Bitcoin Forum

it's so easy to be against something, especially something with a label like "XT," and especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.

It's got a label which suggests it's fundamentally different that Bitcoin! Only Gavin and Hearn are pushing it! The rest of the developers are against it! I'm against it too! It smells fishy! There must be some nefarious intention behind it!

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

This is so dangerous to bitcoin that it requires VERY GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION which I have seen not a single shred of. All I have seen is attacks on gavin's character, attacks on hearn's character, appeals to fear, ridiculous speculations that the CIA and the NSA are behind XT based on pure fabricated fear mongering, what I have not seen is a single LOGICAL ARGUMENT that is in the least convincing which suggests that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

Many if not all of the core developers have financial incentive to maintain lower block sizes because they are invested in alternative solutions such as BlockStream. Yes the lack of consensus of the core developers suggests malpractice and misplaced priorities but we cannot just assume that the malpractice and misplaced priorities are behind XT because it is the "change" it is the "new addition" it is the "new proposal" so it must be bad! No, perhaps it is good! and perhaps those developers who oppose it do so for reasons of underlying malpractice and misplaced priorities. Perhaps they are more invested in the success of BlockStream than they are in the success of Bitcoin! These things must be considered!

What I am saying is that this split is very dangerous, and those who are perpetuating it by threatening to SPLIT BITCOIN IN HALF after 75% agrees that XT is the best solution have some explaining to do! We need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not appeals to fear, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and other fallacies. Bring out the evidence, bring out the facts, and lay out an argument dammit! You are threatening to destroy bitcoin without good reason otherwise!

Arguments:

1 - XT exposes users unless the users re-compiles or set the configurations very precisely. Even taking all measures there is a lot of code besides the block size change.
2 - XT plays a major role against descentralization and that is opposite to the entire idea of bitcoin.

If you don't have descentralization and anonymous users, why even calling it bitcoin?
It is a completely different coin based on very little parts of bitcoin.

Sorry eventual bad english, it is not my main language.

You ask for reason but slag those that see differently. We already have a ton of threads on this subject, creating more is a optics game.
Im not decided but lean towards caution.

This is very interesting, people on the same team are fighting against each other. Divide and conquer is what is happening.

There is radical speculation on both sides, from Gavin has an evil plan, to the core devs want to keep the blocksize low so they can profit from blockstream. In reality the issue is that Gavin, Mike and several others developers have one vision for bitcoin, and the other developers have another vision. That's it, it's a difference of opinion. The biggest difference I see is that the XT fork is an unprovoked pre-emptive strike as they call it in the military world. XT fired the first shots so to speak, so that alone causes a lot of opposition to it.

Instead of this split and pick-a-side crap that is happening, everyone needs to return to the table and work out a compromise for the good of bitcoin.
If we can't reach a consensus together than what is to prevent other developers from starting their own fork? Then we have 3 versions of bitcoin, 4 versions, 5 versions? Where does it stop and who gets to decide which is an altcoin and which is an upgraded bitcoin?

This doesn't bother you at all? It bothers me.

This is not a problem with a binary outcome. The most logical thing to do is nothing until we explore some grey area. In the meantime XT will flounder amid the uncertainty.

1. how does XT expose users? Is it not still the pseudonymous public addresses on the block chain? Have I missed something?

2. This is an assertion not an argument. In what way does it "play a major role in decentralization"?

You don't agree with Bitcoin Jesus?:

it would only bother me if I knew the reasons why they oppose it. I have found no good arguments besides their incentive to keep the block size limit so profits can be made by using Blockstream and other similar solutions. Gavin and Hearn do not stand to make any profit with XT. Unless I come across a reasonable argument which suggests that XT should be opposed, the fact that BlockStream developers oppose XT does not bother me.

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

that could be true. i would prefer core with a good, solid solution before 2016. for now: XT.

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!

Dear XTers,

Instead of assuming that you all use the poor logic that is presented in the OP I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't presume to know what all XTers think but I do know that there are some very logical reason to avoid using XT.

Any discussion in favor of the XT protocol avoids talking about 2 things, firstly that it's alleged purpose is not the only thing that's being introduced, and second that Satoshi himself has weighed in on the argument in favor of the "Anti-Xters"

Although the alleged purpose of the change is to allow for bigger block sizes the introduction of IP filtering by default without warning is the antithesis of a trustless protocol because it requires us to trust the list of IP's being filtered is fair and just, ie trust.

Although I would not try to present Satoshi's negativity as a logical argument his reasoning is logical and in light of his historical relevance to the protocol deserves to be heard, not ignored or talked about as an "unhelpful" email has some of the XT religious types have done.

