Bitcoin Core or XT? POLL

[Adrian-x]

You can see how many XT nodes are running here:

http://www.xtnodes.com

Quite a bit of growth in the past week

Finally, we're getting what we need ... an iron-willed individual ready to take the bull by the horns and steer Bitcoin into victory lane.

Thanks man, just trying to do my part to contribute to the movement. If people know how strong we stand in numbers of XT nodes, then we can causatively reinforce that number until we have a majority. It's kind of difficult if we don't even know how many we have.

My XT node shows up as a Core 10.0.1 lets recount closer to Feb next year.

[Hyena]

That's why I support the idea of getting rid of the Proof-of-Work mining altogether and replacing it with Proof-of-Stake. Right now miners are parasites to the network. The only owners of the network are actual bitcoin holders.

Satoshi's invention of mining (which probably should have been called "confirming") not only secures the blockchain but has one very important side-effect: the disbursement of the 21 million coins into as many hands as possible, i.e. distributing BTC wealth. This job is 2/3rds complete.

Would we prefer it if 73 people who happened to be around in the first months of 2009 got all the BTC to begin with?

Satoshi's PoW was very good for the initial distribution of coins but only for that. I don't support 100% PoS coins at all, that's the reason I hate NextCoin for example because 100% PoS is corrupt and unfair distribution. However, a hybrid between PoW and Pos (such as Peercoin) is the best approach. You have the coin slowly transforming from PoW to PoS over time. To put it into the context of Bitcoin, now would be the time when we should start seeing PoS blocks around and perhaps over the next 4 years PoS mining should become dominant to PoW mining.

A hybrid PoW/PoS mining model gives us the best from the both sides. It's the fairest initial coin distribution and energy efficient in the long term. As a bonus it makes network development decisions much easier to have a PoS coin because in PoS mining the miners and coin holders are the same people, so they can use their private keys to their stash to vote democratically what protocol changes to implement and what not.

[tss]

so current poll looks like a united states election... 56 to 44 so far. 
no majority by any means and not even close to the supposed 90% xt changes activation point. 
anyways its all worthless. 
if you choose xt then...
you're a moron follower who doesn't understand whats going on and want to devalue the btc. 
OR...
chances are you aren't the other side who is a very early adopter who cashed out and is trying to take advantage of btc by changing it so your companies investments can use the blockchain for "software development"

[Adrian-x]

so current poll looks like a united states election... 56 to 44 so far.  
no majority by any means and not even close to the supposed 90% xt changes activation point.  
anyways its all worthless.  
if you choose xt then...
you're a moron follower who doesn't understand whats going on and want to devalue the btc.  
OR...
chances are you aren't the other side who is a very early adopter who cashed out and is trying to take advantage of btc by changing it so your companies investments can use the blockchain for "software development"

I think you got that the wrong way around, its the VC's who haven't yet cashed out of Fiat who are trying to change Bitcoin to there advantage, its the early adopters if you could even call me that (in late 2011 everyone before me was an early adopter) that are invested in preserving the value that will materialize in Bitcoin.

[Spjuth]

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! 

https://i.imgur.com/F2j1sko.png

[solex]

That's why I support the idea of getting rid of the Proof-of-Work mining altogether and replacing it with Proof-of-Stake. Right now miners are parasites to the network. The only owners of the network are actual bitcoin holders.

Satoshi's invention of mining (which probably should have been called "confirming") not only secures the blockchain but has one very important side-effect: the disbursement of the 21 million coins into as many hands as possible, i.e. distributing BTC wealth. This job is 2/3rds complete.

Would we prefer it if 73 people who happened to be around in the first months of 2009 got all the BTC to begin with?

Satoshi's PoW was very good for the initial distribution of coins but only for that. I don't support 100% PoS coins at all, that's the reason I hate NextCoin for example because 100% PoS is corrupt and unfair distribution. However, a hybrid between PoW and Pos (such as Peercoin) is the best approach. You have the coin slowly transforming from PoW to PoS over time. To put it into the context of Bitcoin, now would be the time when we should start seeing PoS blocks around and perhaps over the next 4 years PoS mining should become dominant to PoW mining.

