitcoin-qt wallet.

I have a lot of doubts.

First, my BTC before the fork can be translated to XT any time (if its my will). I have a BTC mining contract, after fork BTC mined cannot get converted to XT, am I right?

What happen if I buy BTC on a exchange after fork, I'll be able to convert it to XT?

What would happen if I dont like XT or XT crash, may I come back to BTC?

It is possible a market manipulation? Example: A group of guys make buying pressure to pump BTC-XT, they convince a lot of people to change to XT because have best prices, then dump the price and run out?


 

This all assumes that there will be two chains, which will only happen if the fork is done without consensus.

It depends on what chain your mining contract is mining on, but yes, any BTC mined after the fork cannot be exchanged between the two chains unless an exchange is willing to do it.

Only if another exchange is willing to exchange it.

Yes, if you did not touch the BTC chain after the fork. If your Bitcoin was only transacted on the XT fork, then if you decide to use the old BTC chain, you will have however many BTC you had prior to the fork.

Yup. Its called a pump and dump. Happens all the time with new altcoins.

None of this 'chaos' is going to happen. Bitcoin XT isn't going to allow for 20MB blocks once its released - it'll have a date (block height) where it'll allow for blocks w/ larger than 1MB blocks to be produced, likely sometime in mid 2016. By then we'll know if this has consensus or not - if it does, Bitcoin Core will go to 20MB blocks and there will be no significant contention.

Basically, chill and let the consensus process, otherwise known as Proof of Work, do its job.

What's the status on this? I'm thinking of spinning a few Bitcoin XT nodes on some geographically distributed VPSes.

You'll be pleasantly surprised in one respect: BitcoinXT nodes are head-scratchingly fast to sync. On my old desktop rig, running more than one altcoin's node, I synched Bitcoin XT from 6+ years ago to current in ~30 hours continuous. And that, with home Internet!

30 hours really? it seems too much to me, i can sync the whole chain in less than 1 hour or so, i think you have a poor hd or a very bad bandwidth

and a part from two new features xt should not bring fast synching at all, it should be same as core


upgrading in the sense that it will not be an altcoin

i don't think you're right about the movements of coins, otherwise everyone could double spend if what you describe is the true

You're more-or-less right. I was surprised at the speed because I had assumed it would take me weeks to synchronize a Bitcoin full node with the rickety old rig I've got. :) Most likely, that would be my fate if I had downloaded & synched up the Litecoin qt.

So, props to the XT devs for speeding up the synching.

The only difference from XT and other altcoins that were forked from Bitcoin is that Gavin and Mike are doing it and calling it an upgrade (and obviously the name).
That's not what a double spend is.

A double spend is an attack where the given set of coins is spent in more than one transaction. We are talking about a set of coins within the same chain. What I described were 2 chains: Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT.
Once we get to the situation where we have 2 chains, moving coins on 1 won't move them on the other.

This is not true, and anyone who follows this advice will lose their funds for sure. Unless you go out of your way to double-spend your pre-fork coins so that they end up in different outputs on each chain, it is very likely that any transaction you make on one chain will be mirrored on the other. Since the ledger and the unconfirmed transaction pool are public, anyone can copy your transactions and broadcast them on the competing chain. If you plan to keep funds on the real chain as a backup for your XT derpitude, you should better split them first so that it is impossible for others to mirror your transactions in the future.

There isn't going to be a fork. Come early 2016 either most will support > 1MB blocks or most won't. No one is going to be want to be on the wrong side of the argument - it's just a losing proposition.

Then there might be a fork. Any change to the max block size will require a fork.