Here is a link to Satoshi's public comments about XT dated August 15 2015

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

This trap was not unexpected though, and our capture and subjugation is, at this stage, optional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E&t=3m3s

What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!

The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.

Unless the message is signed, it is not Satoshi. Or at least, we cannot be sure that it is satoshi and therefore it is open to doubt and cannot be trusted the words of satoshi. Satoshi as spoken in the past and signed the message so we can be sure it is from him. Why did he not do it this time when it is so important? The only conclusion can be that the message was not satoshi but a clever anti-xter who was pretending to be satoshi.

Also, if you do not like XT, then you should working on supporting consensus for increasing the block size on Core. I am all for increasing the block size on core and throwing XT in the garbage. But until there is a better alternative, I support XT as the best current solution. You anti-XTers who do nothing but your spend your energy fighting against XT could be more productive by spending that same energy on finding an BETTER SOLUTION THAN XT, and implementing that solution. All your fighting against XT does nothing. Help us arrive at consensus to increase the block size on Core and you will do more to destroy XT than anything else could I guarantee you that.

Well they have a vote but definitely not a strong one.

No users no growth.

Yes bigger blocks sound like an important issue, we should discuss the best way and time to implement such a change.
There's no need to rush into it because some one spammed the blockchain with their "stress test" last month.


This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.

There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.

Guilty. You're right we need to be thinking ahead and bigger blocks are inevitable for bitcoin to succeed as an online payment mechanism for the future.
Mainly I don't like this split. It's putting bitcoiners against other bitcoiners, when we are all supposed to be on the same team.

When you push for bigger block sizes, and even force for it... I have no problem. Most people agree, we need bigger block sizes BUT when you sneak code in to compromise people's

privacy and counter Tor use, and also gear your changes to make it easier for your own APP's to work. {Lighting network} ...Well with that I have a huge problem.

Both Gavin and Mike are brilliant developers, but they sold us out to the US government, by doing these things.  >:( If you cool with that... you betting on the wrong side.  

This is you:

MOOOOOMMMMMMMM  they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM

We are on the same team but with divergent opinions and it is just normal for very large group of people. If you believe the economic incentive that makes bitcoin so special works just fine then you don't have to worry, a consensus will emerge. Bitcoin is currently experiencing is teenage crisis. This kind of situation created by XT was inevitable from the start and what it does is just adding some pressure to accelerate that consensus so we can finally move forward.

I note that the arguments here against me are

1 - Not signed = not satoshi

--- Possible but that hardly makes the post irrelevant or inevitably an "Anti-XTer"

2 - I (along with every other "Anti-XTer") do nothing but spend my energy fighting against XT

--- Again possible, but hardly necessary when angry people make fools of themselves in support of XT they are doing a better job of turning people off XT than I ever could, also I did go out and see the sun today.

3 - My fighting against XT doesn't help us arrive at consensus to increase the block size.

--- Basically arguing with me about a subject I didn't mention so as to avoid any discussion of the trustless protocol or ip issues that I raised.



Thanks for quoting me, happy to see these links posted again.

This is what I am hoping for. I expect it all to resolve and bitcoin will come out better and more resilient in the end.

What this lacks in logic it makes up for some how by being uncannily accurate. Now that you mention it, that is exactly what the OP sounds like

Still adding constructive and well thought out commentary to the discussions, I see.   ::)

My friends, if you do not want XT, please provide a better solution. I am in support of increasing the block size via Core. Let's start promoting that. Who's with me?

I don't know you so it would be presumptuous of me to call you friend. I am afraid you have me wrong if you think I don't want a name change (XT), what I don't want is a leader who is selling larger block sizes while pushing IP filtering. It's dishonest but not unexpected.

The whole point of a trustless protocol is that no one should have to be "with" anyone

You are right and I think this is a very important moment for bitcoin. My hope is that block sizes will be increased via Core and that perhaps we will learn from this a better way to "choose the choices" or arrive at consensus on these questions. Until then though I must shill for XT.

What is no surprise to me at all is that you are a shill. I don't say it lightly, it's proven by that way you've avoided very carefully the two subjects that most terrify to any XT shill.

IP filtering

Trustless protocol

I agree it's an important moment for trustless protocols, luckily there is a ton of ALT coins to hedge against this stupidity.

Anti-XTers are not harming Bitcoin anymore than Xter shills are harming Bitcoin. The argument is not unexpected and is harming the price, but not the protocol, until it's broken, you are nothing more than a speed bump that will soon be long forgotten.

