Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL

[dothebeats]

I would vote for XT in this case. This has been tackled many times that the current code needs to fork into something better as the need for it arises. I don't have that much care for who proposed the fork, but rather to the improvements that it will give for the benefit of the network, the coin, and the community as well.

[1714745898]

1714745898

[1714745898]

1714745898

[QuestionAuthority]

You're not wrong. You are missing the fact that you now have two separate groups of devs each advancing different clients at the same time. What do you suppose that's going to create?

Why 'two'? Afaik there's no general consensus among all of those who oppose XT.

Core and XT - two.

But if there's no consensus in 'core' group (some want 1mb to stay, some want to increase it but not the 'XT' way etc) then you can hardly call them 'group of devs', they'll either further divide or stagnate if no consensus is reached.

There are four key devs supporting core and against XT.

Gregory Maxwell
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Pieter Wuille
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

Luke Dashjr
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

[R2D221]

You're not wrong. You are missing the fact that you now have two separate groups of devs each advancing different clients at the same time. What do you suppose that's going to create?

Why 'two'? Afaik there's no general consensus among all of those who oppose XT.

Core and XT - two.

But if there's no consensus in 'core' group (some want 1mb to stay, some want to increase it but not the 'XT' way etc) then you can hardly call them 'group of devs', they'll either further divide or stagnate if no consensus is reached.

There are four key devs supporting core and against XT.

Gregory Maxwell
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Pieter Wuille
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

Luke Dashjr
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

[QuestionAuthority]

You're not wrong. You are missing the fact that you now have two separate groups of devs each advancing different clients at the same time. What do you suppose that's going to create?

Why 'two'? Afaik there's no general consensus among all of those who oppose XT.

Core and XT - two.

But if there's no consensus in 'core' group (some want 1mb to stay, some want to increase it but not the 'XT' way etc) then you can hardly call them 'group of devs', they'll either further divide or stagnate if no consensus is reached.

There are four key devs supporting core and against XT.

Gregory Maxwell
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Pieter Wuille
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.

Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

Luke Dashjr
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

[R2D221]

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem?

Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read?

[QuestionAuthority]

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem?

Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read?

Look at Greg Maxwells github page.

[R2D221]

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem?

Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read?

Look at Greg Maxwells github page.

Can you be more specific? I see a lot of projects in his page.

[QuestionAuthority]

The issue is not whether they “support Bitcoin Core”, but what their proposals are instead of the 20 MB block. Have they reached consensus? What do Gregory, Pieter, Matt and Luke propose?

Sidechains

All of them, as a consensus? If so, then what's the problem?

Is there a sidechain whitepaper I can read?

Look at Greg Maxwells github page.

Can you be more specific? I see a lot of projects in his page.

Here, look at this: https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/065/
And this: http://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdfhttp:/blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

[IIOII]

All those who blindly follow Gavin and Mike will regret it.

When reading most of the comments here I feel the same atmosphere of group delusion like back in the days when the Bitcoin Foundation was started...

People should at least read and think:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

Bitcoin will not break when the block limit is reached. Gavin and Mike are creating FUD to enforce their specific agenda for Bitcoin when they say that a block increase is urgent.

[Hyena]

Under the assumption that voting for XT is voting for block size increase to 20 MiB (nothing more, nothing less).
Under the assumption that voting for core is voting for doing nothing at all.

I voted for XT.

edit: changed my vote to core, see comment below

[yayayo]

Stayin' with Core.

Stayin' with Maxwell, Wuille, Corallo, Dashjr, Todd.

It's better to have a secure, decentralized Bitcoin with micro transactions going off-chain than an insecure, centralized Bitcoin just because of the will to support even the tiniest transaction spam.

ya.ya.yo!

[Quantus]

I voted Core. We need a fee based system not a free system.  We need to raise fees to stop the spam and all those transactions under 1 cent in value. Do that and you remove like 50% of blocks size

[DooMAD]

IMHO leave core developer team is wrong.

create a forced fork, is just crazy, if you want to create a fork, must be with FULL DEV consensus, or not do it at all!

this could destroy BITCOIN Trust, not to mention the price.

people easy, out of fear, could start selling what they have in BTC (I know a lot of friends that will do that as soon as they realize that there is only a "slightly"chance, that bitcoin forks)
.
if both chains survive because they haven't reached consensus and doble spending becames possible, this will again, destroy the price of the coin, and the trust.

So, I voted Core, I like XT, I agree that bigger block size will be essential in the near future, but they MUST do it together, is the only way to maintain the trust on the coin.

just my point of view.

To clarify, he never said he was "leaving" anything.  It's entirely possible for one person to commit code to more than one project.  Stop believing the FUD peddled by MP drones.

There's no guaranteed outcome in either stance.  Doing nothing and leaving a 1MB limit in place could also eventually result in people selling out of fear when transactions start piling up unconfirmed.  People need to stop pretending there's a "safe" option here.  Difficult decisions need to be made and there are clearly people who are going to disagree on what that choice should be.  If the fork doesn't happen in core, then it's only prudent to try it in XT.  One way or another, this is going to happen.  There's always been a certain inevitability about this because the network needs more users to survive in the long term as the block reward diminishes over time.  But in its present form, the network can't support enough users to pay enough fees to incentivise miners to secure the network.  More users equals more fees to gradually replace the income miners get from the block reward.  What "MUST" happen isn't the developers playing happy families and agreeing on everything, it's supporting more users to ensure the long-term sustainability of the network.

