Bitcoin Core or XT, you dont have to choose NOW. Dont bother with the poll....

[canth]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue. IF transaction numbers per block keep increasing at the rapid speed they have been recently it will take 2 years to start hitting 1 mb per block. No reason to implement a fork that will cause people to lose Bitcoins until it is absolutely necessary, keep the code on the side until then. Why is there so much haste to make a change that isn't needed for 2 years  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114426/andresen-will-shift-efforts-to-bitcoin-fork-if-no-consensus-reached-on-block-size

Exactly... your last paragraph is what i dont get in this whole discussion. Why are bitcoiners so fast in giving away "their" cryptocurrency to a private company? Its interesting to see but somehow strange when you know the libertarian ideas of bitcoin in the beginning.

How is it giving anything away? Whether it's Bitcoin Core or a fork of Bitcoin Core everyone has access to github, everyone can review the source code and any changes introduced. If BitcoinXT code ends up being more popular, do you think that the existing Bitcoin Core devs will stick to their guns and maintain a platform no one uses? No way, they'll merge the desired features into Bitcoin Core and that will be the end of the argument, back to square one again.

[1714821018]

1714821018

[1714821018]

1714821018

[1714821018]

1714821018

[1714821018]

1714821018

[SebastianJu]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue. IF transaction numbers per block keep increasing at the rapid speed they have been recently it will take 2 years to start hitting 1 mb per block. No reason to implement a fork that will cause people to lose Bitcoins until it is absolutely necessary, keep the code on the side until then. Why is there so much haste to make a change that isn't needed for 2 years  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114426/andresen-will-shift-efforts-to-bitcoin-fork-if-no-consensus-reached-on-block-size

Exactly... your last paragraph is what i dont get in this whole discussion. Why are bitcoiners so fast in giving away "their" cryptocurrency to a private company? Its interesting to see but somehow strange when you know the libertarian ideas of bitcoin in the beginning.

How is it giving anything away? Whether it's Bitcoin Core or a fork of Bitcoin Core everyone has access to github, everyone can review the source code and any changes introduced. If BitcoinXT code ends up being more popular, do you think that the existing Bitcoin Core devs will stick to their guns and maintain a platform no one uses? No way, they'll merge the desired features into Bitcoin Core and that will be the end of the argument, back to square one again.

Really? I think the whole point of gavin extorting his will is that he can decide what will be done. So you are sure that the bitcoin xt wallet, and so the bitcoin blockchain, will not be decided by him and his friends? You know he wanted tainting and other things before, now he might see his chance to take over the development. I mean bitcoiners has chosen then. And there was a thread about his milestone plans where users wrote that they really dont like what he is planning. I didnt understand what it was about and didnt want to spend so much time in it. But i think even the way how he will switch shows what he wants.

Yes, of course people can switch back. Though im not sure what will happen if he implemented something and a couple blocks with a bad change were running. How many users will switch away from his blockchain then? I mean its a financial instrument and getting back coins you spent is nice, but not getting coins you got in these blocks is no fun.

Let me know where im wrong, its not that im a pro in that area.

[Lauda]

Thanks guys, there is an awful lot of FUD out there and we need more posts like this.  I was very alarmed at first but after reading more details about what is going on I have come to understand that the issue is not as nuclear as I first thought.

Actually no and this post won't accomplish anything.

You can sell your coins of weaker chain : NO you WONT, i can tell you no exchange will support a weaker chain and risking their business

I don't think that it is incorrect. First you assume that no individuals are going to want to buy coins, secondly you just generalized something.
I've actually seen a list of businesses that reject the fork, which included an exchange or two(?).

[coinut]

was trying to catch up with the bitcoin core / xt situation and this blog post was a good read check it out

BitTorrent protocol creator Bram Cohen wrote in a blog post titled Bitcoin's Ironic Crisis

https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f

I share his opinion on this one.

i will quote his conclusion here -

 Conclusion
What should happen, in short, is nothing. There should be no increase to the block size limit. There should be no attempt to keep transaction fees from hitting a market rate. The block size limit is a good thing. Real transaction fees will be a good thing. Any changes to the block size limit will hurt both of those, create a significant risk of major disaster, and damage the credibility of Bitcoin as a reliable system. The best thing for everybody involved would be for the proposed changes to be simply dropped, and Bitcoin developers to get on with making proper technical solutions rather than hacky patches.

