|
Good news, always amazing to have big companies accept Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
Double bitcoins? I thought all the bitcoins will remain and the transition (in case it really happens) of BitcoinCore to BitcoinXT just adds the bigger blocksize limit and functionality but the bitcoins will remain? Confused here.
Obviously nobody doubles Bitcoins out of thin air. Bitcoin Core and XT are the same, network and blockchain-wise, as of now. I installed it two days ago to check it out... I uninstalled it last night and now I am back with core. It was misleading, because the github page said you could easily switch between XT or core, but it runs on top of core. So once you install XT, even if you try to launch core you run XT everytime. The only way to run core again is uninstalling bitcoin and reinstalling core.
Yes, that's how it works, you wither have Core or XT... But their files are compatible between each other. Example: you don't need to resync to start using XT |
|
|
|
This is amazing! What a nice case use of normal everyday things to mine Bitcoins, while offering us a service... Next up is our toasters mining Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
June is here! Any estimate on when will our coins move?  |
|
|
|
What is bitcoin xt? Thanks for an answer
Gavin forked Bitcoin. Now there is bitcoin and bitcoinXT. bitcoinXT is much better. Prolly going to the moon. If you want some of the new bitcoin (bitcoinXT) - let me know. The old bitcoin is going to become worthless - very fast. It is still good today, but in about a week, you won't be able to get $5 for one BTC Looking forward to buy "Bitcoin Core bitcoins" from you soon, then |
|
|
|
I'm also switching my node to XT.
I've already switched mine. Doubled my bitcoin in five minutes. If anyone wants to buy BitcoinCore bitcoin, I'll sell them for a discount of $175. I am also selling the new bitcoin BitcoinXt for $250. Send me a PM with your address. I can make the trade today. Care to show addresses of those fantastic doubled Bitcoins?  |
|
|
|
First, none of these nodes in the screenshots here are full nodes Second, you aren't voting in anything. Network and blockchain-wise, Core and XT are exactly the same, for now. XT just has different functionality. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is exactly what we need! Scalable blocks. We can still swtich to 20mb and then activate scaling, I think. It should be tested on a testnet first...
And scaling isn't buying time, it's forever adaptable.
|
|
|
|
Even if they voted and reached a consensus, people who voted for the losing option wouldn't be too happy about it, especially in such a small group... Besides, if they did vote, bigger blocks probably wouldn't win. It's up to them to make whatever they want and let people decide on what's best |
|
|
|
Great post, thank you. Enough of FUD here and in the exchange charts |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will thrive, one way or another, as a currency, as there are simply too many people with too many coins involved, and nobody wants to risk it.
As for the rest, the forking "issue" will eventually sort itself: we as miners, merchants, users just have to vote.
|
|
|
|
Just like you say about the Apple computers in the early days, the tools were there, but nobody really saw an usage... We have to give it time and develop Bitcoin further. Something to ponder about when thinking if one should stay or go is the Blockchain technology itself, not only Bitcoin. The Blockchain tech is even bigger than Bitcoin, I think, and it could easily reach bigger proportions than the coin itself (although if it does, the coin will go through the roof too, probably, as both are tied together) Summing it all up, it's time to stay |
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately these mistakes happen quite often, and none of us is free from having it happen sometime... It's quite an expensive mistake.
It's a reminder that we should know our software in order to use it.
|
|
|
|
It may be one of the reasons why certain large companies are holding back for the moment, but it's just a matter of time before block sizes get bigger. I certainly hope it gets done within a year.
Beside that, giving Bitcoin the ability to confirm transactions faster will also massively help. But changing this isn't something the majority of the community is waiting for.
I wish we had a solution, instead of a temporary patch. As you already know the more we increase the block size, the faster full nodes become a centralised part of the it. Now how do we maintain a decentralised system, if limited corporate entities are the only ones who can financially afford to store the blockchain & keep Bitcoin nodes running? It really feels like we've started of with a decentralised network, which slowly morphs into a centralised system. Raising the current limit 20 times might be temporary, but it's a pretty long temporary... Useful until we figure something really amazing out. Nodes will be affordable for many years to come. Technology grows, disk space an ram get cheaper and we're not going to have full 20mb blocks out of the blue. |
|
|
|
Thanks for this thread... we need some sanity in here sometimes As for both options on the table... Both are valid, but why sidechains instead of just increasing block size? Is the usage of sidechains documented enough for it to be a powerful solution comparing to increasing block size? |
|
|
|
|
This sums pretty much what I've been thinking and posting. We do have a chance to choose what we want, we have a chance to vote on what Bitcoin should be...
A fork is an opportunity for change. And changes aren't always bad.
|
|
|
|
This was a really strong comment. He has a very valid point, no need for him to nag everyone saying his solution is the best. In due time, folks maybe will rethink in not supporting bigger blocks |
|
|
|
Was not expecting this news with that title Nice way to put it, it's indeed the most powerful rig, and I bet the guy had fun doing it! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