[Hyena]

I changed my vote to core because it's the lesser evil.

This is what I propose: double the max block size as a "quick bad fix" until a better solution such as lightning TXs are implemented and proven to be working.

however, because 2 MiB block sizes are not an option here but instead gaving pushes 20 MiB I cannot vote for XT.

Gavin must understand that 20 MiB won't solve the problem. If you need your TX confirmed fast, use some dogecoin or other shitcoins. I see cryptocurrencies as a whole and in that sense we already have solved the scaling issue: there are hundreds of coins/bitcoin forks already existing, just use the one that satisfies your needs. bitcoin alone with its sole block chain will never scale up to supporting dust txs for all the people over the world. That's why 20 MiB size limit is just delaying the inevitable and thus a naive and lazy fix.

[cellard]

Stayin' with Core.

Stayin' with Maxwell, Wuille, Corallo, Dashjr, Todd.

It's better to have a secure, decentralized Bitcoin with micro transactions going off-chain than an insecure, centralized Bitcoin just because of the will to support even the tiniest transaction spam.

ya.ya.yo!

Yeah, no one really cares about those micro transactions being an issue.
The problem is, when the volume of legitimate transactions (not micro) are too big for the 1MB block size. What then?

[Hyena]

Stayin' with Core.

Stayin' with Maxwell, Wuille, Corallo, Dashjr, Todd.

It's better to have a secure, decentralized Bitcoin with micro transactions going off-chain than an insecure, centralized Bitcoin just because of the will to support even the tiniest transaction spam.

ya.ya.yo!

Yeah, no one really cares about those micro transactions being an issue.
The problem is, when the volume of legitimate transactions (not micro) are too big for the 1MB block size. What then?

Then TX fees will rise and those who cannot afford to pay the fee for their legitimate tx will switch to another block chain.

It's the curse of bitcoin, it really isn't as good as it should have been. Let god sort them out.

I think bitcoin should have a circular block chain so that it will automatically delete the blocks from the beginning when the chain gets too long. UTXOs will simply get deleted in process so that one has to refresh their coins in every 5 years for example in order to prevent them from being deleted. A coin that wishes to be able to handle all the txs of the world should not have a max block size at all.

[alani123]

Turns out Gavin doesn't even support blocks as large as 20 Mb. This misconception was a result of a mathematical miscalculation he made.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/604862985404702721

That's not Gavin, but Peter Todd. What Gavin is proposing is still 20 MB blocks, even if other people say otherwise.

I know this is a tweet from Peter Todd, but he quotes Gregory Maxwell's post on Reddit where he admits that when talking with Gavin, they found out that some of his calculations were wrong.

Don't take my word for it, here's the exact quote and post:

We have! on bitcoin-development. Heck, Gavin's own figuring had an arithmetic error (didn't count upstream bandiwdth) and even by his analysis-- which assumed state of the art top percentile bandwidth (e.g. service that isn't available to me at home personally, much less much of the rest of the world)-- he said his number number should have been 8MB.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

[Hyena]

I know this is a tweet from Peter Todd, but he quotes Gregory Maxwell's post on Reddit where he admits that when talking with Gavin, they found out that some of his calculations were wrong.

Don't take my word for it, here's the exact quote and post:

We have! on bitcoin-development. Heck, Gavin's own figuring had an arithmetic error (didn't count upstream bandiwdth) and even by his analysis-- which assumed state of the art top percentile bandwidth (e.g. service that isn't available to me at home personally, much less much of the rest of the world)-- he said his number number should have been 8MB.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

8 MiB sounds a lot more reasonable. Also, as a programmer, I prefer powers of two in all constants.

If this was the last time we are going to increase block size then I would vote for 8 MiB max size. It gives us 4 extra years to work out the lightning network or a similar solution which I think is enough.

[Amph]

I voted Core. We need a fee based system not a free system.  We need to raise fees to stop the spam and all those transactions under 1 cent in value. Do that and you remove like 50% of blocks size

it's not about spam, it's about being prepared for an increase in adoption, which is something that we all want, otherwise bitcoin will never grow, something must be done for sure, 20 mb or blocksteam, there are no other solution apparently

and staying with core isn't an aswer

[Eastwind]

I know this is a tweet from Peter Todd, but he quotes Gregory Maxwell's post on Reddit where he admits that when talking with Gavin, they found out that some of his calculations were wrong.

Don't take my word for it, here's the exact quote and post:

We have! on bitcoin-development. Heck, Gavin's own figuring had an arithmetic error (didn't count upstream bandiwdth) and even by his analysis-- which assumed state of the art top percentile bandwidth (e.g. service that isn't available to me at home personally, much less much of the rest of the world)-- he said his number number should have been 8MB.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs

8 MiB sounds a lot more reasonable. Also, as a programmer, I prefer powers of two in all constants.

If this was the last time we are going to increase block size then I would vote for 8 MiB max size. It gives us 4 extra years to work out the lightning network or a similar solution which I think is enough.

20 MB is a limit, not the target. It gives us extra time to adapt. 8 MB could also be good.