A hybrid PoW/PoS mining model gives us the best from the both sides. It's the fairest initial coin distribution and energy efficient in the long term. As a bonus it makes network development decisions much easier to have a PoS coin because in PoS mining the miners and coin holders are the same people, so they can use their private keys to their stash to vote democratically what protocol changes to implement and what not.

Actually, I think that your suggestion is what is needed eventually, perhaps when the block reward gets below < 1BTC.

There is a long-term threat to the PoW model when the reward gets very small, "re-mining", where miners deliberately ignore recent blocks en-masse in order to grab the transaction fees for themselves. The incentive structure dissipates. However, IBLT should help a lot in this situation as it gives non-mining nodes some influence over the miners to only take tx from the mempools instead of orphaning. Might not be enough of a force and a PoS element could help.

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! 

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

[kazuki49]

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

[EternalWingsofGod]

Microsoft supports Bitcoin XT! 

That is an interesting picture it does makes sense that the developers run nodes for fun over there.

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

If MS did get serious in the embracing stage of Bitcoin the economic potential of a client on every MS computer as a default app or skin to pay for services would add signifcant leverage to the XT implementation, plus nodes would by default join XT a sort of a join the borg mentality, and break a stalemate.

But that's super speculation 

[danielW]

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes.  That chart says there's 6k.  

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks.  Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute.

btw my vote is core.

[Adrian-x]

Bitinfocharts says there's over 42k nodes.  That chart says there's 6k.  

That is saying it has found 42k nodes total that ever existed and were at one point peering. The 6k is the number of nodes currently online and active.

Thanks.  Kind of alarming the number of nodes keeps dropping.

Not really, you only need to run a node if you are invested in keeping the protocol from changing otherwise you can just use an SPV wallet.

What is problematic is just a fiew Core developers like Luke-jr can force their will on us knowing full well transaction costs will go to their lighting network and sidechains.

Force their will on who? They are not forcing their will on me or many others. That same argument could equally be applied to other side of dispute.

btw my vote is core.

your right we the usurers with an invested interest in the success of Bitcoin should choose what node software to run, the protocol is guarded by the node software we choose to run the more nodes using alternate code running the same protocol the less centralized Bitcoin will become. (promoting decentralization by centralizing control is an oxymoron) 

I was just referring to the hand full of central controllers spreading fear uncertainty and doubt that want to keep control of the code that runs on 99% of nodes, they are using PR and Politics to maintain their control, they can't actual force you, but they can do things like prevent new users from using Satoshi Bitcoin (the idea of limited quantity not limited transactions) by only offering them a choice as agreed by the central governing comity, which is exactly what www.bitcoin.org is threatening to do to anyone who wants to run a code-base the central governing comity defines as controversial. 

[Adrian-x]

Always a good idea to observe where the smart money is headed.

it's an even better idea to move in the exact opposite direction from what people like you say

of course MS "supports" XT, where do you think this XT idea came from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

so much FUD you know i think the Bitcoin community is the most skeptical group of people I have ever seen in one place I love it.
I trust no one here.

Anyway have you read Google is not what it seems given I run Microsoft on just 1 platform and Google torches everything that uses data in my world Microsoft seems like a crippled puppy by comparison.

Well after reading that, Eric Schmidt seems more politically motivated than I ever thought (I'm not surprised China kicked Google out) and he has invested millions in the one company who employs the majority of the core developers to change the incentive structure inherent in the Bitcoin protocol, but has not invested in BTC the currency that is supposed to benefit from the change.

Interestingly it's those developers funded by Eric Schmidt that make up the majority of the block who oppose the max size increase too.

[s1gs3gv]

In the absence of real consensus wrt changes to core, Bitcoin-XT should be considered an altcoin with a promising future. Call it BXT. Let them have their own independent block chain instead of piggy backing on bitcoin. May the best chain win.

Proceeding without consensus sets a bad precedent and increases the risk that additional future changes will be made without consensus.

Core

[tokeweed]

"just let bitcoin split into multiple children of itself. people will choose whichever they like. like it already is with the existence of altcoins, it is inevitable that the future will be one of competing cryptos. just let it be."

A post from a guy called "guy" in the comment's section...  https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/

I was leaning towards Core, but after reading that comment.  I agree.  Just let it be. 

[ticoti]

Core,Isn't that obvious? Does it make sense to change to a fork now?