No. Introducing a software change that has the *potential* for a hard fork does not mean that there will be one. Ask yourself this: If 90% of nodes are supporting > 1MB blocks, including miners - would you hold tight and not upgrade? Same will be true for vice versa. Once > 50% of the nodes go one way, everyone else will too.

this mean that you will have doubled the coin, so you can spend your original coins two time, which don't sound right at all

only one fork will be operative in the end, the one with more consensus, the second ones will just fade away

we had already an hard fork in the past(2013), it isn't something new, if there are still some users using the chain before that hard fork, i'm sure they won't be able to spend their coins, because they would be orphaned or they block rejected

This is my impression too. If Alice sends Bob 1 XBTC on the XT-network, Bob can publish the same transaction on the BTC-network and get Alice's 1 BTC too. I assume this will happen if both chains survive. The way to get around this is either easy (don't spend anything) or takes a little work:

Alice could send her 1 XBTC to her address A on the XT-network and her other address B on the BTC-network. At that point the two coins can be spent independently. It might take several tries to do this successfully, since when she spends 1 XBTC to her address A someone might publish the same transaction on the BTC-network before she can send the 1 BTC to address B. If that happens, try again until it doesn't. The point is: don't pay anyone other than yourself until the two coins are separated.

Should be a lot of fun to watch. I guess it's a good reason for people to learn a little more about how Bitcoin actually works.

Note that it really doesn't make sense to talk about 'address x on the y-network' absent a change to make formerly legal addresses illegal or vice versa.  Such changes are possible and may be used as tools/weapons when the battle warms up, but that has not been discussed much and is not part of the current conversation.

Also be clear that re-playing a transaction on 'the other chain' (I would anticipate 'the other chainS' being more relevant) does not necessarily do anyone any good unless they control the keys on the recipient end of things.  It is, of course, trivial to send transactions to oneself so that both the sending and receiving keys are controlled and that will be how clued-in people 'double up'.


Yes!  That would be very wise indeed.

Wait, you can sync the entire 6+ year blockchain in 1 hour? how's that even possible? what are you system specs and how much does it take to sync the entire network in Bitcoin Core for comparative purposes?

yeah i can do it in 45 minutes, and i can fire up the lcient in 23-25 seconds

i7 4790k OC to 4400 + ssd samsung pro 850, the ssd is what matter

This thread went from Bitcoin Discussion -> Altcoin Discussion and back to BTC Discussion... why is this not in the Alt part of these forums?

It was never in the altcoin section. What are you taking about?

mmmm pretty sure I saw it in the altcoin section for a few day and then it moved back here.

I believe it belongs in the altcoin section.

Mike Hearn: In about 1-2 weeks, DOGE will include support for 20mb blocks

It was in the Alternative CLIENTS section.

Also, why are you bringing doge into this?  ???

Mike Hearn: In about 1-2 weeks, Litecoin will include support for 20mb blocks

Happy? :P

Why are you bringing Litecoin into this?

What does DOGE, Litecoin and Bitcoin XT have in common? 

Ding Ding Ding! They are all Alts.

Actually, it was for a time: that's how I found it.

Mpreps strikes again?

Why is this altcoin conversation in "Bitcoin Discussion"?

Nothing, that's why I don't get what you're trying to say.

 ::)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

Bitcoin XT is an alt the same way Electrum and MultiBit are alts.

I'm going to have to disagree with this, but I understand why you're saying it. In a sense, Bitcoin XT is an alternative wallet for Bitcoin, like Electrum and MultiBit are. This supports what you're saying. However, Electrum and MultiBit (AFAIK) do not change the consensus algorithm. Bitcoin XT is about to change the consensus algorithm.

Suppose Electrum updated their wallet so that it would check a different POW algorithm than sha256 after a certain block height. It's clear to me that after that block height it would no longer be a wallet for Bitcoin. One could argue that it's no longer a wallet for Bitcoin as soon as the alternative code is released. It might agree with Bitcoin for a while, but the fact that the consensus code is different means it isn't the same coin -- it will just appear to be for a while.

Bitcoin XT is in the process of changing the consensus code. I understand that the people who support this change will insist on calling it "Bitcoin." But if both chains survive, it seems like the one following the older consensus algorithm has more of a claim to the older name.

I know that the official position of those in favor of bigger blocks is: the old chain will not survive. I'm not sure if this is wishful thinking or a strategy to keep people who support Bitcoin (as it is defined today) from trying to see it through this crisis.

Well I could only partially agree. Bitcoin XT is currently similar to them as it is an alternative. However, are Electrum or Multibit going to do a hard fork and start a new chain? I doubt it.
There is a difference. The worst part of it is that they want it done so bad that they would even consider doing it will much less than 95% consensus.
I've started questioning their really intentions with this.

