Bitcoin Forum

In the whole debate of XT vs bitcoin core, many times the statement is made, that the blocksize should be increased but with bitcoin core. Or otherwise if XT succeeds then the bitcoin core project would then stop. This is then told as if it is a downside. For me it would be a big plus if the bitcoin core project would die out.

And here is why:

• The structure of the bitcoin core project is consensus driven to a point that it simply makes no sense. In the current structure every commiter can mark a change as "controversial" - with that it will not be implemented. Mike Hearn said that they discussed the topic of increasing block size for 3 years without coming to a solution. For me that is just nonsense. if the current structure is not able to come to a solution about a very obvious question (of course you need to increase block size at a certain point in time) then you have to abandon it. I think a consensus driven culture to the point that EVERY commiter has a defacto veto is very naive. Large communities are not run by consensus, but by majority vote. In existing democracies you never get close to even 90% of the voters. Important decisions are made all the time with 51% approval.  
• Usually open source projects are managed in a way that there is one "chief" maintainer (think of him as the boss) who is giving direction and the others follow than this vision. Take Linux for example Linus torwald clearly steered Linux more in the direction he wanted to have it than all the others together. This is not bad actually but healthy. If one has a vision of fire and the other has a vision of ice you can not average that. In technical aspects it makes in many cases absolutely no sense to meet "half way" because thats not feasible - not funtioning. In fact some of the worst decisions in political systems were made because of making consensus were one shouldn't have made it just its technically not feasible.
• Very unappealing about the new programmers at bitcoin core is that they simply do not want to consent to the unavoidable is simply because the are with blockstream and got 21 Mio of Venture cap. The slower the bitcoin network the better for their solution blockstream. So in other words they exploit a flaw in the culture of bitcoin core (to consensus driven) to achieve personal gains.
  
• Approxmately 75% of the users are in favor of an increase in blocksize. So another really ugly quesition for bitcoin core arises with these 21 mio $. This sum has been apparantly enough for the new programmers in Bitcoin core to ignore the wishes of the absolute majority of the users. The users are bitcoin! Even before the programmers or the nodes, without users there is no point in an payment solution.
  

So in this way XT is much more than just an increase in blocksize, but an long needed reform of culture of bitcoin core project. Bitcoin XT wants to achieve 3 things (according to website):

• making bitcoin scalable
• The principle that users matter, not only programmers
• pragmatic community

So maybe this post helps some to see clearer why its true that mike hearn and gavin want to establish a development team which is more  hierarchically organized but why this is not bad but needed. And by the way: the consesus vote of 5 programmers from which 3 have been strait out bought by a company is not democracy at all...

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.

But every person with committer access, can make some noise in the community get some people behind (you can always some few people behind anything) and then mark a change as controversial. With a change marked controversiol it will not be applied. That's how it is now...

I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.

Yeah you know what: the raftsmen were very decentralized too - and due to techical evolution they are long gone.
Beeing "decentralized" does not mean that you can stop to evolve and to become better over time....

I agree. Ultimately, the market should decide what implementation it wants to uses that fit best its needs. If a group a developers fail to deliver something that will reach a real consensus, the market should be free to opt out. It adds a lot more resilience to the whole system.

But right now we are not ready for XT, I mean that this software is made in a hurry and no one knows what Gavin is hiding behind his code. And it will also make Bitcoin centralized.

I agree but if people can change the bitcoin core, then its not decentralized anymore. As you said 3 of 5 bitcoin core developers are bought out from a company , and they will do what the company tells them to. They will change the bitcoin core so the company benefits and not the bitcoin community. We should remove any right to change or modify the bitcoin protocol from one or more people.

While I'd agree with some of the points made (particularly the principle that users matter, not only programmers), I can't help but think the overall conclusion is a little too simplistic.  All proposals on how to run the network should be weighed on their pros and cons.  It's not really fair to paint the picture that everything about Core is a negative.  That's no better than what some are saying about XT.  Neither proposal "needs to die" and both have their potential drawbacks, but the network will ultimately decide which chain to follow.  But at the risk of complicating matters further, the two proposals we currently have aren't the only possible outcomes.

