|
Title: .... Post by: turtlehurricane on August 22, 2015, 02:13:59 PM ...
Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: zebedee on August 22, 2015, 02:16:44 PM Sorry, they spent your millions on hookers and blow. But they thank you for your consideration.
Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: adamstgBit on August 22, 2015, 02:17:39 PM the fundamental threat to bitcoin is having 1.5MB worht of TX every 10mins, and only being able to clear 1MB, creating a backlog of 1MB every 20mins.
XT is a solution to this problem i wish there was a less drastic alternative, but there isn't. Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: balu2 on August 22, 2015, 02:31:39 PM the fundamental threat to bitcoin is having 1.5MB worht of TX every 10mins, and only being able to clear 1MB, creating a backlog of 1MB every 20mins. XT is a solution to this problem i wish there was a less drastic alternative, but there isn't. You still don't get that txs aren't like stupid shit clogging a pipe. If blocks are full fees rise and the first thing to go off chain is spam and micro-gambling. If fees are way too high (they won't be cuz of free market effects - fees will be exactly what people are ready to pay to use btc instead of a substitute) people would use alts to transact. So your backlog story will NEVER happen. This backlog-nonsense is pro-Gavincoin fearmongering and a really, really stupid argument. Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: adamstgBit on August 22, 2015, 02:38:13 PM the fundamental threat to bitcoin is having 1.5MB worht of TX every 10mins, and only being able to clear 1MB, creating a backlog of 1MB every 20mins. XT is a solution to this problem i wish there was a less drastic alternative, but there isn't. You still don't get that txs aren't like stupid shit clogging a pipe. If blocks are full fees rise and the first thing to go off chain is spam and micro-gambling. If fees are way too high (they won't be cuz of free market effects - fees will be exactly what people are ready to pay to use btc instead of a substitute) people would use alts to transact. So your backlog story will NEVER happen. This backlog-nonsense is pro-Gavincoin fearmongering. ok your right there wont be a backlog because no one will use bitcoin to do TX because its become to expensive. Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: balu2 on August 22, 2015, 03:12:06 PM the fundamental threat to bitcoin is having 1.5MB worht of TX every 10mins, and only being able to clear 1MB, creating a backlog of 1MB every 20mins. XT is a solution to this problem i wish there was a less drastic alternative, but there isn't. You still don't get that txs aren't like stupid shit clogging a pipe. If blocks are full fees rise and the first thing to go off chain is spam and micro-gambling. If fees are way too high (they won't be cuz of free market effects - fees will be exactly what people are ready to pay to use btc instead of a substitute) people would use alts to transact. So your backlog story will NEVER happen. This backlog-nonsense is pro-Gavincoin fearmongering. ok your right there wont be a backlog because no one will use bitcoin to do TX because its become to expensive. your talk is shallow Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: hasmukhrawal on August 22, 2015, 03:16:01 PM Yes.but they will come back soon with the new developement.
After XT everyone will start using only XT Title: Re: Why is the Bitcoin foundation silent on XT? Post by: maokoto on August 22, 2015, 03:34:33 PM They were given millions of dollars to protect Bitcoin. Bitcoin xt is a fundamental threat to bitcoin and they are silent, what gives?! Perhaps XT is a bad move as they move away from consensus too early. But I do not think it would harm Bitcoin. This will make core developers more aware, and reconsider if a solution is needed now or something needs to change. Perhaps it just needs to stay the same, but they will take a second look. Worst case scenario would be that (1) the blocksize would become really a problem, (2) core developers did not solve it, and (3) there were no alternative solution. (1) Is not likely to happen early, due to fees (as balu says) (2) if (1) happens, is highly unlikely that core developers do not solve it (3) Even if it happens, we have XT. So I do not think the situation is a threat really. |