The biggest con to Bitcoin XT is the fact that Mike Hearn apparently wants to consolidate power over the blockchain via miners, and get the ability to freeze / blacklist bitcoins, as he mentions here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5979.0I've been basically 100% Bitcoin for over 2 years now, but if that little proposal becomes reality, I'll be switching back to fiat immediately.
Yes, Hearn and Andresen are trying to do a power grab here that is a serious threat to Bitcoin as we know it. As they have stated more than once, privacy and decentralization are not their primary objective. They want adoption at any cost - even if that means Bitcoin will become effectively a Paypal 2.0.
The reddit crowd and many members here are cheering for a max_blocksize increase. They also want adoption at any cost, because they simply hope for a rapid increase in Bitcoin's value. However such kind of thinking is shortsighted and might ultimately lead to Bitcoin's death by allowing centralized control and surveillance of transactions by a limited number of full nodes.
People should remember the fate of The Bitcoin Foundation, which was founded by Gavin. The objections raised against an excessive max_blocksize increase are fully justified.
I will never support the Hearndresen-fork. But instead of switching to fiat I will stay with Bitcoin Core (bringing more nodes up).
Fork = Evolve and, Not Fork = Devolve
That's simply wrong. Most improvements do not need a hard-fork. A hard-fork without consensus does not signify evolution, it signifies separation. A hard-fork based on egoistic motives and/or false assumptions is devolution.
ya.ya.yo!
But you are assuming they will do a hard fork without consensus, which as far as I know is not the case.
They want the price to go as high as possible as high as possible, but they know that if they fork without consensus what they will get is the contrary.