Take care Shill



Classic

If I don't make it on the "the biggest shills for Bitcoin XT and their true motives" thread after that I don't think I ever will  ;D ;D ;D

Really?
If the majority of users don't trade a coin all the other constituancies (Miners, exchanges, merchants, walltes) are useless.
Without users who are the main part in a functional market the rest is worthless.Merchants have no clients who would buy things, exchanges no clients who would trade, no wallets would be used and the miners incentive to mine would be zero because the coin would have no value.
The people who are using a coin are giving the coin it's value!!
We as users have a very strong vote!!!

Yeah, been there, done that.
Simplified:

• Automatic blacklisting controlled by the Tor project (AFAIK without their consent).
• Buggy block size validation.
• Lighthouse slave support.
• Incomplete/buggy double spend detection.

---

---

This is just really fear and I'm making all of this up.  ::)
The real question is why are people deluded with the "decentralization" from 6 developers to two? Anyone who claims that there is a urgency to increasing the block size is just spreading misinformation.

---

---

As far as I've seen Krona Rev gave you the requested "logical argument".

Dynamic resizing is probably a better solution. As a category, it's a much more sophisticated alternative, and it sticks to free market principles instead of the central planning method (increase schedules).

There is more than one proposal for dynamic resizing, just as there is with scheduled hard limits. Check them out. You're likely to get left behind in this debate if you don't, I expect it will move on from XT vs Core, and the design of the dynamic resizing system will be the point of contention.

this is such a bullshit! the stability of bitcoin comes from the trust on the fact that the game won't change! if they change one rule who can trust them to not change others? maybe tomorrow some smartass will consider to increase the number of coins or whatever...

You do realize that democratic voting capabilities that are transparent and can be seen via the Bitcoin blockchain have been available for quite a long time with the Counterparty protocol?

Was this implemented so all could have a vote within a certain time frame, miners, users et all? Nope. One of the major utilities for Bitcoin blockchain use was completely ignored.

Whichever proposals were voted for that gained a majority would have been clear to see and transparent, so everyone would have been able to move forward at least knowing this was a democratic decision, not a decision made by the few for the many.

I find it more than a bit insulting that a users opinion is considered close to worthless bearing in mind we pump that fiat in there and more often than not keep it there, or use it within the Bitcoin economy to buy things, thus helping it expand.

A democratic decision was possible, yet ignored.

I have no interest in XT sorry. CORE with block size increase is welcomed.

Try to create your new altcoin not to hijack bitcoin.

"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver

yeah because is very easy for anyone to run a full node with some tera disk space especcialy in developing world. This scam BitcoinXT has created from banks to serve banks and nothing more.

XT is a Scam, do not believe these developers

Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?



Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.

What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.

XT isn't the problem.  Blockstream is.

Let's ask the obvious questions:

Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?  
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?

More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money?  How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?

Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit?  Is that a coincidence ?  

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

the plot thickens   :o

I though Core didn't want bigger blocks and wanted to keep it to 1MB forever...

if core increase blocksize ( I couldn't care less how they do it ) XT can go fuck itself.

yes well pro xt want everyone to believe the fight is about blocksize  ::)

i'm switching camps, i am now a Anti-XTers

Those Anti-XTers aren't the one hurting bitcoin. It's the ignorance of the core developers that hurt bitcoin more than anything else. How difficult can it be to prepare a hard-fork roadmap for BTC, add BIP 101, create a hard-fork branch on github to give developers a chance to contribute to this badly needed fork so we only need one for the next couple of years. From there schedule the fork and just do it.

If the core developers wouldn't be scared like little kids from doing this hard-fork we wouldn't need no BitcoinXT.

I do not against raising the blocksize, but I strongly against any kind of decision that is not done through consensus-building, making it a competitive debate instead of cooperative discussion

Consensus Decision Making is what bitcoin needed

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158988

I totally agree but unfortunately those times are gone. Today we live in a world (market) controlled by the so called "bitcoin elite" meeting at secret locations for their round table ala Bilderberg to decide on "the future of bitcoin" and the consensus comes from the market makers, manufacturers and the large mining pools / farms. The days where the "miners" had a say are sadly over.

Welcome to bitcoin politics.  You're starting to see the truth.  Give it time and full clarity will likely result.

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

It's nothing new really and just like any other industry.. "money grabbing whores" pretty much sums it up. It's kinda disgusting to see how the so called elite is no different to the bankers and industrials we're apparently trying to get away from with our "alternative and decentralized solutions".

Those in control of core won't do it despite the fact that everyone wants it.  It would ruin their plans for
making lots of money with Blockstream.  The writing is finally on the wall.

