|
The fact that theymos went as far as to sticky this thread which is yet another pathetic lie (on par with the XT is an altcoin fallacy) shows how fucking miserable he is.
There is no banning or blacklisting. It's a form of DDos protection.
|
|
|
|
I support blocksize increasing idea, but not in a form of fork such as XT, which besides block size has some shady unannounced privacy affecting features such as Tor blacklisting.
IMO, everything must be done inside Core client.
A fork is needed either way. It's not TOR blacklisting but it's against ddos through TOR. It's not even unannounced https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20Bitcoin XT is an implementation based on Bitcoin Core. They are pretty much identical. It's open source and not a closed club like blockstream. |
|
|
|
I need to correct this, XT is not attacking the network. If you truly believe that we should never hard fork then the core development team essentially has absolute power over Bitcoin. Bitcoin would be completely centralized, the ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. It is not the core development team that should control Bitcoin it is the masses that should control Bitcoin, so everyone vote with your nodes and help keep Bitcoin free and decentralized.
Very well said. Personally I'm more and more convinced that Blockstream is the real attack. |
|
|
|
|
I also dislike the apparent conflict of interest when it comes to Blockstream and Bitcoin development.
|
|
|
|
If there is a fork:
Don't get so emotional about this.
Most likely scenario: much blather and to-do about nothing, which has been and is the standard operational procedure of the Bitcoin community for as long as I can remember.
+1 The danger is not the fork, but splitting of the blockchain in 2. The way BIP101 works, the risk of a split is next to impossible. |
|
|
|
the last word should be for the community
Ecosystem basically equals the community. (or at least I interpret it as the same or encompassing it) and the community against the fork XT Speak for yourself. /r/bitcoin overwhelmingly supported it before the censorship and FUD began. I think most people here oppose XT because of the disinformation and lies spread by trolls and sockpuppets. Check out /r/Bitcoin_uncensored and /r/BitcoinXT for uncensored discussion. Personally, I would be happy to run Core too if they implement the blocksize limit increase. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver: Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.
*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.
Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old... You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable. In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two. On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code... It's not realistic to desire that an average person should run a full node. Even Satoshi foresaw that. |
|
|
|
the last word should be for the community
Ecosystem basically equals the community. (or at least I interpret it as the same or encompassing it) |
|
|
|
Bitcoin IS not going to split in 2. Miners have an incentive to agree so if XT hits the 75% threshold and forks the remaining miners will have to go along with it.
That's not the point. It's causing a lot of confusion, ambiguity, stress, panic, chaos, it's BAD for Bitcoin in general. And you say it's not going to split. If the majority of miners switches to XT (not gonna happen, but suppose they do) and exchanges don't (or even just one large exchange doesn't), or vice versa, you still so sure there's no split? Bitcoin by itself is already hard enough to explain to the general public. This XT bullshit is setting back growth and mainstream adoption even further. And don't get me wrong - the problem are not the changes that XT brings, per se (8MB is absolutely unnecessary for the forseeable future, but it's not disastrous) but rather the fact that it comes as a separate version, with different rules. Totally agree with you, hands off this Bitcoin Bitcoin is not XT or Core. Bitcoin is the set of rules what the participants of the network follow and abide. The set of rules can be implemented by anyone and can be called anything. XT, Core, d, etc. It's the same network, the same peers and same hashpower united under the same blockchain. XT only offers a choice. It depends on the ecosystem to accept or not. Personally, when I got into bitcoin I subscribed to independence, transparency and freedom. Not tyranny, censorship and serving a company (Blockstream). |
|
|
|
No
XT is the first real existential threat to Bitcoin.
BS. Blockstream is. Check their website...check the comments of Adam Back. It's the perfect example of conflict of interest. Also, please detail the business model of Blockstream. (hint: they will introduce centralized layers on top of bitcoin, payment hubs and channels). The fork cannot even activate without the super majority of the network onboard. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin IS not going to split in 2. Miners have an incentive to agree so if XT hits the 75% threshold and forks the remaining miners will have to go along with it.