A fairer and more neutral appraisal of the situation is that certain developers have strong ideological differences, which is what lead to the alternative client being made.  There's no real "right" or "wrong" way to run a development team and one isn't somehow inherently "better" than the other, but if a group of developers can't agree, there's nothing wrong with said team splitting into separate camps and submitting their own proposals on how the network should be run.  That's precisely what happened here and there's nothing wrong with that.  It wouldn't matter if there are two separate development teams or twenty and it also wouldn't matter if some teams resembled a dictatorship while others looked like a hippy commune.  The more options we have, the easier it should be to reach a compromise.  The only thing that really matters is the users securing the blockchain can run the code they agree with and the longest chain decides the outcome.  

So forget the personalities involved.  Forget what the names of the clients are.  Forget how the development teams are organised.  We're placing too much emphasis on that.  Focus instead on which proposal would result in what you believe is the best outcome for Bitcoin.  If you're somewhere in the middle and don't agree with either proposal, either get coding, or get in contact with someone who can code and get them to create a proposal you do agree with.  

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

I agree with many things you say and i feel that its to much about personalities either. What i totally disagree is that we are placing to much emphasis on how the team is organized. For me that is one of the most underdiscussed topics at all. You can NOT run (sportsteam, company, whatever project) with a 100% consensus- culture. That is a recipe for disaster.

You can certainly try to run with 100% consensus, but clearly all it leads to is a split when someone does eventually disagree.  Such a split isn't a disaster (despite how the community seem to be reacting to it).  It just means we now get a choice we wouldn't have otherwise had.  

If devteam "A" have a group leader who makes all the decisions, we only get one client.

If devteam "A" have 100% consensus and all the devs agree, we only get one client.

If devteam "A" have 100% consensus but can't all agree, we get devteam "B" and two clients.

So in effect, a split can be a good thing, which is what happened here.  Now we have a choice.  Choice is good (although apparently controversial).  That's why it doesn't matter how development teams are organised.  The important thing is that the proposal gets created and we get to choose which code to run.  It's possible that the two current proposals we have don't cover the myriad of views expressed on this issue, so we may need a few more options to choose from.

Christ, this post is beautiful. <3


Btw, running Satoshi 0.11.0, XT can cry in the corner, we don't care.

This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies:

https://i.imgur.com/P1LTrdV.png


Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

I agree needs stability and more centralization. People will be satisfied and only increase the number of users :)

I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT.

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Agreed!  I'd like to see the Core Team create a branch that includes BIP101; let their user base decide which to run.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

we are clearly looking at two completely different things.

http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/2012714_f260.jpg

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes we do.

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

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

• during some peak times
• during a spam attack/stress test

http://imgur.com/r8sYgfu
The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems

its not a problem that there are problems because the problems only happen some of the time, of course the problem will become bigger problems in a few months but thats not a problem!

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7038/6904407315_55fa93c914_b.jpg

I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.  For example, if the average block size continues to grow at its historical rate, then we will bump into the limit right around the earliest activation date for BIP101:

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

In my opinion, a credible plan to increase the block size limit was urgent several months ago.  

Because:

• 8 MB blocks might not be enough during future peak times
• 8 MB blocks are not enough to handle a stress test either

Essentially, almost nothing will be resolved. Learn the definition of the word urgent. Having a problem constantly would result in this being a urgent change, which it is not.

---

---

By using a estimate of the future growth pattern? This is not evidence and will most likely be wrong.

Yes, a sustainable one was. A doubling every two years is not sustainable.

---

---

Update:
You're expecting this to happen again. We shall see.

Quite a display of logic you got there.

Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.

By me core don't need to die. It is really well handled. They will adapt changes slower than other clients, but they will :)

I just posted the current front page of Blockchain.  How's that misinformation?

If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already,
since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks.  In addition,
it takes a long time to roll out the block increase.  Thankfully its already
started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people
who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly.

Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is
an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality.