The current proposals for raising the block size are reckless, unnecessary, and potentially disastrous. Perhaps it is not nice of me to put it this way, but this is not a game. There is real money and real business on the line, and the people who are affected and have say in the matter should know what’s going on.

[canth]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue. IF transaction numbers per block keep increasing at the rapid speed they have been recently it will take 2 years to start hitting 1 mb per block. No reason to implement a fork that will cause people to lose Bitcoins until it is absolutely necessary, keep the code on the side until then. Why is there so much haste to make a change that isn't needed for 2 years  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114426/andresen-will-shift-efforts-to-bitcoin-fork-if-no-consensus-reached-on-block-size

Exactly... your last paragraph is what i dont get in this whole discussion. Why are bitcoiners so fast in giving away "their" cryptocurrency to a private company? Its interesting to see but somehow strange when you know the libertarian ideas of bitcoin in the beginning.

How is it giving anything away? Whether it's Bitcoin Core or a fork of Bitcoin Core everyone has access to github, everyone can review the source code and any changes introduced. If BitcoinXT code ends up being more popular, do you think that the existing Bitcoin Core devs will stick to their guns and maintain a platform no one uses? No way, they'll merge the desired features into Bitcoin Core and that will be the end of the argument, back to square one again.

Really? I think the whole point of gavin extorting his will is that he can decide what will be done. So you are sure that the bitcoin xt wallet, and so the bitcoin blockchain, will not be decided by him and his friends? You know he wanted tainting and other things before, now he might see his chance to take over the development. I mean bitcoiners has chosen then. And there was a thread about his milestone plans where users wrote that they really dont like what he is planning. I didnt understand what it was about and didnt want to spend so much time in it. But i think even the way how he will switch shows what he wants.

Yes, of course people can switch back. Though im not sure what will happen if he implemented something and a couple blocks with a bad change were running. How many users will switch away from his blockchain then? I mean its a financial instrument and getting back coins you spent is nice, but not getting coins you got in these blocks is no fun.

Let me know where im wrong, its not that im a pro in that area.

BitcoinXT is open source - the same as Bitcoin Core. Every change committed change is subject to review and comment, so there would be no way for a developer even if they were the sole committer to make some sort of change that would be implemented without review.

If BitcoinXT becomes the majority and then something needs to be changed, it'll take months to move between soft or hard forks. It'll be planned and we'll know the level of consensus amongst nodes months in advance.

In short, there's no easy option for bitcoin devs to just make a fickle or odd change to the network without a chance for other devs to review and users to reject.

[BitUsher]

BitcoinXT is open source - the same as Bitcoin Core. Every change committed change is subject to review and comment, so there would be no way for a developer even if they were the sole committer to make some sort of change that would be implemented without review.

If BitcoinXT becomes the majority and then something needs to be changed, it'll take months to move between soft or hard forks. It'll be planned and we'll know the level of consensus amongst nodes months in advance.

In short, there's no easy option for bitcoin devs to just make a fickle or odd change to the network without a chance for other devs to review and users to reject.

As Far as I am aware there are only 2 developers that are giving approval to the blocksize update in XT, while at least 5 developers have to come to consensus with Bitcoin core. XT could certainly continue merging contributions made from the ~304 developers who work on core, but there would be a new precedent set that we should ignore the consensus process with BIP on core and simply fork the main repository if we cannot get agreement.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with Gavin and Hearn's ability or right to fork core as that is how open source works and ultimately the miners and full nodes will decide which fork to use. I do find it revealing that Gavin decided to discuss the XT solution to bypass consensus before he submitted a BIP proposal. He must have expected disagreement and is using XT to leverage for a change to core.

From the looks of it we may see a few developers walk away when consensus is reached which will be bad for everyone because all of them have made great contributions in the past.

I look forward to adjustments in the proposed BIP's or new ones that we all can rally behind. We need to start listening to each other a bit more and addressing each others concerns. Perhaps if Gavin's proposal could be merged with Garziks and there are other changes proposed that address some of the concerns with centralization or giving to much control to the miners.

[PolarPoint]

What if XT nodes gained in support and it's approaching majority, then core devs decides to support the XT's blocksize limit and implement the proposal into core? This is what I am hoping for: new block limit from both XT and core. It would be best for the users.

[canth]

What if XT nodes gained in support and it's approaching majority, then core devs decides to support the XT's blocksize limit and implement the proposal into core? This is what I am hoping for: new block limit from both XT and core. It would be best for the users.

