What "large group of the market"? Reddit? This forum?
How are they qualified to understand and determine what a "timely manner" ought to be? If you had read Hayek you'd realize this is exactly what he is talking about. A group of sheeps electing a totalitarian leader because they couldn't wait for due process to unfold and required actions only because they thought they knew better.
You pretending that a bunch of noise is relevant because it's noisy should not reflect on the decisions of professionals.
Speaking of "noise", your post is pretty much the standard par of oxymora perpetuated lately. Open source software has no totalitarian leaders. Neither the developers of core nor XT have any real "power" and there are no dictators. Stop spouting the " it's open source but only core devs can propose code changes" oxymoron. If the only people whose opinions mattered were self-appointed "professionals", you wouldn't be here trying so hard to convince people. Stop spouting the " it's only consensus when I agree with it" oxymoron. Open source values changed based on technical merits. XT proposed changed based on a political agenda. Stop confusing a fork for a governance coup. |
|
|
|
Do you have evidence for this?
Where have you been the last few weeks? Here. I, for one, never saw any core developers sponsor or condone the work of theymos or his mods, you know, the ones actually responsible for the censorship moderation |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? |
|
|
|
 More #REKT |
|
|
|
Hey. XT did light the fire under people to get something decided. We need bigger blocks, and the Core developers only care about selling themselves to Blockstream.
So give XT the respect it deserves!
Do you have evidence for this? How does that work? You do understand Blockstream (sidechains) benefits from larger blocks? Do you also understand that there are more than just the "Blockstream people" that are opposed to overly large blocks? |
|
|
|
The only certain thing is that core developers and supporters started a censorship campaign for quite some time now, when you see things like reddit post disappearing, censorship in the forums, etc, suspicions get raises.
Do you have evidence for this? |
|
|
|
It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen,
This is yet to be seen if Core delivers something satisfactory in time.How on earth giving choice to the market can be considered as dictatorship? The censorship going on on /r/bitcoin IS dictatorship. Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history Dude still don't understand how XT works. K. I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market. It is politics of the worst kind. Aaaaand how Core devs ignoring a large group of the market asking for scalability solution in a timely manner is not totalitarianism? What "large group of the market"? Reddit? This forum? How are they qualified to understand and determine what a "timely manner" ought to be? If you had read Hayek you'd realize this is exactly what he is talking about. A group of sheeps electing a totalitarian leader because they couldn't wait for due process to unfold and required actions only because they thought they knew better. You pretending that a bunch of noise is relevant because it's noisy should not reflect on the decisions of professionals. |
|
|
|
Quick ELI5:
Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.
Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.
Quicker ELI5: Running XT means your are openly supporting a scam and endangering your Bitcoin holdings by means of splitting community consensus and trust. |
|
|
|
Stop confusing your wishes with the reality. XT is well and alive for a long time to come. Even if the fork is not or won't occur.  Can you point me to one Bitcoin XT users, active miner or better yet a Bitcoin XT transactions ? Well and alive under what criteria exactly? A couple hundred of nodes hosted on VPN trial accounts? If you're referring to the old Bitcoin core code implementation that shit was barely used and with the event unfolding before your very eyes will die a slow death. |
|
|
|
A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break
What do you think would happen if it came to a fork of some kind, let's not necessarily assume XT/Core but anything else. Bitpay choses to no longer process payments coming from one chain but only from the other. Which chance of survival would you give the other chain? I'd say zero. Bitpay's "payment processing" is an irrelevant, marginally small aspect of Bitcoin as it is now. Are you really under the impression that people are actually buying stuff with Bitcoin? By that I mean any significant amount? It doesn't matter how marginally tiny the effect is. Two coins, both alike, one with the added benefit of being usable in thousands of online stores, the other not so much, that's a no-brainer. I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway. I'm sorry but your logic is very stupid. |
|
|
|
I was tired of all the overreacting, so I wrote this FAQ to clear the FUD around the current debacle with Bitcoin XT and the potential fork. Send this to anyone who asks you if Bitcoin is dying: http://www.newsbtc.com/2015/08/26/what-you-need-to-know-about-bitcoin-xt-2/Fork is a dirty word in the Bitcoin community. The price of BTC is threatening the $200 line, and many blame the recent division between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT over the maximum block size. It’s understable that many people want answers. The reality is that there’s no need to panic. Consensus realignment is a natural process in the tech world, one that developers have handled responsibly time and time again. This is how the Internet has survived and evolved over time, and there’s absolutely no need to panic–here we’ll clear up some misconceptions. Is the Bitcoin Blockchain Forking? No. A hardfork occurs when a new version of the Bitcoin client is incompatible with the previous one, producing transactions and blocks that are not accepted by the old protocol. The Bitcoin Core and XT programs are currently compatible, operating on the same blockchain. This will remain true unless and until a supermajority (75%) of Bitcoin nodes adopt the XT protocol, which you can watch in real time. It will then be two weeks before XT begins increasing the maximum block size. At that point, most of the holdouts will probably switch over to the new system. Any users and miners that remain will branch off and build the blockchain in a different direction, which is where the term “fork” comes from. Will I Lose My Money? No. When the blockchain forks, the “genesis block” of the new blockchain will be the last one before the split occurred, and you will have as many XT bitcoins as you did bitcoins. Your Bitcoin balance on the original blockchain will remain unchanged. You might fear that this will dilute Bitcoin’s value by dividing the market cap between a larger number of coins. The value is not actually lost, however, but merely transferred to the XT blockchain. A fork wouldn’t change your net worth: if 5% of Core users hold out and leave that much market value behind, you could just sell your bitcoins for XT coins. All you have to do is play your cards right. Similar to Goxcoins (which would have been redeemed for bitcoins stuck in the failed Mt.Gox exchange), it’s likely that a futures market will emerge. You