I do not think that the split in two in which one side has 75% and the other 25% is dangerous at all. If the 75% prevails, it is just natural as it has the numbers by its side. If the 25% side prevails, it is just because it would be awesome to prevail in such minority!.

I don't think the third case "they both will be destroyed" would happen. And, if that happens, probably other coin (litecoin?) might take its place.

What I think: Most people will remain waiting, without adopting XT... and will adopt XT progressively if they see a real problem with the blocks and a lack of solutions by Core.

I am more with core, but are also happy that XT is there as an alternative if things are not solved. It is kind of a lifeboat with the potential to become a ship if the actual ship wrecks.

I keep reading a lot of people saying that " if Core would raise block limit, they would say fuck you to XT ". There's the rub. They won't. The question that everyone should be asking is why?  Could it be because more than 2 or 3 of them also work for a company that is counting on lower blocksize as their business model?       I'm just sayin!

when faced with a fork in the road, take the third path, we're going to need ANOTHER FORK!   8)

No one and that's the point but I doubt a kick the can down the road solution from Core would be enough for most XT proponent to let XT in the dust.

He is still doing this and moreover, he is doing thins without consensus.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159020.msg12211930#msg12211930

i will... i just want a kick the can down the road solution NOW and the blockstream / sidechains ultimate solution next year.

Well it's true. If the core developers were to add BIP 101 (which they should and they know) then there is no reason to consent to BitcoinXT. Also don't forget that moving to BitcoinXT would put BTC in control of a new group of people since they would have control over the repository, pull requests and so on. Do you want that? I don't. If we go down that route we might as well throw BTC in the bin and pick an altcoin to support instead of BTC. There is no need for "new", "old" works fine the core just needs updating to support BTC's growth which is just part of BTC's evolution.

Bottom line is that the core developers need to stop twisting their finger in their nostrils and just freaking do some work and do it right.

blacklisting of IPs by nodes isnt the same thing as blacklisting of coins.
Its not a threat to fungibility. 

Again, given the two choices, I'd rather take my chances with Mike's fork
than be subservient to Blockstream and their plans to keep the 1mb in
place forever.

You were not talking about "blacklisting of coins" explicitly, but "questionable activities" in general. And my reply was that he is still doing it.

That's your personal opinion. I understand. FWIW mentioning, I am still neutral.

Every thread I see on this topic is looking like FUD. May not be what people are reaching for but the idea is being pushed to hard to not look like a agenda driven tactic.

Why not create a new coin?
Why the need for IP tracking?

The only positive I see is bigger blocks and thats a horrible thing to chase when you look at all the other changes.
Bitcoin to me is about non regulation and once you start building a database its over. Its no longer relevant for me to use if that day comes.

I think the exact opposite. XT and its supporters are harming Bitcoin generally. We definitely don't need 8 mb block size now. Why do we need to raise it to 8 times suddenly? That system would be open for spam attacks. It does bad for Bitcoin than good.

because we want bitcoin to succeed


fud

miners are still free to choose which transactions too include in a block.
no one forces them to put spam transactions in there.

That doesn't effect blockchain. We have faced serious Bitcoin Core syncing problems before. Dust spam attacks shouldn't be that easy. Imagine with 8 MB block size how much spam attack we get.

what do sync issues have to do with block size?

you obviously have no idea what you are talking about...

and well... its easy to calculate how "much spam attack" we can get with 8mb. just imagine how expansive a 1tb drive is today and how long it takes to get filled... really a big problem ;)

You want bitcoin to succeed by dividing it,thats a very interesting concept.

Thats the point about FUD,depending how the perception goes you see fact or you see fud. But do you see "Stay Core" posts popping up left and right? Agenda driven XT can
keep blasting the forums or it can calm down and expalin itself.

i want bitcoin to succeed by making it usable by the masses. not just a few people. thats satoshis vision and thats why i come to bitcoin in the first place.

we dont need an elitist currency only usable by 0.0001% of world population

That's a good point. But we can't just go with a limit with uncertain possibility. Its better to wait sometime for a better solution than to implement something with uncertain possibility which may or may not cause problems.

Any solution will have uncertain possibilities don't fool yourself. There is a time we must have the balls to move forward.