Of course that would happen. It's either that or the Bitcoin Core devs get to maintain a version that no one uses - not much point in that.

[DooMAD]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean you can stop people from proposing a fork.  How about calling off the next general election because I disagree with a policy of one of the candidates?  How about closing a restaurant because I don't like one of the dishes on their menu?  How about we shut down the internet because I don't like a particular website?  Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's.  It just doesn't work that way.  At the end of the day, you have to allow people to make their own choices and that's what's going to happen whether you like it or not.  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

Anyone can modify Bitcoin's code without needing permission from the core devs.  It's called Open Source and it's one of the fundamental principles behind Bitcoin.  Consent comes from the users securing the network, not the developers.  If you want a closed source coin where a small number of developers make all the decisions and everyone is forced to use that code and only that code, what the hell are you even doing here?

[SebastianJu]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean you can stop people from proposing a fork.  How about calling off the next general election because I disagree with a policy of one of the candidates?  How about closing a restaurant because I don't like one of the dishes on their menu?  How about we shut down the internet because I don't like a particular website?  Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's.  It just doesn't work that way.  At the end of the day, you have to allow people to make their own choices and that's what's going to happen whether you like it or not.  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

Anyone can modify Bitcoin's code without needing permission from the core devs.  It's called Open Source and it's one of the fundamental principles behind Bitcoin.  Consent comes from the users securing the network, not the developers.  If you want a closed source coin where a small number of developers make all the decisions and everyone is forced to use that code and only that code, what the hell are you even doing here?

The question is who decides which version gets published. So far i read bitcoin xt has by far not the protection that bitcoin core has. And it only makes sense that gavin is switching there when he thinks he cant get his will on bitcoin core. The only reason he would switch would be because he would know he would get his will with bitcoin xt. So all the theoretical security about bitcoin xt are only theoretical as long as the project can be decided by 2 developers. All the fans download the client and thats it.

Im still not sure what will happen when gaving and hearn would implement tainting in their client and many newbs got aware that some coins might be worth less than others. Or if bitcoin xt would really become THE chain. Would a bad thing implemented be possibly made rolled back in any circumstances without leaving bitcoin behind hurt?

[DooMAD]

All the fans download the client and thats it.

Supporters of a political party usually support that political party and that's it.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't have elections.  

Either use Bitcoin and trust the majority to do what they think is best, or use a closed-source coin and trust the developers to do what they think is best.  Bitcoin is not closed source, but it sounds as though that's what you want, so those are your choices.  

[SebastianJu]

All the fans download the client and thats it.

Supporters of a political party usually support that political party and that's it.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't have elections.  

Either use Bitcoin and trust the majority to do what they think is best, or use a closed-source coin and trust the developers to do what they think is best.  Bitcoin is not closed source, but it sounds as though that's what you want, so those are your choices.  

How do you get that idea? The total opposite is what i described. Or did i sound like a fan of bitcoin xt to you. Im surely no fan of the ideas of hearn and gavin and their way of enforcing their will.

[canth]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean you can stop people from proposing a fork.  How about calling off the next general election because I disagree with a policy of one of the candidates?  How about closing a restaurant because I don't like one of the dishes on their menu?  How about we shut down the internet because I don't like a particular website?  Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's.  It just doesn't work that way.  At the end of the day, you have to allow people to make their own choices and that's what's going to happen whether you like it or not.  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

Anyone can modify Bitcoin's code without needing permission from the core devs.  It's called Open Source and it's one of the fundamental principles behind Bitcoin.  Consent comes from the users securing the network, not the developers.  If you want a closed source coin where a small number of developers make all the decisions and everyone is forced to use that code and only that code, what the hell are you even doing here?

The question is who decides which version gets published. So far i read bitcoin xt has by far not the protection that bitcoin core has. And it only makes sense that gavin is switching there when he thinks he cant get his will on bitcoin core. The only reason he would switch would be because he would know he would get his will with bitcoin xt. So all the theoretical security about bitcoin xt are only theoretical as long as the project can be decided by 2 developers. All the fans download the client and thats it.

Im still not sure what will happen when gaving and hearn would implement tainting in their client and many newbs got aware that some coins might be worth less than others. Or if bitcoin xt would really become THE chain. Would a bad thing implemented be possibly made rolled back in any circumstances without leaving bitcoin behind hurt?

If Bitcoin XT gets a majority, rest assured that there will be more than 2 developers contributing and reviewing code. Even if it's solely Hearn or Gavin that get commit access, every submission will get reviewed. If something controversial is committed, rest assured there will be a migration away from Bitcoin XT.