That's not the point. It's causing a lot of confusion, ambiguity, stress, panic, chaos, it's BAD for Bitcoin in general. And you say it's not going to split. If the majority of miners switches to XT (not gonna happen, but suppose they do) and exchanges don't (or even just one large exchange doesn't), or vice versa, you still so sure there's no split? Bitcoin by itself is already hard enough to explain to the general public. This XT bullshit is setting back growth and mainstream adoption even further. And don't get me wrong - the problem are not the changes that XT brings, per se (8MB is absolutely unnecessary for the forseeable future, but it's not disastrous) but rather the fact that it comes as a separate version, with different rules. Having a single group clinging to power, trying to sabotage freedom of choice with lies, censorship and propaganda will have a more severe outcome than the departure of some weak hands. |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin should be used for transactions and forks should be used for eating dinner. Can we please stop this childish split, get together and come up with a synthesis? Also, if XT is going to be endorsed, what does that mean for the bitcoins currently in my wallet? Will they become worthless or can I somehow exchange them for XT?  I'm against XT. they want to make money on Bitcoin name How does that work? In theory can't we have like 1 bitcoin with a thousand forks so bitcoin becomes multifunctional but all forks remain a form of bitcoin that has the same price and can be interchanged? No, if the exchange updates on XT , You will not be able to sell their Bitcoins from the old network So how do I convert my old bitcoins to XT and prevent them from becoming worthless? Yes, that is the main reason for Panic selling in Bitcoin Exchanges. Investors are not even wait to see what happened in January (the fork of XT is on January 11, 2016). The fork happens only if super majority of the network votes for XT or any other implementation which introduces the blocksize increase (including Core). Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks. |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin should be used for transactions and forks should be used for eating dinner. Can we please stop this childish split, get together and come up with a synthesis? Also, if XT is going to be endorsed, what does that mean for the bitcoins currently in my wallet? Will they become worthless or can I somehow exchange them for XT? I'm against XT. they want to make money on Bitcoin name If you meant Blockstream then you're right. |
|
|
|
Scaling blocks are needed in the future, but not from 2 rogue devs through an altcoin. no to XT
XT is the same network, the same chain and unless BIP101 is triggered the same rules. XT is not an altcoin. it's opensource and does not rely on any developers. |
|
|
|
Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.
That's why 75%+ of hashpower is needed for a trigger. Not really, 75% of the last 1000 blocks would be needed to be mined with XT to trigger the fork. But NotXT can also be used to mine. Mining 75%+ of the blocks requires 75%+ of the hashrate. NotXT is a laughable attack like the censorship on /r/bitcoin. |
|
|
|
forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!
Do you know what does forking even mean? Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks. XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible. So why is everypony selling their bitcoins then if there is nothing to worry about MSM didn't hesitate to overhype the issue (so as Blockstream, check out adam backs fearmongering comments on reddit) and newbies have been always manipulated easily. A panic can form a negative feedback loop (people start to sell because they see the exchange rate fall which causes even more fall). Personally, I will dump only if Core devs maintain status quo on development and do not raise the blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!
Do you know what does forking even mean? Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks. XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible. |
|
|
|
XT FTW
Bitcoin arrived at a historic moment. If the blockstream/core cartel wins we can wave goodbye to independent and free bitcoin.
Haha, you're the ones who are forcibly trying to change the protocol  . I am certain your propaganda has become ineffective by now. Meanwhile, remove that extra crap code from the XT cancer. Who knows what discrete backdoors you guys are hiding in there. Keep only the max block size increase to keep a shred of credibility. Forcibly? It depends on the ecosystem to accept the changes. The code is open source. Bitcoin should not depend on any single or group of devs or a company. The propaganda, the lies and other dirty tactics of the Blockstream/Core-dev group is astonishing though. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
