Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL

[achow101]

I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.

i dont understand why this isnt possible maybe someone can explain that.

The core devs disagree on whether or not to implement the fix into core. Therefore, Gavin is thinking about leaving the team and going to Bitcoin XT to implement the change while the other devs stay with Core and not implement the change.

[coinableS]

Alright I got Bitcoin XT up to date and running, 16 active connections... looks and feels exactly the same as QT or Core.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.

i dont understand why this isnt possible maybe someone can explain that.

The core devs disagree on whether or not to implement the fix into core. Therefore, Gavin is thinking about leaving the team and going to Bitcoin XT to implement the change while the other devs stay with Core and not implement the change.

yeah, that makes it more clear. in the end you will have 2 programms but you can switch from one to another without a problem (read above).

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.

i dont understand why this isnt possible maybe someone can explain that.

The core devs disagree on whether or not to implement the fix into core. Therefore, Gavin is thinking about leaving the team and going to Bitcoin XT to implement the change while the other devs stay with Core and not implement the change.

yeah, that makes it more clear. in the end you will have 2 programms but you can switch from one to another without a problem (read above).

How will you be able to use them from one to the other and back in the future?.... after the fork, there will be differences in the 2 different block chain transaction data, right?

[achow101]

I wanted to say that I lot of people will not keep their money and it will cause themselves a damage also if they are in favour of the Gavin's proposal (because they will not know what they should do).

Almost nobody uses Bitcoin Core and Gavin can send a message to people telling them that there's an important update using the alert function.

I did some research about the alerts, and it appears that Gavin is not the only one with the alert key. According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts, it appears that theymos also holds the alert key. I would also assume then that the other core devs also hold the alert key. Thus, if Gavin sent out an alert to everyone to update, the other devs could cancel the alert and Gavin would then have less power.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.

i dont understand why this isnt possible maybe someone can explain that.

The core devs disagree on whether or not to implement the fix into core. Therefore, Gavin is thinking about leaving the team and going to Bitcoin XT to implement the change while the other devs stay with Core and not implement the change.

yeah, that makes it more clear. in the end you will have 2 programms but you can switch from one to another without a problem (read above).

How will you be able to use them from one to the other and back in the future?.... after the fork, there will be differences in the 2 different block chain transaction data, right?

"XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth."

as i understand it, these two versions will run together for some time with no problems. when you reach a critical mass with one version, you can make that version the main version.

[achow101]

"XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth."

as i understand it, these two versions will run together for some time with no problems. when you reach a critical mass with one version, you can make that version the main version.

There might be problems actually. If the blockchain forks, then you will have two blockchains, one that works with core, and the other that works with XT. Once that happens, then you will need two data directories. Furthermore, if the two blockchains coexist, then you will be able to spend your Bitcoins on both chains, effectively doubling the amount of Bitcoin that you have. This could become a major issue if total consensus is not reached.

[TURTLEINATOR]

Will I be able to import my private keys into XT?

[achow101]

Will I be able to import my private keys into XT?

Yes, it is just like Bitcoin Core but with a few extra features added.

[LiteCoinGuy]

"XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth."

as i understand it, these two versions will run together for some time with no problems. when you reach a critical mass with one version, you can make that version the main version.

There might be problems actually. If the blockchain forks, then you will have two blockchains, one that works with core, and the other that works with XT. Once that happens, then you will need two data directories. Furthermore, if the two blockchains coexist, then you will be able to spend your Bitcoins on both chains, effectively doubling the amount of Bitcoin that you have. This could become a major issue if total consensus is not reached.

i dont think that this i likely. i would say: Stormy skies will clear to reveal the stars.  

[TURTLEINATOR]

Will I be able to import my private keys into XT?

Yes, it is just like Bitcoin Core but with a few extra features added.

So whats the big fucking deal (I say politely) we are getting better equip for the future whilst retaining everything we have at the moment. obviously this is going to hurt the price for a while and it would maybe be better to implement into core instead of forcing a hard fork  no ones losing any coins

for the double spend issue can we just delete the bitcoin core from the website and all downloads no longer offically support it and move on to the future.

