Bitcoin Forum

If there is… why aren't just doing that? This Bitcoin XT stuff is freaking me out, especially now that it has come to light that Bitcoin XT might be sneakily adding in features like blacklisting and not making those public. If the core issue at hand is just the need to increase the block sizes so that we can handle scaling up if adoption increases, isn't there a way to do that and still keep Bitcoin Core? Why don't we just do that???  ???

Anyone could fork the repo and add only block size increase code, sure.

But then they'd be on the hook to continue backporting Core changes into it.

The only thing you can do is pushing on core team to scale bitcoin ASAP.

Sure.  Just wait until it is necessary.  Even staunch small-blockists like me have no real problem with raising the block size as long as it

 - is necessary
 - can contribute to support of a real solution for scaling
 - is safe
 - does not compromise the security and autonomy of the solution which is the most important and valuable thing about Bitcoin to me.

In no way, shape, or form is allowing nearly free purchases of frappacino worth sacrificing any of the above mentioned aspects.  If Bitcoin were going to 'take off' under near-free transaction fees it would have done so within the last decade when the infrastructure was supported by inflation alone and fees were negligible.  That it did not means that there is really no demand for native Bitcoin used in that role and other solutions are simply more competitive.

I have hope that frappacino-coin will be implemented as a sidecoin so in reality Bitcoin will be used for such purposes but in a way which is safe, scalable, flexible, and highly robust.  Best of all worlds with no tangible downsides...except that it will blow up any hopes that TPTB would have of tracking.  The fact that the pre-mature seeming thrust to do the BitcoinXT hostile takeover happened leads me to believe that sidechains will actually work quite well and there was really no choice but to try to do it as a hail Mary and hope for the best.

Yes, there is a way. Why aren't we doing it? I think we are and we should. Gavin just chose to ignore the consensus process and try a hostile takeover to become the benevolent dictator of bitcoin (this is actually not exaggerated).

The problem is: everyone is paying too much attention to and giving that attempt of a hostile takeover with a rogue software too much credit.

XT is very simple Gavins' way to circumvent consensus principles in the devteam.
All this isn't even about the blocksize. Blocksize is just the fassade for a blatant hostile takeover attempt. Blocks aren't even half full right now.

Or pushing Mike and Gavin to leave the space asap. I think we should do both ...

The stress test, and the $5000 per day dumped into it, just showed that Bitcoin can in theory handle 200 tps and that the block size can be adjusted as the need arise in the future.

Our Lead developer and his Dev team, just need to decide when to impliment it, based on the need and the trend in the market. Not based on the opinion and the hype surrounding the agenda being pushed

by the Mike/Gavin team and their cronies.  ;D

This guy... makes a lot of sense.

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want

On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know.
There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet.
These are being solved.  Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so.
It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood.

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

Ah yes, that private company which we will all have to rely on. Thanks but no thanks.

Such diversionary tactics will soon become ineffective, I suggest you find something else to keep repeating until there's no tomorrow. You should come with some real arguments to support your position. I can also start repeating Gavin and Hearn work for CIA/NSA or whatever, but that would get us nowhere.  ;)

Something a Blockstream supporter would definitely say.

Begin implementing Keccak with SHAKE, compress the transactions as they flow through the network on their way to the miners. creating an extra layer of security while systematically forming random lists of active nodes, time stamped for freshness.

Keccak is fast, it'll make it easy to create SPV transactions for thin clients, maintaining security for the network regardless of device.

I wonder why nobody on here is mentioning this:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

As far as I know, it is just Bitcoin Core, with the bigger-block code in it.
(But do be honest, I haven't checked yet)

Because few people know what a branch is, and around 99% of the XT supporters will run the released version. Perhaps around 95% would keep the default settings.

So that branch is as good as nonexistent.

Oh, nice to see, that you have spoken with all the XT supporters and asked them which branch they are using.
Sadly, I couldn't find the time for that.

BIP100 is being voted on by miners.
Block size increase in Core is coming sooner than later.
so,
If Block Size isn't the compelling reason to use XT...

The XT marketing fall back plan apparently is that XT is the anti-Blockstream code?

Read Mike's blog carefully. Then judge: https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

Its not about anti blockstream. Its about a fair game Bitcoin Blockchain deserve. Blockstream was still an idea, so we cant rely on it as a solution to tx per sec limit.

Exact. I'm not anti Blockstream at all but trying to force a private company on a "trustless" system is a big no no. It's all about choices.

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

We will need an agreement between how much to raise the blocksize and how much % of transactions go through LN because unfortunately we can't process all of the stuff through the blockchain unless proven otherwise. I think both approaches should be used in conjunction.

Wrong. Consensus does not exist in the dev team nor should it ever to be considered actual CONSENSUS.