The other part was it to be permissionless, trustless and apolitical. Don't leave that part out, if you actually respect Satoshi's idea. If you're going to be selective about the founding principles, you should look up in the dictionary what the definition of the word "principle" is, as applied to this context.

how long do you want to wait?

it takes much time to roll out such a change.

forecasts say that in maybe a year the current blocksize limit is hit
and btw: the blocksize limit is discussed for more than a year: imho ANY technical argument has been told and analyzed; its only politic, fud and fear now.

i do. thats why i just wait what miners do.
what is in the blockchain or not is THEIR decision... like it or not.
what gets downloaded on your pc is YOUR decision by using the respective client.

no one is forced and anybody can do what HE wants.

i do respect that!

we'll see what the economy does in the end. personal freedom and self-responsibility at its best ;)

OP basically makes the same argument the Anti-XTers do, only in reverse.  There is a legitimate split of opinion here.  It is a highly charged issue that involves BOTH technical and use/control issues.

The OP is engaging in the same dramatic politics as some of the Anti-XTers.  It is happening on both sides.

To simplify....

The XTers are arguing that their way is best, and they believe so strongly in it that they are willing to do anything to make it happen. This is evidenced by the fact that they HAVE done it - they have started the process, and they most likely do/will have the backing of the Exchanges/majority miners, and 75% will be achieved, and XT will happen.  I think everyone is aware that this is probably a much greater than 50% chance of happening.

The Anti-XTers are arguing that their way is best, and they believe so strongly in it that they are willing to do anything to make it happen. This is evidenced by the fact that they ARE doing it - they are finding a very solid base of people/groups that are rallying to the defense of Core, and they are clearly setting the stage to launch a counter-offensive in order to protect Core if the Hardfork occurs.  I think everyone is aware that this is probably at least a 50% chance of this happening, and even if it goes into a semi-dormancy, it could easily stage a comeback within 6 months or so as Degree of Diffculty in Mining subsequently recedes... and Core takes on an "underground" alt-original-bitcoin status.  And just to be clear - it could easily become established with greater chance than other Alt coins - because their is emotional attachment and loyalty on a pretty deep level to Core.

So I think that BOTH sides better start sipping from the Reality Koolaid and try and work out a compromise - because BOTH sides are trying the same tricks, waging the same warfare, and clearly indicating they are serious and willing to go over the edge of the cliff to get what they want.  The main objections to a compromise as I see it are that (A) XT Players think they have the upper hand and are stubbornly refusing to budge.  (B) Ant-XTers think they have the moral high ground and are stubbornly refusing to budge. But in reality BOTH have some valid points - but they haven't been able to find time out of their busy schedule of politicking for their own side - to actually try and negotiate.

I personally am simply not taking it for granted that all is going to work out well.

Interesting idea. Perhaps I agree.

Adam Back, the Godfather of Bitcoin and boss of Blockstream, proposed an idea called 'extension blocks' which would make the 1mb cap more or less moot.

NMF not enough people are capable of appreciating the elegance of such a brilliant kludge.

The problem is you kids are too young to remember when extended RAM made the 640k (1MiB for all you pedants) limit moot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memory).

You want a big, showy, capital-E Event to make Bitcoin moon, and you rich overnight.

Too bad XT is getting #rekt, and you will lose everything should you be courageous enough to accept XTcoins.   :D

very good example...

it was horrible dealing with EMM386.EXE/HIMEM.SYS under dos to deal with it (=extended blocks).
luckily modern systems dont have this problem any more and can address the whole memory (=bigger blocks).

Fellow above nailed it.

Bigger blocks = fine. Hostile takeover = wrong.

I consider the blockstream devs stonewalling of any reasonable increase proposal to be a hostile takeover.

They're already in charge.  ::)

offering another software and hoping miners will use it is not a hostile takeover.
nobody is forced to do anything

in case of a fork i will own and keep btc and btcxt.

Hostile takeover in the bitcoin reality is probably really unlikely to happen. People need to agree and then accept changes and therefore change fork and upgrade core protocol.
This is impossible with small numbers. It is so hard to find unbiased and good arguments to support XT with every changes they propose that XT takeover is impossible.

Just like Gavin and Mike, you are misleading the public.

In reality, "coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence" has been provided in spades.


https://i.imgur.com/GsAmzcd.png (https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633028070060912640)

The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin. I fixed that for you. ;)

Bigger block size =/= BitcoinXT

Stop cheap manipulation.

icebreaker, just to be clear on your position, are you advocating leaving the 1mb in place ?

Since when THE MAJORITY is harming Bitcoin? Stop saying this SHIT; at least until the XT miners/nodes count reach a no-miserable value. PS: that will never happen.  :-*

This thread (as well) should be moved into the correct subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

That said, I don't see any logical connection why being against a particular Altcoin could harm Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

I fully agree, Theymos is taking an odd position. Being inconsistent like this harms his reputation, and doesn't help the issue he favours, as the XT threads he leaves in Discussion are attracting more attention this way.

