Let's call XT as Gavincoin just to get it's official altcoin tag out. GVC.

[tokeweed]

After watching this vid, I realized that there might be more ulterior motives behind XT than a 20mb block.  You can watch the vid in this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1102070.0

Hopefully.. Gavincoin will never be Bitcoin. 

[Alley]

FUD vid.  Surprised you fell for it.

[tokeweed]

FUD or not.  There might be ulterior motives behind this move.  Until Gavincoin becomes the main chain, let's call it as such.

[MicroGuy]

FUD vid.  Surprised you fell for it.

Using the word FUD is basically like saying, "I have a vacuum of intelligence I'd like to share." Sorry, but I just needed to say that.

[jubalix]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

[croTek4]

Are people really relating increasing block size limit to raising coin cap??

[Bromothymol Blue]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

Unfortunately if you are going to take the word of Satoshi as your Gospel there's other ramifications that you will need to face.

The original client managed to avoid a number of common vulnerabilities but it is by no measure perfection, and treating the often arbitrary decisions Satoshi made as having more foresight than the current contributors would be incredibly unwise. It was several orders of magnitude slower than today, had an integer overflow bug which allowed people to make infinite amounts of currency out of thin air, anybody could spend any other persons coins due to a scripting bug, any script could crash the whole network using OP_CAT, and the supposed 21 million coin limit didn't even exist until last year due to an implementation flaw. Some of the original fundamentals like a decentralized marketplace, raw multisignature, send to IP and sequence numbers have been removed due to them either being dangerous or useless.

If you really believe in the original implicit limit (32MB was likely never intended, just a side effect of a message size limit), perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and try to use wxBitcoin to store and manage your currency. If Satoshi really has the amount of foresight into the future and scalability of Bitcoin then you should have absolutely no problem using the immaculate first release along with the rest of its unintended "features". wxBitcoin 0.3.x should still function with a few changes to the BerkeleyDB configuration, and the original IRC servers are still operational on lfnet.

All this to say, Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future. As it stands Bitcoin Core is groaning under the weight of its current utilization, it would be foolish to assume that blindly adding 32 times the load would be without significant implications. Perhaps you should be asking the current core developers why they changed the currency issuing schedule in BIP42, maybe it really was His wisdom shining through after all.

[tokeweed]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

It isn't even about that.  It's about Gavin Andresen's other possible ulterior motives behind Gavincoin.

[AGD]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

It isn't even about that.  It's about Gavin Andresen's other possible ulterior motives behind Gavincoin.

NSA?

[LiteCoinGuy]

Are people really relating increasing block size limit to raising coin cap??

yeah, because they want to spread FUD. this is totally nonsense. in the end you look at the code and you can see what it will do.

[jubalix]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

It isn't even about that.  It's about Gavin Andresen's other possible ulterior motives behind Gavincoin.

please explain

[Amph]

well and what if the majority will prefer Gavincoin(unlikely scenario but not certainly impossible) then isn't just better to embrace it and get rid of this whole mess and no-sense

seeing how gavincoin is always bitcoin without the stupid 1MB limit

also the original client was without limit, so the wrong one is the core, and when the name from QT to core was changed, no one talked about gavincoin...so it does not have even to do with the name

[bitnanigans]

No point in changing the name. It's still essentially bitcoin.

[hund]

I'm pro progress but anti hostile takeovers and 'King Gavincoin'. Like totally!

Nope, we're not going from a consensus democracy back into a monarchy. Not going to happen. It's like changing from a rocket to a donkey for transport.

This isn't about bigger blocks! This is about empowering Gavin to dish you out whatever he desires to cater to regulators and Hitlers Granny. So, 'no' for all his proposals. Not going to use any code of this guy ever again. Can't wrap my had around how some people still support Gavin after how this thing played out.

Gavin is like everything Bitcoin should never be. 

[QuestionAuthority]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

Unfortunately if you are going to take the word of Satoshi as your Gospel there's other ramifications that you will need to face.

The original client managed to avoid a number of common vulnerabilities but it is by no measure perfection, and treating the often arbitrary decisions Satoshi made as having more foresight than the current contributors would be incredibly unwise. It was several orders of magnitude slower than today, had an integer overflow bug which allowed people to make infinite amounts of currency out of thin air, anybody could spend any other persons coins due to a scripting bug, any script could crash the whole network using OP_CAT, and the supposed 21 million coin limit didn't even exist until last year due to an implementation flaw. Some of the original fundamentals like a decentralized marketplace, raw multisignature, send to IP and sequence numbers have been removed due to them either being dangerous or useless.

If you really believe in the original implicit limit (32MB was likely never intended, just a side effect of a message size limit), perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and try to use wxBitcoin to store and manage your currency. If Satoshi really has the amount of foresight into the future and scalability of Bitcoin then you should have absolutely no problem using the immaculate first release along with the rest of its unintended "features". wxBitcoin 0.3.x should still function with a few changes to the BerkeleyDB configuration, and the original IRC servers are still operational on lfnet.

All this to say, Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future. As it stands Bitcoin Core is groaning under the weight of its current utilization, it would be foolish to assume that blindly adding 32 times the load would be without significant implications. Perhaps you should be asking the current core developers why they changed the currency issuing schedule in BIP42, maybe it really was His wisdom shining through after all.