Sorry this talk is about bitcoins and should be here in this section.

Westin, how do you think there will be two chains?  Even if there is a second 5% chain, no one will take those coins as payment, and no one will want to mine on that chain.  Even if there are those coins they will be useless if nobody will use them.

easy done with a server and a 1gb/s connexion ... french member have report this, too with a 0.10.x branch.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=804641.msg9651523#msg9651523

The XT threads were moved over to the alt section and have since been moved back: 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1090801.0

As someone who started one of the XT threads, I can confirm this is true. I not only saw it, I got email notifications when it was moved and when it was moved back. Both times it was moved by "anonymous."

Let me first say that we agree that if the Core-chain drops to only 5% of the mining power, it's likely not to survive.

I do, however, think there are many plausible scenarios in which the Core-chain survives. It only needs to make it through the first two difficulty adjustments after the fork. I suspect this will be easiest if the real fork happens (the first >1MB block is successfully mined) approximately halfway through the adjustment period.

Suppose Gavin's threshold of 75% of miners is met, but only just. With 25% of the miners still mining on the original chain, the Core-chain would drop to approximately one block every 40 minutes and the difficulty adjustment would come within 2 months. That's survivable. Once it's clear it can survive, it's even possible some miners come back. A lot would depend on the Core price vs. XT price, if that can even be measured during those first few days and weeks.

Here's an even more likely scenario. It's easy to imagine the XT miner votes plateauing at, say, 60% for a few months. I've read enough of these threads to feel confident that the reaction to that will not be, "oh well, we can't get the miners on board, so let's stick with the 1MB cap." The reaction will be to lower the threshold. This became very clear to me after seeing that clip of Mike Hearn saying that he would support the fork even with a minority of the hashing power. It's very clear to me that if the Core-chain can maintain at least 40% of the mining power than it will survive.

Don't get me wrong. I think a fork will be a disaster for the price of both coins. Not to mention colored coins and counterparty. A fork of bitcoin will fork those too.

I'm not a miner, so I don't really need to pick a side here. There are good arguments both for and against raising the block size limit. I get the feeling those in favor of raising the block size limit have convinced themselves they're 95% and there are 5% of holdouts, roughly. If they're right, then probably this hard fork won't be nearly as dramatic as it could've been. But I think they're wrong, and I think there's no way to convince them they're wrong except through the fork itself.

Sorry for the wall of text. This issue's been keeping my mind busy.

More than 2 weeks has passed...

The cloudy period between both chains will come (in my view) if XT nodes hit the ~50% consensus mark. At that time some merchants/users may be confused as to which chain to accept bitcoin payments on for goods and services.

Will definitely be interesting to see how things work during that "adjustment" period.

No one really knows how long the adjustment period will take.

It is possible that the % could go from 49% -> 50% -> 51% -> 49%...in that time that makes things interesting as it crosses that threshold.

And now 2 weeks has passed since you noted more than 2 weeks have passed. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen are running behind schedule, but it seems to still be in the works. Hearn posted about it on reddit ... 2 weeks ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3e64dk/time_to_end_bitcoin_reliance_on_core_and_end_this/ctbyqwy)

I'm not as worried as I was. It looks to me like XT won't get anywhere near 50% of nodes, and especially not 75% of miners. I'm sorta curious how the forking supporters will react.

I'm sorta curious how the BTC supporters will react when we hit the 1 MB limit with 30 cent fees per transaction.

but then iam already running a software that supports bigger blocks - probably XT - Satoshis path. ;)

But didn't Gavin basically said that the idea of 20MB was not a good idea after all and that he would from now on push the 8mb increment each year model? I dont understand. Is Gavin still going for 20MB or he is going for this?

https://i.imgur.com/QoTEOO2.gif

the broad consensus (after alot of discussions) is that we start at 8MB and stay there for 2 years. that is very conservative and realistic in my view.

