XT as Incentive for Bitcoin Core Nodes

[eduardo_rc]

I used to run two Bitcoin Core nodes back in the day. Being as it was, I simply saw no real incentive for me to continue to do so. My incentive used to be using Armory as my wallet, for security purposes. As I became more infromed about Bitcoin and wallets, I found out about secure ways to use it without having to run a node.

Bitcoin XT has changed this. Now, first things first. I'm all for bigger blocks, but not this way. Specially not perpetually increasing block-size every X amount of blocks. A one time block increase to maybe 4MB or 8MB would be OK for me, plus Lightning network, plus off-chain transactions, tree chains and other innovations which we probably can't yet foresee.

Bitcoin XT has become the incentive I needed to start running Bitcoin Core Nodes again. I'm starting two new nodes today, and I'll be starting two more on the weekend when I go back home from work. I see this as the only way people can vote for whatever their choice is.

I see XT as a terrible way of doing something that is needed. There clearly was no consensus prior release. Hearn and Andresen are trying to reach it by skipping discussion and what I see as a result from this is a very poorly informed auditorium from both sides of the battle. I include myself here. For example, from the XT side, I see a lot of people thinking that this is a one time 8MB block increasae, when this is not true. From myself, I'm far, far from being a technical expert, and don't really know if a higher transaction fee could arise from failing to increase block-size and result in centralization (which I read on another forum). What I can see for myself is that perpetually increasing block-size will definitely result in fewer people being able to run nodes. This definitely will result in centralization, no matter what. This is the point that is a deal-breaker for me with XT. And this the incentive I needed to go back to running Bitcoin Core Nodes.

[tadakaluri]

Even if miners get to make the decision, this would probably not lead to a bitcoin split. Once it becomes clear which version is likely to prevail, all miners will have an incentive to jump on the winning bandwagon. Already, 8% of them have joined the dissident XT faction, a rapid take-up. Whether such a majority rule is the best way to run the highly complex bitcoin system, however, is an entirely different question.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

I used to run two Bitcoin Core nodes back in the day. Being as it was, I simply saw no real incentive for me to continue to do so. My incentive used to be using Armory as my wallet, for security purposes. As I became more infromed about Bitcoin and wallets, I found out about secure ways to use it without having to run a node.

Bitcoin XT has changed this. Now, first things first. I'm all for bigger blocks, but not this way. Specially not perpetually increasing block-size every X amount of blocks. A one time block increase to maybe 4MB or 8MB would be OK for me, plus Lightning network, plus off-chain transactions, tree chains and other innovations which we probably can't yet foresee.

Bitcoin XT has become the incentive I needed to start running Bitcoin Core Nodes again. I'm starting two new nodes today, and I'll be starting two more on the weekend when I go back home from work. I see this as the only way people can vote for whatever their choice is.

I see XT as a terrible way of doing something that is needed. There clearly was no consensus prior release. Hearn and Andresen are trying to reach it by skipping discussion and what I see as a result from this is a very poorly informed auditorium from both sides of the battle. I include myself here. For example, from the XT side, I see a lot of people thinking that this is a one time 8MB block increasae, when this is not true. From myself, I'm far, far from being a technical expert, and don't really know if a higher transaction fee could arise from failing to increase block-size and result in centralization (which I read on another forum). What I can see for myself is that perpetually increasing block-size will definitely result in fewer people being able to run nodes. This definitely will result in centralization, no matter what. This is the point that is a deal-breaker for me with XT. And this the incentive I needed to go back to running Bitcoin Core Nodes.

That's one of the best posts I've seen on the 'hottest topic' of the moment eduardo. Thanks for that . I run a Bitcoin Core node & I'm sticking to my guns at the moment. We do need an increase in the blocks size but I want to steer clear of XT. I don't trust Hearn and will not be touching his client unless it comes to a point when I have no other option. I wish the Core devs would come to a compromise soon so we can relax & all the panic that's arose from the current situation will evaporate

[knight22]

I'm glad bitconiXT is around simply because it pushes the status quo to make a move quicker and will act as a safety net if it fails to delivers.

[DooMAD]

I see XT as a terrible way of doing something that is needed. There clearly was no consensus prior release.

A central group of developers agreeing is not consensus.  It doesn't matter whether core devs all agree or not because it isn't their sole decision.  Anyone can release a client without prior approval because this is not a closed-source project.  The network decides, not the developers.  If you want a coin where the developers make all the decisions and the users have no choice, there are plenty of closed-source projects out there you might prefer.  

Please see the last paragraph of this post and my post here for further reasoning because I'm getting tired of repeating myself about this.