If this is the way every bitcoin changes in the future will be held and 'proposed' with major war between everyone. I don't know if bitcoin has bright future ahead.
In the beginning of bitcoin there was only one person who shaped everything, gave it form. Now we have many people screaming different things and we CAN'T decide anything.
Imagine the future when much more serious change will be needed. Bitcoin does not need any external enemies - it will kill itself.

Doubtful.  It doesn't matter what drama is going on in the community, the network itself doesn't care.  It will continue to spit out new blocks roughly every 10 minutes.  This will be the case whether the fork happens or not.  As usual, people just need to chill out and have a little faith.  One way or another, we'll have an answer to this little quarrel at some point and the network will keep churning out blocks regardless.

The so-called “Lightning network”
that is being pushed as an
alternative to Satoshi’s design does
not exist. The paper describing it
was only published earlier this year.
If implemented, it would represent a
vast departure from the Bitcoin we
all know and love. To pick just one
difference amongst many, Bitcoin
addresses wouldn’t work. What
they’d be replaced with has not been
worked out (because nobody knows).
There are many other surprising
gotchas, which I published an article
about. It’s deeply unclear that
whatever is finally produced would
be better than the Bitcoin we have
now.

Sure you can enjoy your own block.
If the XT really gain more than 75% support, then it is the really bitcoin.
You just run an altercoin.
bitcoin is not control by anyone. people have the freedom to support XT or against it. 
100% consensus is ridiculous.

Besides bigger blocks that we can debate are needed, what is XT on about?
I trust core more than I will ever trust a group that has already attempte shady tactics. Or keeps spreading gospel that few are interested in.
Why follow a team that has already manipulated its follwers with a backdoor?

I don't think core should be dissolved.  All the members have a ton of experience.  I do think there needs to be a massive overhaul though.  Their current model of leadership is broken IMO.

If Bitcoin Core is dead, All remaining coins are Altcoins including Bitcoin XT and there is no value for them (because all altcoins valued with BTC Price).

Bitcoin Core just need easier modification path with a miner vote system. Switching to XT is definitely not the answer.

Core need to develop an interface with suggested modification, open a debate and then vote Y/N with a signed script from miners/pool with their hashrate. If the vote% is over a certain amount for 1 month then everyone jump.

Maybe in a way that take power away from the minority but.. meh. Just a way to go at it i guess.

You seem to have been spreading "size is not increasing because of BlockStream." Why? What about Gavin's & Mike's XT development and implementing BIP 101 way before it got consensus? This is very biased or is misinformed or is disinformation/FUD. By comparing your previous posts and behavior, this seems lot like your are misinformed or you are spreading misinformation. No offence.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance.

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Well I don't agree on BIP 101 becoming the main client. There are other good implementations from other BIPs, so why not get a mixture of them?


Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

Yes I have various sources that bring links between the core developers and BlockStream

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2moq3o/theres_been_a_lot_of_talk_lately_of_blockstream/?ref=search_posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hh0qg/blockstream_working_on_making_bitcoin_more/?ref=search_posts

I could do the same by searching. Easier is to just go to their website and look at team members. This only prove they are working in Blockstream and not the FUD, "Blockstream is controlling them."

I would prefer it being a democracy. Unfortunately there is no way to really make it democratic. I mean at the moment the mining corporations have some kind of "Vote" though those would only be a couple of (rich) individuals who would have the right to vote. That's nothing near a demo-cracy which translates to "ruling of the citizens" or so.

I can not imagine how you could make a voting system that can not be exploited. It would even be easier to create a real world voting system for political parties since there you would know the people that have voting rights.

Though bitcoin can't solve all problems. One step at a time. :P

Exactly. Even Gavin could have done this instead merging with hearn and his dangerous ideas.

It would be a lot more democratic that way. Though you never know how many people would still use the old version out of laziness. And at the end miners decide, not the community. :/

It surely would be way harder to fill 8 megabyte blocks.

Though i agree with you that the limit is not very bitcoinish. It should be removed completely and spam attacks should be handled with an intelligent fee system. Though i don't see someone spamming 8MB locks now that they are not even at 1MB. It would be way too expensive and would make no sense in any way.