[Nancarrow]

Turtle, implementing it in Core would still constitute a hard fork, between people using the post-raising-blocksize version and the pre-raising-blocksize version.

A hard fork is absolutely inevitable, because the 1MB cap is not sustainable. It's fine for *this* year, and probably most of *next*, but the bitcoin economy simply can't grow enough if the limit is not raised eventually. I'm 95% certain that Gavin is 'on the right side of history' here.

The fork is inevitable, and IMO so is a short period of uncertainty and hence price stagnation (hah! how would we tell?  ). What's uncertain is just how disruptive that will be. But I'd be very surprised if 'Gavincoin' didn't emerge as the clear winner after, oh a week, two weeks maximum.

I have heard no convincing arguments for keeping the blocksize at 1MB. But to be fair, I've pretty much only heard from Mircea Popescu, his sockpuppets, and his sycophants. Peter Todd sounds like a reasonable guy, can anyone point me to a long, carefully argued screed from him?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Turtle, implementing it in Core would still constitute a hard fork, between people using the post-raising-blocksize version and the pre-raising-blocksize version.

A hard fork is absolutely inevitable, because the 1MB cap is not sustainable. It's fine for *this* year, and probably most of *next*, but the bitcoin economy simply can't grow enough if the limit is not raised eventually. I'm 95% certain that Gavin is 'on the right side of history' here.

The fork is inevitable, and IMO so is a short period of uncertainty and hence price stagnation (hah! how would we tell?  ). But I'd be very surprised if 'Gavincoin' didn't emerge as the clear winner after, oh a week, two weeks maximum.

I don't believe uncertainty will bring price stagnation... it will most likely bring price lowering.

[coinableS]

Peter Todd sounds like a reasonable guy, can anyone point me to a long, carefully argued screed from him?

This is a discussion with Peter Todd and Gavin today about it.
Audio: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

[BusyBeaverHP]

XT.

I'm tired of obstructionist politics from the the other core developers.

Blocksize limit goes up. Now.

[Elwar]

I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads.

Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board:

What do other people think?


If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen

[BusyBeaverHP]

"XT uses the same data directories as Core so you can easily switch back and forth."

as i understand it, these two versions will run together for some time with no problems. when you reach a critical mass with one version, you can make that version the main version.

There might be problems actually. If the blockchain forks, then you will have two blockchains, one that works with core, and the other that works with XT. Once that happens, then you will need two data directories. Furthermore, if the two blockchains coexist, then you will be able to spend your Bitcoins on both chains, effectively doubling the amount of Bitcoin that you have. This could become a major issue if total consensus is not reached.

This is a common misunderstanding from people who haven't seen Gavin's past proposal on implementing the fork. The bigger blocks don't go live until the supermajority of nodes update their clients.

http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

Current rules if no consensus as measured by block.nVersion supermajority.
Supermajority defined as: 800 of last 1000 blocks have block.nVersion == 4 Once supermajority attained, block.nVersion < 4 blocks rejected.

This is basically phasing in nodes which are compatible with the old 1MB blockchain, and remain inactive until 80% supermajority is reached, then miners would be allowed to create >1MB blocks which would be accepted into the longest chain, and the 20% minority who rejects the new blocks would find themselves on the shorter chain... and left behind.

Everyone is then compelled to follow the longest chain, thus the network now has a new consensus.

[redsn0w]

I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads.

Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board:

What do other people think?


If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.

I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.

Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.

But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.


Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.


--
--
Gavin Andresen

Remember the source: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/

[SpanishSoldier]

I'm not so secure of this thing

An overwhelming majority of English speaking Bitcoin users (both in total numbers and economically) is in favour of Gavin's proposal.

FTFY

You dont yet know what China & Russia are thinking. If they stick to bitcoin core and America & Europe goes for XT, then 2 chain will survive.

[Sampey]

And what about this problem?

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8791/what-happens-to-my-bitcoins-if-theres-a-permanent-fork-in-the-chain

One of the answer :

You would be able to spend your bitcoins twice - once on each branch.

The independent branches have no way of telling whether pre-fork bitcoins have already been spent on the other branch.

This only applies to bitcoins that you received prior to the fork event. If you receive bitcoins after the fork event you have to choose one or the other.

Is that a true problem?