I wish the Core devs would come to a compromise soon so we can relax & all the panic that's arose from the current situation will evaporate

If there's panic, it's only from those who don't understand how simple this really all is.  Again, it doesn't matter if the core devs compromise or not because it's not their sole decision.  They are not in charge.  We do not need their permission.  Running an alternative client doesn't give the developers of that client "control" of the network.  Please try to understand this simple fact.

[coinpr0n]

Great post. I'm pro- increasing the block size within reason. But I'm against XT for some of the other plans it entails, not least of which is that on XT we go from 5 commiters to a single "benevolent" dictator. The problem is too many people feel it's either XT or no block size increase. Don't be fooled.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I'm glad bitconiXT is around simply because it pushes the status quo to make a move quicker and will act as a safety net if it fails to delivers.

indeed. the majority wants to increase the blocksize. that should matter too.

it would be easy for the btc core guys to kill XT if they would adopt 4-5 MB blocks.

[gentlemand]

I'm not so sure XT is the way forward. However considering fuck all else is presently on the table about a looming problem then its existence shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

[Dissonance]

I'm glad bitconiXT is around simply because it pushes the status quo to make a move quicker and will act as a safety net if it fails to delivers.

indeed. the majority wants to increase the blocksize. that should matter too.

it would be easy for the btc core guys to kill XT if they would adopt 4-5 MB blocks.

IMO we really need to have more then one core development tam.  Having competing teams would be healthy for bitcoin.  if there is one weakness in bitcoin its the centralize nature of software devlopment.  

[eduardo_rc]

I see XT as a terrible way of doing something that is needed. There clearly was no consensus prior release.

A central group of developers agreeing is not consensus.  It doesn't matter whether core devs all agree or not because it isn't their sole decision.  Anyone can release a client without prior approval because this is not a closed-source project.  The network decides, not the developers.  If you want a coin where the developers make all the decisions and the users have no choice, there are plenty of closed-source projects out there you might prefer.  

Please see the last paragraph of this post and my post here for further reasoning because I'm getting tired of repeating myself about this.

I wish the Core devs would come to a compromise soon so we can relax & all the panic that's arose from the current situation will evaporate

If there's panic, it's only from those who don't understand how simple this really all is.  Again, it doesn't matter if the core devs compromise or not because it's not their sole decision.  They are not in charge.  We do not need their permission.  Running an alternative client doesn't give the developers of that client "control" of the network.  Please try to understand this simple fact.

I completely agree with what you're saying and with the posts that you mention. But there's defenitiy a bigger picture here. Hearn was talkin about a "developer dictatorship" very openly, even asked Wladimir to take full control. This is not only about bigger blocks. This is an open discussion about governance. XT, Gavin and Hearn represent the "discussion is over, let's take control of the situation our own way" side of the debate. And sadly, on that side of the debate, the negotiation is over. Now it's (to my eyes) a popularity contest. Whoever has more followers will end up saying from now on how bitcoin will be developed, hence the change in governance.

A developer dictatorship is exactly what we're getting from XT. Even if I'm wrong, if XT succceeds, the precedent it establishes is "Changes won't be discussed and analyzed, they will be implemented no matter the risk". And you're fooling yourself if you believe there are no risks involved with the XT implementation.

Like I said, I'm all for block-size increase, but not this way.

I urge people to start running BTC Core nodes, even if they don't mine. Even if at the end this doesn't help, it sends a pretty clear message to the comunity, specialy when the nodes metrics have been going down.

Also, you can do this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155830.0
http://notbitcoinxt.poolto.be

[Slark]

For now the only thing that XT did for bitcoin is providing disturbing news about split in the community, hence the bitcoin price dropped.
Normal bitcoin users in general do not care about core protocol, nodes, technicalities and this war is doing nothing positive.

[knolix]

I was not thinking i will have to run nodes when i invested in BTC.

This is not a practical solution for avarage BTC investor to protect his investment.

Maybe we could open an transparent cloud mining company where we can buy shares


Best Regards

[gentlemand]

For now the only thing that XT did for bitcoin is providing disturbing news about split in the community, hence the bitcoin price dropped.
Normal bitcoin users in general do not care about core protocol, nodes, technicalities and this war is doing nothing positive.

Whatever outcome will affect future usability. They should retain some dim awareness of its mechanics. When you truly don't have to think about what's thrashing away behind the scenes is when it might be ready for 'normal' people.

[xDan]

>Like I said, I'm all for block-size increase, but not this way.

And they'll keep saying that, but guess what? It will never actually happen.

Nice newbie account you have there.

[eduardo_rc]

>Like I said, I'm all for block-size increase, but not this way.

And they'll keep saying that, but guess what? It will never actually happen.

Nice newbie account you have there.

Oh yeah, thanks! Professional lurker here

Like I said, XT as incentive.