Amazingly well said! Satoshi isn't even the original architect of the PoW security system Bitcoin uses. If you really want to know the opinion of a member of Bitcoin's original design team ask Adam Back. He's been working on the concept since 1997 and doesn't appear to be running away like Satoshi did.

Great first post. Who are you?

[tokeweed]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

It isn't even about that.  It's about Gavin Andresen's other possible ulterior motives behind Gavincoin.

please explain

If Gavincoin succeeds, so meaning Gavin and Hearn know the majority would follow them...  Then who knows what they have under their sleeves.  Increase the cap on total coins?  A bit farfetched for me...  but not impossible.  But I'm thinking more on the degree of control they'd have going forward.

[tokeweed]

FUD FUD FUD

satoshi was happy with what 33mb blocks? and that was at the start?

Unfortunately if you are going to take the word of Satoshi as your Gospel there's other ramifications that you will need to face.

The original client managed to avoid a number of common vulnerabilities but it is by no measure perfection, and treating the often arbitrary decisions Satoshi made as having more foresight than the current contributors would be incredibly unwise. It was several orders of magnitude slower than today, had an integer overflow bug which allowed people to make infinite amounts of currency out of thin air, anybody could spend any other persons coins due to a scripting bug, any script could crash the whole network using OP_CAT, and the supposed 21 million coin limit didn't even exist until last year due to an implementation flaw. Some of the original fundamentals like a decentralized marketplace, raw multisignature, send to IP and sequence numbers have been removed due to them either being dangerous or useless.

If you really believe in the original implicit limit (32MB was likely never intended, just a side effect of a message size limit), perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is and try to use wxBitcoin to store and manage your currency. If Satoshi really has the amount of foresight into the future and scalability of Bitcoin then you should have absolutely no problem using the immaculate first release along with the rest of its unintended "features". wxBitcoin 0.3.x should still function with a few changes to the BerkeleyDB configuration, and the original IRC servers are still operational on lfnet.

All this to say, Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future. As it stands Bitcoin Core is groaning under the weight of its current utilization, it would be foolish to assume that blindly adding 32 times the load would be without significant implications. Perhaps you should be asking the current core developers why they changed the currency issuing schedule in BIP42, maybe it really was His wisdom shining through after all.

Amazingly well said! Satoshi isn't even the original architect of the PoW security system Bitcoin uses. If you really want to know the opinion of a member of Bitcoin's original design team ask Adam Back. He's been working on the concept since 1997 and doesn't appear to be running away like Satoshi did.

Great first post. Who are you?

Probably an old time Bitcoiner who doesn't want to be exposed.

[DooMAD]

I'm pro progress but anti hostile takeovers and 'King Gavincoin'. Like totally!

Nope, we're not going from a consensus democracy back into a monarchy. Not going to happen. It's like changing from a rocket to a donkey for transport.

This isn't about bigger blocks! This is about empowering Gavin to dish you out whatever he desires to cater to regulators and Hitlers Granny. So, 'no' for all his proposals. Not going to use any code of this guy ever again. Can't wrap my had around how some people still support Gavin after how this thing played out.

Gavin is like everything Bitcoin should never be.  

Except it is about larger blocks.  Gavin is no more "empowered" than anyone else because literally anyone can release a Bitcoin client with whatever features they like.  If I were a coder, I could release a client of my own with a 50MB blocksize.  There is nothing preventing me from doing that.  By your logic does that make Bitcoin a monarchy too?  Of course not.  Because chances are, no one is likely to run my code.  Ergo, we still have consensus.  How many times do I have to keep saying it?  Consensus is NOT a small group of developers having to agree on everything for the rest of forever.  

Anyone who views a fork proposal as an attack or a power grab is misguided to put it mildly.  If you genuinely want a protocol that can't be changed unless a group of coders who are 100% in control of it agree, then you actually want a centralised, closed source coin and you are in completely the wrong place if you think that's how Bitcoin should work.  Seriously, go use Ripple or some other centralised IOU crap if you don't want an open source network where the majority are allowed to decide how it's run.  You cannot rationally say that one group of developers must be malicious because they have one solution, whereas the other group of developers are a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is and always should be because they have a different approach.  If you give anyone total control over the code, you have to trust that they're never going to abuse that control.  That makes no sense and would be a genuine threat to Bitcoin's future if everyone saw it that way.  It's the users securing the network who decide how the network is run, not the developers.  The ability to fork by consensus is paramount to Bitcoin's survival in a decentralised fashion.

I honestly don't care who releases a client that supports a larger blocksize than 1MB.  Once one is available, I'm going to run it and so is anyone else who thinks larger blocks are required.  If enough people agree, the change will occur.  There is still consensus in that procedure, whoever writes the code.  The drama you're somehow seeing isn't actually there.  Consensus is still king.  Everything is fine.  Relax.

[Zombier0]

I like the idea haha

[Mickeyb]

FUD or not.  There might be ulterior motives behind this move.  Until Gavincoin becomes the main chain, let's call it as such.

I am pretty sure that the moment that the XT will never become a main chain! Their support is just not increasing so I guess it's over, no?

The thing that came to my mind is what will become Gavin after this XT fiasco? What he will do in the future and will he just come back to the Bitcoin development like usual or what? Will he be accepted back is a good question as well?