could offer someone bitcoins right now for the promise that they’ll give you XT bitcoins if and when the hardfork occurs. Is This Really Necessary? Yes. This is how we got from VHS tapes to Blu-ray discs. VHS beat Betamax; Blu-ray beat HD DVD; the only people who lost anything were the developers of inferior systems. Everyone else got prettier pictures. Any other method would require the use of authority or force, which is anathema. In a consensus-based system like cryptocurrency, all of us must agree to a rule change or else go our separate ways. A financial program that could be arbitrarily updated against your will would be abused by hackers, if not the central power controlling it. Why Is It Such A Big Deal? Politics and hysteria. Many people are already working on solutions to the block size limit: instead of settling all transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain–which can handle no more than seven per second–they would be settled by parallel, complementary systems. Factom and the Lightning Network are great examples. These solutions become less necessary if the maximum block size increases, creating profit motivations. This had led to accusations of cronyism, and some of the more paranoid types even believe that Bitcoin XT is intended to allow blacklisting or a backdoor to your privacy. Others believe the increased hardware requirements will limit mass participation, but computer and network speeds are constantly increasing. More than anything, it’s nerd drama, and sensationalism born in ignorance. Everything is going to be fine, as history clearly shows–Bitcoin has forked, before. Better even, save the words and just say : Bitcoin XT is DOA https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.0 |
|
|
|
A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break
What do you think would happen if it came to a fork of some kind, let's not necessarily assume XT/Core but anything else. Bitpay choses to no longer process payments coming from one chain but only from the other. Which chance of survival would you give the other chain? I'd say zero. Bitpay's "payment processing" is an irrelevant, marginally small aspect of Bitcoin as it is now. Are you really under the impression that people are actually buying stuff with Bitcoin? By that I mean any significant amount? |
|
|
|
The "industry" is nothing more than VC-tit sucking "entrepreneurs" being lobbied by Gavin & Mike. They're as clueless as they come.
It doesn't matter if they're talking kittens from outer space, the ones running the show have the weight. miner vs "industry" vs developer which one is really running the show ? Money talks. People listen. In Bitcoin the amount of USD you can throw around, unless you buy BTC with it, is pretty much irrelevant. A bunch of startups "running the show".... Gimme a break |
|
|
|
It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen,
This is yet to be seen if Core delivers something satisfactory in time.How on earth giving choice to the market can be considered as dictatorship? The censorship going on on /r/bitcoin IS dictatorship. Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history Dude still don't understand how XT works. K. I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market. It is politics of the worst kind. |
|
|
|
Here's what happened.
Gavin pulled numbers out of his ass based on faulty tests (remember 20MB first?) then when core devs made it clear they wouldn't agree with his proposal dude ran home crying to Mama Hearn and they both decided to bypass core decision making process on the pretence of urgency.
The consensus was that current limit should not be touched under more rigorous testing was done to understand better the implications and unintended consequences of such a decision. Gavin couldn't convince anyone since instead of supporting his proposal w/ more technical material Gavin and Mike went full retard political and steered the ignorant masses into the mess you are witnessing.
That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for..
So you break Bitcoin by giving choice to the economy to use one code or another? It's like saying the first altcoin was an attempt to break Bitcoin. If Bitcoin cannot survive these kind of things it doesn't deserve all the hope we put in it. Choice is good, something that has to be a Monopoly to survive is just not worth the attention. They made it clear to the Blockstream's guys that they don't control the thing, I think that was needful since these guys had started to gain too much confidence. [/quote] It was never about "the Blockstream" guys. That's just an invention trolls come up with when all other arguments fail. There's a gang of reputable, technical people opposing Gavin. The XT coup was never about choice. It was political propaganda to try and create a schism fork by dividing consensus by way of steering the ignorant masses using fallacious arguments. |
|
|
|
there pretty much consensus about this, XT is a flop
BIP100 is looking promising, i think if they tweak it a bit to address some people's paranoid concerns about it, its going to win.
Right now, it looks more like the "industry" wants XT and the pools seem to want "something else". Nobody even bothers to ask what the community wants, since we're all just a bunch of nerds sitting in their mom's basements and trolling each other.  But I agree, XT/BIP 101 doesn't look like it's going to fly. The "industry" is nothing more than VC-tit sucking "entrepreneurs" being lobbied by Gavin & Mike. They're as clueless as they come. |
|
|
|
  To Gavin & Mike : resignation letters can be handed to the reception desk. Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history |
|
|
|
yup. looks like the final nail into the Bitcoin XT coffin. won't have lasted more than 2 weeks |
|
|
|
there pretty much consensus about this, XT is a flop
XT has reached is goal imo to put more pressure. It has also brought out the worst in some people and pointed to some related problems (centralization of control over the places the community uses to communicate, for example). I ran XT on my node for a while for exactly this reason. I never intended to blindly follow Hearns changes in the future and I think I'm not alone. The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork solution mess... Sure, a certain number of maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me. Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well). From the outside, I got the impression it was a combination of the two above, but I wonder if someone closer to the core team knows if one of these two aspects was the dominant factor. Here's what happened. Gavin pulled numbers out of his ass based on faulty tests (remember 20MB first?) then when core devs made it clear they wouldn't agree with his proposal dude ran home crying to Mama Hearn and they both decided to bypass core decision making process on the pretence of urgency. The consensus was that current limit should not be touched under more rigorous testing was done to understand better the implications and unintended consequences of such a decision. Gavin couldn't convince anyone since instead of supporting his proposal w/ more technical material Gavin and Mike went full retard political and steered the ignorant masses into the mess you are witnessing. That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
Splendid! 