Even though it's his forum and he can do as he likes, and that's my overriding attitude to the issue, I really wish it wasn't like this. Can't have it all I suppose.

Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  If BIP101 (whether through XT, Core or some other implementation) gains 75% of hash power support, it will become the longest chain and thus it will empirically be "Bitcoin."  The other chain--assuming it doesn't die very quickly--would IMO become largely irrelevant.    

https://i.imgur.com/QyQ1N5J.jpg

i should talk about...

unless you can sure that we could have enough spaces for blockchain, in which majority of the full node users could afford it.

Amazing, so if I create DelekCoin using the same blockchain than Bitcoin but processing transactions like: Inputs are outputs, satoshis value are multiplied by 3.1415962 and every address starting with 1DELEK gets all fees from every transaction it will be part of Bitcoin?, AMAZING. I will do that. Ooooppss, but I will not have consensus  :( Bingo, that's what is happening with altcoin-Bitcoin XT!!!!!!!!!

Yes, until such time as the network experiences Actual Congestion^® (competitive fees failing to properly prioritize their transactions).

The 'stress tests' were supposed to cause that, but backfired spectacularly as consequent improvements (EG RBF) to nodes/pools/wallets/miners strengthened the network.

That's what happens when you attack an antifragile system.  When (and only when) faced with adversity, Bitcoin gains in resiliency.   8)

Please note XT displays no such antifragile attributes, and is stagnating/shrinking under the weight of revelations about its suspiciously hidden anti-Tor/privacy invading/blacklisting/centralized "final call" features.

https://i.imgur.com/iOaK44m.png

I see two problems with your proposal:

(1) your rules are nonsensical and thus you won't get enough hash power support to ever make your chain the longest;

(2) you are proposing transactions that are clearly invalid (cf. Satoshi white paper)

Exactly the same AS BITCOIN XT. Nice, you finally understood what's happening.

I think what you mean is "it's easy to favor the way it's always been!"

Don't turn this around on those that are holding onto "the original"...that's a shitty move, man.

This is not the first time technology has evolved. People in the world can still use a tape deck to listen to music, most of the world just doesn't cater to it anymore. So if people want to cling to the original, wait their turn for transactions to process (if that's what happens), what's the harm to those that have moved on?

Those that support Core don't need facts to prove it works, because it already works. XT supporters have the burden of convincing everyone else that change is needed and change will be good. And guess what, they're doing it...they ARE convincing people.

It's not the same as XT (BIP101) at all.  

(1) the block size limit increase is only activated if 75% of the hash power shows their support (and thus it will become the longest chain);

(2) BIP101 makes no change to the definition of a valid transaction.

Just to be clear, the original design of Bitcoin as specified by the White Paper (see below) made no mention of a block size limit.  Nodes were to compile valid transactions into blocks and, when they found a valid proof-of-work, to publish their block solutions.  Other nodes showed their acceptance of the block by extending it (mining on top of it).

https://i.imgur.com/Xn4xFuv.png

BIP101 (XT) is just a mechanism to allow miners to show their acceptance of larger blocks.  

XT is NOT THE SAME AS BIP101 or bigger blocks. Stop saying that, PRO-XT fans.
XT is a FUCKING FORK. Period.

BIP101 should be implemented on Satoshis client, there's no other way.

The popular support that XT is receiving might pressure Core to also integrate BIP101.  I think that would be a positive outcome.  


XT is presently the only implementation of the Bitcoin protocol that implements BIP101.  

Readers should note that there is a "plain vanilla" XT/BIP101 that is exactly Core + BIP101.  The regular XT version de-prioritizes nodes that connect through TOR to supposedly improve robustness to denial-of-service attacks.


XT is a fork of Core's code base--agreed.  If BIP101 is activated, the Blockchain will also fork--agreed.  The BIP101 fork will become the longest and thus become Bitcoin (the other fork will quickly die IMO).  

Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.'

Like Frap.doc, he's decided to double down and picked XT as the hill on which he wishes to die.

Good.  I told both of them XT would be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell, and that's what happened (20MB blocks were Gavin's Baratheon's opening gambit disastrous Battle of the Blackwater).

I also told Frap.doc "he'll be buried soon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12159863#msg12159863)" and that's also exactly what happened:


After months of Frap.doc calling me "greedy" (despite the fact I'm the only one who thinks he deserves to keep his LeBron coins), revenge is a dish best served iCE cold:

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

And?  Care to elaborate on why the power to stop XT relatively dead in its tracks (which this most likely would do) isn't being used?  Seems like you have the gun and don't want to use it. 