It doesn't matter if it's Bitcoin Core or XT or some other version - you're getting the same level of review unless developers leave the project and go work on Doge or something.

[TheMage]

was trying to catch up with the bitcoin core / xt situation and this blog post was a good read check it out

BitTorrent protocol creator Bram Cohen wrote in a blog post titled Bitcoin's Ironic Crisis

https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f

I share his opinion on this one.

i will quote his conclusion here -

 Conclusion
What should happen, in short, is nothing. There should be no increase to the block size limit. There should be no attempt to keep transaction fees from hitting a market rate. The block size limit is a good thing. Real transaction fees will be a good thing. Any changes to the block size limit will hurt both of those, create a significant risk of major disaster, and damage the credibility of Bitcoin as a reliable system. The best thing for everybody involved would be for the proposed changes to be simply dropped, and Bitcoin developers to get on with making proper technical solutions rather than hacky patches.

The current proposals for raising the block size are reckless, unnecessary, and potentially disastrous. Perhaps it is not nice of me to put it this way, but this is not a game. There is real money and real business on the line, and the people who are affected and have say in the matter should know what’s going on.

I stopped reading after this

Of being undermined by a developer who’s gone rogue, using his political influence to convince vendors that an upcoming minor problem will be a major crisis, getting them to accept his own extraordinarily bad pet solution to that problem, and as a result hurtling the whole ecosystem towards potential disaster.

If someone, anyone, wants to be taken serious in these discussions they need to avoid slander and ad hominems.

[photon_coin]

i am not in favor of xt

read the git pull https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341

Peter Todd sums it up best just a few of the reasons I cannot support it.

I have a lot of respect for all the work and code Gavin has done for years.

Truly.

But not this .....please consider the long term implications.


Or maybe someone has considered the long term implications and that is coming to the surface here.

[SebastianJu]

How about not forking Bitcoin at all since this is not an imminent issue.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but that doesn't mean you can stop people from proposing a fork.  How about calling off the next general election because I disagree with a policy of one of the candidates?  How about closing a restaurant because I don't like one of the dishes on their menu?  How about we shut down the internet because I don't like a particular website?  Your opinion doesn't trump everyone else's.  It just doesn't work that way.  At the end of the day, you have to allow people to make their own choices and that's what's going to happen whether you like it or not.  

The majority of Bitcoin developers agree with this statement, the developer of XT decided to make his own version of Bitcoin so he could control Bitcoin's code without needing consent from anyone else.

Anyone can modify Bitcoin's code without needing permission from the core devs.  It's called Open Source and it's one of the fundamental principles behind Bitcoin.  Consent comes from the users securing the network, not the developers.  If you want a closed source coin where a small number of developers make all the decisions and everyone is forced to use that code and only that code, what the hell are you even doing here?

The question is who decides which version gets published. So far i read bitcoin xt has by far not the protection that bitcoin core has. And it only makes sense that gavin is switching there when he thinks he cant get his will on bitcoin core. The only reason he would switch would be because he would know he would get his will with bitcoin xt. So all the theoretical security about bitcoin xt are only theoretical as long as the project can be decided by 2 developers. All the fans download the client and thats it.

Im still not sure what will happen when gaving and hearn would implement tainting in their client and many newbs got aware that some coins might be worth less than others. Or if bitcoin xt would really become THE chain. Would a bad thing implemented be possibly made rolled back in any circumstances without leaving bitcoin behind hurt?

If Bitcoin XT gets a majority, rest assured that there will be more than 2 developers contributing and reviewing code. Even if it's solely Hearn or Gavin that get commit access, every submission will get reviewed. If something controversial is committed, rest assured there will be a migration away from Bitcoin XT.

It doesn't matter if it's Bitcoin Core or XT or some other version - you're getting the same level of review unless developers leave the project and go work on Doge or something.

I see what you mean. Review after the release might happen. Though that might mean that already alot of people downloaded the client and made transactions on, maybe a fork. Surely they could switch away but a potential harm might be done already.

You dont fear something like that happening at all?

On top of that, what do you think if a reasonable high amount of users think the bitcoin xt bitcoins are the one with value and the rest thinks it the unforked bitcoin core? When they are not compatible then you have copied a currency and both chains fans believe their coin is the real deal. Maybe even exchanges are undecided. You simply dont copy a currency and have double the value. So what do you think will happen?