Obviously the difficulty is in jump-starting to the solution of unleashing the capacity and codebase management structure we need as expressed by Mr. Hearn.  He has a solution which involves a temporary augmentation of data supplied to SPV leaf nodes (known to most as wallets on cell phones.)  It would be best to just go for it with XT right now or very soon while 'we' enjoy the broad consensus you speak of because there are some people who are outside of this consensus and could interfere with the obviously correct path forward if given the time to work on their subversive code.  It is time.  Go! Go! Go!

How was Mike Hearn able to publish Bitcoin XT with an adoption threshold by miners of only 75%? Something as important as a Bitcoin hard fork should require a 90% yes vote by miners. Billions of dollars of OPM are at stake here. This is a dangerous game he is playing.

Well, it's not a modification of the blockchain ... she (?) have already use the 33,5MB limite in the past.

Remember Gavin Andreeson is the same CIA scum who went wagging his tail like an obedient dog. Even Satoshi dumped him after that. For all we know, he's still working undercover. What better way to destroy the Bitcoin than from the inside

Gavin and Mike have had ample opportunity to do that in the past, and did nothing that has since been interpreted that way or at the time. It's a coup. Well, an attempted coup really.

All that shit, lol. If nobody would care about Gavincoin and these people in general it wouldn't matter. Why do you people even pay attention? Nobody going to "update".

Who put in the work to make Bitcoin rely on SSL cert authorities which also ended up making Bitcoin susceptible to the heartbleed OpenSSL bug?  You know, the one which dumped recently used memory to anyone who asked for it.  Who prodded that guy all along the way?  Just sayin'

That's kind of unfair on Mike and Gavin IMO. The Heartbleed bug affected zero bitcoin transactions in practice, as no one was using the Payments Protocol anyway. It's not taken off since then, and it will get superseded by what Armory and Electrum are doing anyway (DNSSEC PKI instead of x.509). So, even if they did intend sabotage, it failed pretty miserably.

You sure?  If I'd been doing the attack and privy to the exploit I'd have slurped up as much as I could and be sitting tight on it now as we sleep.  Only a fool would blow the doors wide open to spend a few BTC from keys one might have obtained.  If heartbleed was an attack it would not have been undertaken by people who want for spending money.

I'm not convinced you know what you're talking about. You can't attack a protocol that isn't being used.

Going back to my initial point which was related to trying to figure out whether Mike and/or Gavin have any affiliation with intel agencies, it doesn't matter much whether the exploit impacted Bitcoin.  The observation was that one of the relatively few things which Gavin worked diligently on over the last few years was getting the code stuck into core, and Mike was a driving force behind him doing so.  As I recall things.  If the protocol was never to be used then why was it shoved in there?  I recall that there was fairly widespread discomfort at building in a reliance on x.509 but those who had qualms about it capitulated eventually.

So basically XT is meant to be the "rich man's bitcoin" whereas bitcoin the original will now have a better chance at being utilized on a global scale.

I'm telling you guys, the entire reason crypto was interesting in the first place is because of its cost-cutting mechanisms. Digital money transfer has been around for a long, long time. It was just inordinately expensive and middle-manned to the max.

If its now cheaper to work with fiat (Facebook thinks it is) and you need a 1 Terabyte hard drive just to store your coin's blockchain, the coin no longer works to the benefit of those it was meant to help in the first place and is therefore useless.

If the 1mb limit stays tx fees will rise higher then visa.

Whats this about DNSSEC PKI vs x.509?. Why isn't something like Convergence (http://convergence.io/) being investigated?

Yeah, I think that 90%+ is best, even if it means we have to deal with hitting the limit for a little while as they think of something else.

Bitcoin transactions are worth more than VISA transactions and I am willing to pay more for them.

I realize this is unspeakable for all the mainstreamers out there.

You get what you pay for.

You're not going to figure it out with that line of reasoning. It's better to concentrate on questions like: "Having quit Google in 2014 to become a Bitcoin entrepreneur, where does Mike Hearn get his income from? (seeing as everything he does is non-profit)"


Who said that? There's a subtle, but crucial, difference between "not being used" and "never to be used".

DNSSEC only does what it does. If you look at the details on the Convergence site, you'll see that Convergence is a network technology, whereas DNSSEC is just a nameserver technology. You can use DNSSEC as a part of Convergence.