Lots of games going on.

No I didn't.  The longest chain composed exclusively of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  Read the last full sentence in the image below: "Nodes always consider the longest chain as the correct one and will keep working on extending it."

https://i.imgur.com/Xn4xFuv.png

There is no mention of a block size limit in the Bitcoin white paper. 

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you re-phrase it?

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

The core developers did not start this rift. Mike Hearn did by using his commit access to publish Bitcoin XT with a trigger threshold of only 75%. Even Charlie Lee feels Bitcoin XT is "dangerous and irresponsible" see the reddit post (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/).

After a week of publicity xtnodes.com (http://www.xtnodes.com/) shows nodes running XT have leveled off at just less than 900 out of 6500. Only slush's pool has mined a total of three blocks using XT.

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

Lighten up Francis!   ;D

Let us have our fun with the Gavinistas (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.msg12186773#msg12186773), while it lasts.

Letting the XT vermin infest Discussion not only makes for productive lolcows, it also belies their histrionic claims of "censorship" and threats of Streisand Effect.

Don't expect the exact same rules here as on /r/.  Thermos is doing an excellent job of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.

thanks icebreaker for clarifying your position.  

I think waiting until actual congestion occurs
would be foolish and I think you are in the minority
as most people seem to want bigger blocks.

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

Maybe.  I'm pretty sure the other members of Core would object on the grounds of it being a "consensus breaking change" (even if it is only optional).  Perhaps it's worthwhile to attempt to bring some attention to this idea and see what happens. 

Spock says that it seems logical.

I think this really is what a lot of people on the fringes are wanting to know, and feeling left in the dark as to what is really going on.  Because it seems like such a easy solution to which there really is general consensus.  I think this is why so many people are getting pissed off.  If Core has an easy solution to end the war, then why not just get it over with.  Or is there more to it, in which case someone needs to come clean.

And silly childlike behavior like a few lines up from Icebreaker really does harm the overall cryptocurrency reputation.  People that aren't coders will always feela little bit of a need to trust those tecnologist that can make the changes.  Such immature Sh!tty "Gotcha" behavior sure isn't giving anyone confidence.

Anyone can easily make a longer chain, were validity not an issue.   ::)

The "last full sentence in the image below" never mentions (the obviously implied) constraint of (prerequisite) validity to "the longest chain."

The Holy Whitepaper is a red herring here.  There are many things in the spec/implementation (speclementation?) which the brief/terse whitepaper does not mention.  Theory != practice.

probably the coding changes are minimal but obviously needs testing and really should be shepherded by someone with credentials like Jeff or Gavin so that the community can get behind it.

As I've been screaming about for the last 24 hours, do not expect anyone from Blockstream to support this.

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

The market says it's the pro XT crowd hurting BTC. The price dropped (flash crash) right after the first XT block was mined.  :'(

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

Neither.  Go read Jeffs BIP100 white paper.  I did earlier tonight and I'm glad I did.  I can fully support a proposal such as that - it's reasonable, and I think a very good solution to the block size issue, especially from the miners' perspective in being able to majority control the block size in a dynamic fashion.

This gets us to where we need to be, with Core, and without all the crap baggage that comes along with XT.  And, it doesn't go anywhere near the outrageous 8gb potential block size which will certainly aid centralization. 

This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over.

Via the Peter Principle, Gavin reached his level of incompetence when he stopped writing code and started mingling with TPTB in smoke filled back rooms at the CIA, Pentagon, A16's SandHillRoad HQ, etc.

He's old and busted.  Blockstream is the new hotness.  Upward and outward!

https://i.imgur.com/q6jPWqb.png

XT is open source.  How could they possibly have "complete control of Bitcoin"?  Fork the code, do what you like.  Get consensus and your fork is the new client. 

If they get consensus, the CONSENSUS has the control.  As it always does.

You dont need consensus for forking a wallet client. So really this " control of the bitcoin network" is just a bullshit someone spit out because they're lack of rational argument.

Not at all. Mike and Gavin just showed how trivial it is to just fork the code and throw it in the wild if one does not agree with the actual implementation. If Mike and Gavin did it, than anybody can even if XT succeeds.

Yup .. Im gonna fork XT with no block size limit at all, instead it will penalize miner centralization. Let economic incentic do the governing. Satoshi never wanted to have block size limit. It was a quick fix to spam attacks. However spam attack isnt a problem anymore.

It's already done:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Pffft!  Yes, of course you are.  I think I hear you mom calling out that dinner is ready.  You can hack it out when you get back to your bedroom.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option. :)

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.