[BitUsher]

"just let bitcoin split into multiple children of itself. people will choose whichever they like. like it already is with the existence of altcoins, it is inevitable that the future will be one of competing cryptos. just let it be."

A post from a guy called "guy" in the comment's section...  https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/

I was leaning towards Core, but after reading that comment.  I agree.  Just let it be. 

The code rolled out to XT requires 90 % nodes participating before the fork occurs. I sure would hate to be on the chain with 10% of the hashing power and 10% of the nodes.

[Adrian-x]

Core,Isn't that obvious? Does it make sense to change to a fork now?

The obvious choice is Bitcoin the way you think of it free of centralized control and limited by 21M but unlimited in the number of transactions you can make. Nothing is set in stone but you need to understand that a good percentage of Core developers now work for an employer - a for profit company looking to change Bitcoin to implement off blockchain scaling technology so no its not that obvious.

[danielW]

"just let bitcoin split into multiple children of itself. people will choose whichever they like. like it already is with the existence of altcoins, it is inevitable that the future will be one of competing cryptos. just let it be."

A post from a guy called "guy" in the comment's section...  https://coinreport.net/what-the-block-size-debate-says-about-bitcoin/

I was leaning towards Core, but after reading that comment.  I agree.  Just let it be.  

The code rolled out to XT requires 90 % nodes participating before the fork occurs. I sure would hate to be on the chain with 10% of the hashing power and 10% of the nodes.

Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

I am not sure if that is wise.


In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho.

If two sides can not agree, you can not blame the other side for not folding and going your way. It takes two idiots to have a fight, so to speak. Both sides are too blame for the dispute.



Actually this debate is trending in the wrong direction, in terms of getting more personal and using ad-hominem attacks (from both sides).

Both sides need to respect others choices and opinions. A 'civil war' would be bad for bitcoin.

[BitUsher]

Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

I am not sure if that is wise.


In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho.

From the video he isn't suggesting he would support adding multiple checkpoint to ignore the most mining power but merely discussing a hypothetical worst case scenario. I agree , that would be a horrible scenario that we should never consider, although may happen and would be disastrous as it would undermine our trust in PoW.

Actually this debate is trending in the wrong direction, in terms of getting more personal and using ad-hominem attacks (from both sides).

Both sides need to respect others choices and opinions. A 'civil war' would be bad for bitcoin.

Agreed. I.E... Even though Hearn upsets people with some of his thought experiments(blacklists), he has been a valuable member to our community - Lighthouse is one example, showing he cares about decentralization as well.

[danielW]

Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

I am not sure if that is wise.


In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho.

From the video he isn't suggesting he would support adding multiple checkpoint to ignore the most mining power but merely discussing a hypothetical worst case scenario. I agree , that would be a horrible scenario that we should never consider, although may happen and would be disastrous as it would undermine our trust in PoW.

Well, I hope they do not try and push it through if they do not have majority (85%+) mining, node and services on board.

Trying to go ahead without that consensus, would be damaging I think.

Apart from that I guess they have a right to try.


tbh Most likely they are doing it now to just try and put some pressure on the other side to yield.

[Adrian-x]

Actually, Mike Hearn plans to go ahead with the fork tho even if it has minority mining power btw ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=99&v=DB9goUDBAR0

I am not sure if that is wise.


In the video he says he blames the miners if it comes to that. I dont think thats fair, tho.

From the video he isn't suggesting he would support adding multiple checkpoint to ignore the most mining power but merely discussing a hypothetical worst case scenario. I agree , that would be a horrible scenario that we should never consider, although may happen and would be disastrous as it would undermine our trust in PoW.

Well, I hope they do not try and push it through if they do not have majority (85%+) mining, node and services on board.

Trying to go ahead without that consensus, would be damaging I think.

Apart from that I guess they have a right to try.


tbh Most likely they are doing it now to just try and put some pressure on the other side to yield.

its in our best interest to not have a central control code base that runs on 99% of all nodes,

XT is the first option for making the split. no one is going to do anything stupid we all want Bitcoin to go to the moon, there is a lot of FUD out there, from the people who stand to loos control over Bitcoin.

some other options in the wind are libbitcoin and BTCD.

Bitcoin isn't decentralized if its controlled by a handful of centralized developers. a decentralized solution would look like 3 or 4 versions of different implementations running the same protocol, one where Core had just 33% or so.