Consensus is about the free market (miners, users, exchanges, businesses, merchants). Developers do not decide which direction bitcoin goes...the people using bitcoin do.

Can you read? Read here:
https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

They never hid the fact, that there are other patches in BitcoinXT and there is even a bigblocks-only branch
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

Who told you it was never mentioned? The FUDster? do you really fall for that easily without even checking?

go read the changelogs of BitcoinXT

This applies to all Core version release, always read changelog


This whole FUD would have been avoided had bitcoinXT was allowed to be discussed from the beginning. Sadly many still dont know much of bitcoinXT and thus the whole thing was said to be "unannounced" "shady"


You can thank Thermos for that. Or was it his agenda all along?

Thats a wrong way of thinking. Any project should grow organically. Let the market decide the txs going thro sidechain.

As for talking about how much to raise blocksize, it has been 2 yrs of talking. Frankly couples core devs were dead set on NO blocksize increase.


Note even Theymos were supportive, his action tho however completely contradicted it.

I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. That is why we must hard fork away from Core if we want bigger blocks. To think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team can hold. I would actually prefer a compromise between XT and Core, but right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so I choose XT. If a third option becomes available with possibly a more conservative block size increase with no other new features I would definitely support that instead.

I don't buy all the hyperbole.
Both Core and XT are going to hardfork the chain for larger blocks.  Big blocks alone is not reason enough to switch to XT.

This is over 2 months old already, some miners are participating now with block size voting.  This is in Bitcoin Core:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I like that BIP100 takes the block size out of the hands of the developers.  XT should do this instead of relying on developers trying to guess sizes that are both good and safe.

The proposal is the fork will happen 12 months from now. Thats too late.

Of course there's a way.  It's just software code, which can be changed.

I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.

Every core dev have their own plan, and those plans are very complex for public to understand, and they always try to downplay the shortcomings of their solution. So I guess eventually majority of miners will select the solution that is most easy to understand

In this regards, XT is much better than blockstream, since XT does not introduce added complexity. However current core is better than XT, since it does not introduce change at all. When 1MB block start to cause huge problems for transactions, I think if core still insists on 1MB block size, more and more miners will switch to XT, simply because the XT's solution is simpler. Simple means many benefits in the long run

and why they aren't doing it instead of creating XT and this whole trouble that this drama is making?

it would have been a much better solution and less dangerous, maybe there was not even the need to fork, but only to upgrade like you go from 0.9 to 0.1...

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

To get bigger blocks, you have to fork.  Both Core and XT will hard fork.
If you want no fork, you talk to MP.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

This debate has been going on for more then two years now. Can you point me towards another fork that I can run instead of XT now? Since I would gladly run that instead especially if it would represent a compromise between these two choices. That is unfortunately the reality at this time. Since if we do not hard fork we will have one megabyte blocks forever, since it seems clear that an agreement on a block size increase within the core development team can not be reached, and this is urgent since we should not initiate a hard fork at short notice when it is already to late, Since that would endanger large financial stakes.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team can hold.

I urge everyone to read Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people or what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 (https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1)

The debate did not come into its own until a couple months ago when the blockchain was stress tested in order to force the question. (The stress test itself and the appearance of hundreds of XT nodes at once the other day -- new nodes, not old nodes that switched over -- make this whole thing even more disconcerting)

This also doesn't mean "8MB and double every year" is the end-all-be-all. 8 MB is completely unnecessary at the current time, although major Chinese mining pools and exchanges support an 8 MB change. 

What I would like to see is a discussion of how to implement dynamically adjusted block size, to maximize efficiency and not simply cut out Chinese miners with bandwidth that cannot reliably push blocks of such size. In the meantime, 8 MB is just excessive. Just tripling the max limit would buy us a lot of time to develop a more robust solution, and hopefully one which doesn't polarize the community.

I was referring to the debate within the Bitcoin development community. Maybe you should release a Fork of your own, gather support for it, or help develop another hard fork. I would support a third option, but right now we only have a binary choice. I do actually agree with many of your points but I am a miner as well so I do have to choose now. Though I do personally think that this should be the last hard fork we ever do for Bitcoin, so the choice that we make should not be a temporary one.

Actually it is a good question why it doesn't happen. I mean a developer only would need to take the code from bitcoin core and implements the codepart from xt that implements the bigger blocks. Then promote his version. I'm sure many many of the xt users would switch to this version.

I don't have a clue why that didn't happen already.

Its been going on for years, not months.
The issue is worthy of the discussion.

If you've never done globally deployed software development (much less protocol development), this is not a particularly long time for such protocol discussions.
I'm grateful to Gavin for keeping the focus on it, and only wish his proposals were better suited to the protocol (rather than the software).