[DooMAD]

All the fans download the client and thats it.

Supporters of a political party usually support that political party and that's it.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't have elections.  

Either use Bitcoin and trust the majority to do what they think is best, or use a closed-source coin and trust the developers to do what they think is best.  Bitcoin is not closed source, but it sounds as though that's what you want, so those are your choices.  

How do you get that idea? The total opposite is what i described. Or did i sound like a fan of bitcoin xt to you. Im surely no fan of the ideas of hearn and gavin and their way of enforcing their will.

What you're describing is that you don't like individuals being able to release their own clients with modified code because apparently that's "enforcing their will".  That makes it sound like you want a single team of developers to be in total control and those developers have to agree all the time.  That's the definition of a closed source project.  You can't have it both ways.  Either anyone can release a client with whatever features they like and the users can then choose whether they run it or not, which is open source.  Or, the developers are in total control and everyone runs the same client whether they like it or not, which is closed source.  If you want open source, then you can't complain(*) about Gavin and Mike releasing their own client because they are perfectly entitled to do that, as is anyone else.  If you want closed source, go use Ripple or some other centralised crapcoin.  Again, those are your two choices.

(* well, you can complain, but it just sounds like you don't want people to be able to make their own choices)

[SebastianJu]

All the fans download the client and thats it.

Supporters of a political party usually support that political party and that's it.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't have elections.  

Either use Bitcoin and trust the majority to do what they think is best, or use a closed-source coin and trust the developers to do what they think is best.  Bitcoin is not closed source, but it sounds as though that's what you want, so those are your choices.  

How do you get that idea? The total opposite is what i described. Or did i sound like a fan of bitcoin xt to you. Im surely no fan of the ideas of hearn and gavin and their way of enforcing their will.

What you're describing is that you don't like individuals being able to release their own clients with modified code because apparently that's "enforcing their will".  That makes it sound like you want a single team of developers to be in total control and those developers have to agree all the time.  That's the definition of a closed source project.  You can't have it both ways.  Either anyone can release a client with whatever features they like and the users can then choose whether they run it or not, which is open source.  Or, the developers are in total control and everyone runs the same client whether they like it or not, which is closed source.  If you want open source, then you can't complain(*) about Gavin and Mike releasing their own client because they are perfectly entitled to do that, as is anyone else .  If you want closed source, go use Ripple or some other centralised crapcoin.  Again, those are your two choices.

(* well, you can complain, but it just sounds like you don't want people to be able to make their own choices)

Youre right, everyone is free to do what he wants. Though i would wish that the bitcoin blockchain and wallet development would work more like democracy. The head developer should agree to what the users want and implement that. Of course he is free to leave and behave as if bitcoin would die if we dont agree to what he wants now, instantly.

So no, i dont want closed source. I would only want that the development follows what the user wants. Ok, you might say users chose by chosing their wallet, but im not yet convinced that this behaviour might not lead to damage to bitcoin. It would be better to go the democratic way from the start. Then the current situation would not have happened.

[DooMAD]

Though i would wish that the bitcoin blockchain and wallet development would work more like democracy. The head developer should agree to what the users want and implement that.

Eew, really?  We can do so much better than democracy in its present guise.  The leader of a nation should in theory agree to do what the public want, but that's rarely the case.  Democracy at the moment is where a bunch of wealthy individuals and companies fund the election campaigns to effectively buy the policies they like best.  Everyone else gets to choose the bought puppet they detest the least.  It's just corruption by another name.  I'd personally hate to see Bitcoin work more like that.

[SebastianJu]

Though i would wish that the bitcoin blockchain and wallet development would work more like democracy. The head developer should agree to what the users want and implement that.

Eew, really?  We can do so much better than democracy in its present guise.  The leader of a nation should in theory agree to do what the public want, but that's rarely the case.  Democracy at the moment is where a bunch of wealthy individuals and companies fund the election campaigns to effectively buy the policies they like best.  Everyone else gets to choose the bought puppet they detest the least.  It's just corruption by another name.  I'd personally hate to see Bitcoin work more like that.

Youre right, though what we call nowadays is not really a democracy. Demo cracy means ruling of the people and we both know our democracies "leaders" fear the will of the people.

I think when we really could come up with an idea how to ask the users of bitcoin about what has to implement which way, and we only pay for these implementations, then situations like that would not happen so easy, because we would have decided as a community. Now we have to deal with what the developers do and chose then. Possibly hurting bitcoin on the way.