Node observer: Bitcoin Core Vs Bitcoin TX | 5700 vs 900

[alani123]

Bitcoin XT nodes are outnumbered ~ 6 to 1 by bitcoin core nodes and are ~13.5% of total.
Due to how easy it is for XT nodes to be faked, I'll stop updating the above numbers as frequently.

The number of XT nodes seems to have increased shortly after a scandal involving someone attempting to fake an email pretending to be satoshi¹. r/bitcoin currently seems to be infuriated by the moderator tactics enforced in the subreddit. Snapshot of what the subreddit currently looks like here.

1: Theymos on Reddit added his view on the incident of the email. Maybe it's still unclear if it's genuine.

Tools used:

http://xtnodes.com/

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/


Legacy text from June 12:
That's just one or two weeks before Gavin submits the block size increase update. Meanwhile bitcoin core nodes have even increased after Mike's statement on June 8th from ~5900 to ~6040 today.


Full block size debate video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w

[ayesha201006]

Interesting numbers.  The problem is that if no one updates then we will have some problems.  However Gavin said that he wanted to start early because if it is going to happen, it might take 6 months or longer to get switched over to the new version.

[alani123]

Interesting numbers.  The problem is that if no one updates then we will have some problems.  However Gavin said that he wanted to start early because if it is going to happen, it might take 6 months or longer to get switched over to the new version.

Miners are also going to play an important role into this. While Mike claimed to have spoken to several service providers, we know that he was into disagreement with Chinese miners not too long ago. It's surely going to be interesting watching this.

[Hazir]

Interesting numbers.  The problem is that if no one updates then we will have some problems.  However Gavin said that he wanted to start early because if it is going to happen, it might take 6 months or longer to get switched over to the new version.

Miners are also going to play an important role into this. While Mike claimed to have spoken to several service providers, we know that he was into disagreement with Chinese miners not too long ago. It's surely going to be interesting watching this.

What Chinese miners arguing about so hard? This change is not something radical like making fork 20MB instantly. It is like they want to have block bitcoin evolution and keep progress at bay.
Change like that is the middleground and I think everybody should be happy about it. Only a fool would think that bitcoin won't be changed in the future.

[unamis76]

We have time to track these kinds of numbers. While the initial adoption of clients accepting bigger blocks will probably show the direction in which we will be going in the future, it will be long until the day we switch to bigger blocks... And that's where we really to see numbers, so we can see if we have 90% on "the other side"

[chopper873]

I'm a noob when it comes to mining.

What counts as a node in this situation where the software a node runs gets a vote in the big blocks/little blocks argument?

For the big blocks argument is a node a pool or is each miner connected to a pool counted as a node?

When I look at blockchain.info it's mostly the pools that show up as solving blocks, not the individual miners. Here's what it shows for the last few blocks.

F2Pool   
AntPool   
AntPool   
Eligius   
121.43.197.95

[Lauda]

I think that you've made this thread a little too early. I would like to see the numbers starting from July.
The opposition might actually turn on more nodes on Core.

Currently:
XT nodes: 125   Total nodes: 5922
This is what I'm talking about. We've yet to see what happens when Gavin pushes the changes. However another worrying fact is that 36% of the nodes are in the USA.

[yayayo]

I think that you've made this thread a little too early. I would like to see the numbers starting from July.
The opposition might actually turn on more nodes on Core.

Currently:
XT nodes: 125   Total nodes: 5922
This is what I'm talking about. We've yet to see what happens when Gavin pushes the changes. However another worrying fact is that 36% of the nodes are in the USA.

Gavin and Mike won't push XT. They know it wouldn't have a chance to reach a supermajority. Apart from that they would take the risk of being responsible for any break of the Bitcoin system and loss in value. That's a personal risk far too high to take.

The only reason why Andreesen and Hearn mention XT is to pressure the other developers to agree in implementing their proposals into Core. I'm very pleased to see that the other devs are not following this plan.

ya.ya.yo!

[Lauda]

Gavin and Mike won't push XT. They know it wouldn't have a chance to reach a supermajority. Apart from that they would take the risk of being responsible for any break of the Bitcoin system and loss in value. That's a personal risk far too high to take.

The only reason why Andreesen and Hearn mention XT is to pressure the other developers to agree in implementing their proposals into Core. I'm very pleased to see that the other devs are not following this plan.

ya.ya.yo!

How can you really know that? I mean a lot of things are possible. I saw somewhere today that Microsoft is running XT software (didn't verify) already.
I guess people that don't have much influence should just follow the money for their own sake.
We will see what will actually happen in the upcoming weeks.

[Klestin]

Bitcoin XT nodes are outnumbered 45 to 1 by bitocoin core nodes. That's just one or two weeks before Gavin submits the block size increase update. Meanwhile bitcoin core nodes have even increased after Mike's statement on June 8th from ~5900 to ~6040 today.

Oh wait, I just realized that the submission of the block size increase update does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the block size.  This change will start tracking "votes" for the change in mined blocks.  That's it.

[alani123]

I'm a noob when it comes to mining.

What counts as a node in this situation where the software a node runs gets a vote in the big blocks/little blocks argument?

For the big blocks argument is a node a pool or is each miner connected to a pool counted as a node?

When I look at blockchain.info it's mostly the pools that show up as solving blocks, not the individual miners. Here's what it shows for the last few blocks.