It would be better if it was a developer or ideally a group of developers, since it would gather more support that way. But you are right anyone can just copy it and rename it. lol :)

ROFLMAO @ bitcoin101

you guys clearly have not read 1984, and so the irony is so much more delicious. I thoroughly approve of the new nickname for XT, room 101 is the name for a fictional torture chamber. Nice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four

You should all go to bitcoin101 and stay there.

Imagine a future where we have all sorts of competing implementations with purposely-deceptive names:

1. "Bitcoin Core"  [implies that it's the core of Bitcoin]

2. "Standard Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's that standard version]

3. "Real Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's the "real" bitcoin]

4. "Super Fun Time Bitcoin" [just for the lolz]

Here it's named Satoshi + BIP101:0.11.0/

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Satoshi%20+%20BIP101:0.11.0/

Imagining deliberately deceptive things is your forte Peter, I would expect nothing less.

Now respect what I told you, do not solicit my discussion again

This is a public forum.  I was using your comment about nicknames as a launching point for the idea that we could see multiple versions of Bitcoin with names chosen to make them sound "official."

Feel free to put me on ignore if you prefer. 

Unless you can provide honest arguments (which of course cannot win a debate that respects reality as well as the wishes of it's participants), then you're simply burning the reputation of your account. But then again Peter, you have been pretty quiet since I called you out first of all.

Stop talking to me you appalling specimen

What? Bigger blocks than needed means blockchain open for spam attacks. It's obviously related to sync issues, like we had in early August. You obviously have no idea what we have faced this summer. If your holiday is over, read some Bitcoin news.

XT fails because if every IP using it is blacklisted, it would be dead.
XT is like terrorism against Bitcoin and the community.

Educate yourself.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.msg12221920#msg12221920

There is no blacklisting.  You've been lied to.  Go read the code directly, or have someone you trust check it for you. 

Here's the actual reality:

- All nodes have connection limits - they can't connect to each and every other node in the world. The default limit for popular nodes is 125.
- That limit is normally only reached if someone out there is trying to attack you with a denial of service attack. My node runs at about 30 connections, all day, every day.
- At present, when the limit is reached, no new nodes can connect. If you're filled with attackers, that's bad for Bitcoin.

All of the above is the way it works in Core, right now.  Here's what XT adds, intended to improve this situation:

- XT has a list of TOR exit nodes, and can read an updated list of TOR exit nodes.
- ONLY when the connection limit is reached, instead of blindly blocking new connections, XT will select a TOR exit node to disconnect to allow the new plain connection.
- When the DOS attack is over, those connections will once again be accepted.

There's a lot of people that stand behind the idea of larger bitcoin blocks but would rather avoid Mike Hearn's and Gavin Andresen's implementation.

The Chinese pools in specific, support 8Mb blocks but don't trust Mike hearn. Mike has made multiple statements that have put him in a bad position in their eyes. Among other things, he implied that bitcoin XT could start ignoring the longest chain to avoid the veto od the Chinese miners. "We'll have to carry on without them" in his own words.

Yeah I don't get this whole XT debate. I want larger blocks as well, but I'm nkt sure I want XT. I'd prefer it if we could just implement larger blocks in core and be done with it, this whole discussion is threatening Bitcoin.

Both automatic download of TOR exit nodes and "IP prioritizing" are bad IMHO. They do more harm than good.

Then put your voice behind BIP100:

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

This extends the block size in core, making it a dynamic variable that can be voted on by the miners and pools to adjust up and down as market pressures dictate.  It's the most solid proposal I've seen to date, and it addresses the core issue at hand, without all the other extra stuff within BIP101/XT that is making it distasteful.

During an attack, when your connection limit is reached, someone is getting blocked.  You can either block a new clearnet connection, or you can let it in and disconnect a TOR exit node.

You can always disable this behavior via the -disableiprio option if you like.

That's misleading.

The option you refer to prevents people using Tor to DOS attack your node. But it cannot prevent your node being blocked from connecting to the XT network by others who do not disable the feature.

This is not a problem on the Bitcoin network.

It isn't misleading at all. If you don't like that DOS protection, don't run it.  Your position implies that you want to deny others the option to us that DOS protection. 

I'm sure there are better ways to protect from DOS attacks that cannot be so easily subverted against their advertised purpose. Your position implies you don't mind if crude DOS protection sacrifices reliable connection to the Tor network. You're wrong.

Yes, you are always 'sure that there are better ways' for everything. That's your discussion style. It's unmasked alreaday.

Every one of them could spinoff 
other competitors. Problem solved  ;)