Convergence involves a well known developer called Moxie Marlinspike (Whisper Systems, who develop TextSecure and RedPhone for the Android OS). I use an alternative Android app store called F-Droid (https://f-droid.org). It's all free & open source, with some affiliation to the Free Software Foundation. The developers of F-Droid build all the apps themselves from the source code provided by the developers. Moxie Marlinspike submitted TextSecure and RedPhone to be included in F-Droid. The F-Droid devs couldn't get the code to build. Moxie apparently showed no interest in resolving the issue, and so TextSecure and RedPhone never appeared in the F-Droid store. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm not too sure about WhisperSystems or Moxie Marlinspike for the moment.

I agree on the wider point though; centralised systems on the internet have got to go, and the Certificate Authority system and the DNS system are the most egregious standouts. For years now, the tech media has been touting various potential "cyber-9/11" scenarios, and those two systems are prime targets.

I don't trust this Mike Hearn guy. I am sure he has some kinda hidden agenda..... If I only knew what he is up to..... My scam-radar makes a huges read out when I type in his name...... The most talented scammers they set up for the long haul.... set up everything like they are going to help and play honest.... wait paitent untill the time is right..... and then BAM the scam goes live. Bottom like I dont trust him.

So review the open source code?

You should review the open source code that Mike Hearn hasn't submitted to git yet.

My time machine isn't working yet (ironically).  Code that hasn't yet been published can't be reviewed by end users.  However, it also can't be compiled and run by end users, so what is the problem?  When it's released, review it.  When it's reviewed, compile it.  When it's compiled, run it.  Sounds straightforward to me.

Let me quote you one of your "good guys":


Now go tell him to listen to his own words .

Incredible intelligence you displayed there.

This is like arguing with a dog why it should stop barking.

yes yes... no problem... no problem at all.... good then all the fuzz for nothing. Mike can compile the code, then must evertying be in order. Just go ahead at download the XT scam.

When I said I did not trust Mike Hearn I was mostly refering to his political motives. There is a hidden agenda behind all this. The sheeps are being manipulated, eventually will all of you be in under control of Mike Hearn through his hostile take over of our beloved bitcoin.

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


https://i.imgur.com/7aCGsDw.png

The problem with your perspective is bitcoin needs new users to grow to a global system. You want to keep it a niche market forever? Because i can tell you new users will need to have good incentive to join.

Exactly.  XT offers cheaper tx, but trustless fully contributing (access+verify+amplify) nodes only for the rich.

Bitcoin's tx are (slightly) more expensive, but it fits in a modest footprint attainable by Joe Sixcoins and his DSL in Florida/Africa/Venezuela.

In an emergency, Bitcoin's configuration maintains the fallback option of using hosts of last resort, located far out on the edges.  That keeps the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

As its requirements rise, XT excludes more actual and potential full contributors, leaving it increasingly at the mercy of centralized data centers' good wishes and SLA fulfillment abilities.

Now, who would want to not kill Bitcoin at the moment (because messy Striesand/Hydra Effects), yet make sure it can be killed without having to root it out of every low-bandwidth data haven in every jungle/warehouse/basement/office/coffeeshop in the world?

I hope XT won't see any consent at all and those two rogue devs can go look for another coin to toy with.

No thanks

I'm glad you saw past the initial question to the reason for the question. That is rare on forums. My question was based, as you surmised, on why are we defaulting to using these technologies when there are others that could yield a superior system to these broken technologies.

I was not aware of the history of Convergence. It was merely an attempt to say there are other, probably better, ways. If DNS is the sole requirement then surely Namecoin is a superior solution? The version 2 spec has the signatures required now.

Just thought I'd drop in and LOL because waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than 2 weeks have passed since this bold declaration and still no 20 MB blocks and Mike Hearn has ragequit.

I told the Gavinistas XT would get #R3KT like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened.

Now they are reduced to Reddit-lawyering, in a desperate quest to find something theymos did wrong that they can tattle to the admins about.

Their petulant moaning and weepy lamentations (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48xqcp/the_thing_that_hurts_me_the_most_to_see_about_the/) are hilarious.   ;D ;D ;D