F2Pool   
AntPool   
AntPool   
Eligius   
121.43.197.95

This isn't entirely about mining. While miners are going to play a significant role if Gavin and Mike move on with their proposed fork, full nodes are clients running a bitcoin client with the full blockchain. Bitcoin XT will have a voting mechanism implemented inside it, that's why the number of nodes is significant. It shows how accepted Mike hearn's and Gavin Andresen's work is, as well as how likely it is for the blocksize increase to happen according to their terms. However, as of now I haven't seen any pools publicly stating they wouldn't or would support bitcoin XT. With the possible exception of BTC China's pool, since their exchange publicly stated that they don't support the block size increase.

Bitcoin XT nodes are outnumbered 45 to 1 by bitocoin core nodes. That's just one or two weeks before Gavin submits the block size increase update. Meanwhile bitcoin core nodes have even increased after Mike's statement on June 8th from ~5900 to ~6040 today.

Oh wait, I just realized that the submission of the block size increase update does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the block size.  This change will start tracking "votes" for the change in mined blocks.  That's it.

So why not observe the votes in the meantime?

[lemipawa]

What Chinese miners arguing about so hard? This change is not something radical like making fork 20MB instantly. It is like they want to have block bitcoin evolution and keep progress at bay.
Change like that is the middleground and I think everybody should be happy about it. Only a fool would think that bitcoin won't be changed in the future.

They think that a 20 MB jump is too big because their bandwidth is not large enough to support 20 MB blocks. Since there is the possibility, however extremely unlikely, of suddenly having 20 MB blocks, the Chinese miners are afraid that they will be unable to mine because they will not have enough bandwidth to both receive and transmit blocks to the rest of the network. The current proposal that most people agree on (including Mike and Gavin) is to change the block size limit to 8 MB which the Chinese miners also agree on.

[BitUsher]

It will be interesting to see if this race creates an incentive for more nodes to come online thus helping secure the network and decentralize it further.

[BillyBobZorton]

I think that you've made this thread a little too early. I would like to see the numbers starting from July.
The opposition might actually turn on more nodes on Core.

Currently:
XT nodes: 125   Total nodes: 5922
This is what I'm talking about. We've yet to see what happens when Gavin pushes the changes. However another worrying fact is that 36% of the nodes are in the USA.

Nothing will happen. It all comes down to the majority. There will be no hard fork unless the status look basically the opposite in favor or XT. It's a way of voting by running a node. Honestly im still with Core because im too lazy to download the other client and I think both solutions aren't definitive anyway.

[Amph]

It would be difficult for bitcoin XT to overcome bitcoin core since chinise miners who has big hashrate won't accept it.
But, it will be interesting if there are a block with size over 1MB

they said that they are willing to change their mind if the proposal, new limit, will not be 20 but something smaller like 8-10

still their reason for not accepting it is a bit selfish, they should look at bitcoin by tech point of view, and not only from a point of view of profit

[Lauda]

Nothing will happen. It all comes down to the majority. There will be no hard fork unless the status look basically the opposite in favor or XT. It's a way of voting by running a node. Honestly im still with Core because im too lazy to download the other client and I think both solutions aren't definitive anyway.

You obviously don't understand English as supposed to. I wasn't asking for possibilities, I was wondering how many nodes would jump over to XT once Gavin pushes changes. There is a difference.
Core has no solution right now, however there isn't a problem present yet either.

they said that they are willing to change their mind if the proposal, new limit, will not be 20 but something smaller like 8-10

still their reason for not accepting it is a bit selfish, they should look at bitcoin by tech point of view, and not only from a point of view of profit

They actually "changed" their mind once again. From what I can understand, if we don't have reach consensus (90%) for XT they are going to introduce "checkpoint blocks" to ignore the longest chain.
Update: I know that it is. However people shouldn't waste 1 hour of their time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

[Amph]

They actually "changed" their mind once again. From what I can understand, if we don't have reach consensus (90%) for XT they are going to introduce "checkpoint blocks" to ignore the longest chain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

how checkpoint works? it seem also something that can prevent a 51% attack

what will happen to their coins, they will mine air? or they will just continue to mine into their own fork

[valkir]

I try to understand as much as I can bitcoin XT.

Quick question, what will happen if a block is more than 1mb and bitcoin XT accept it ??
There will be 2 chain? So problem with these 2 chain ?

Thanks

[Lauda]

They actually "changed" their mind once again. From what I can understand, if we don't have reach consensus (90%) for XT they are going to introduce "checkpoint blocks" to ignore the longest chain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

how checkpoint works? it seem also something that can prevent a 51% attack

what will happen to their coins, they will mine air? or they will just continue to mine into their own fork

I don't think that he was talking about traditional checkpoints in that video. Usually when they create a checkpoint it is a block that the network can revert to if things go the wrong way (e.g. 51% attack).
Just watch the video.

I try to understand as much as I can bitcoin XT.

Quick question, what will happen if a block is more than 1mb and bitcoin XT accept it ??
There will be 2 chain? So problem with these 2 chain ?

Thanks

A block can't be more than 1 MB until we fork to Bitcoin XT. Once (if) we fork to Bitcoin XT there will be 2 competing chains.

[alani123]

They actually "changed" their mind once again. From what I can understand, if we don't have reach consensus (90%) for XT they are going to introduce "checkpoint blocks" to ignore the longest chain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

This, uuh... Is from the same video linked in the OP. Published on June 8.