"Bitcoin" XT Status Update

[btccashacc]

my friend say Bitcoin XT is a virus

[1714978740]

1714978740

[1714978740]

1714978740

[1714978740]

1714978740

[1714978740]

1714978740

[crazywack]

my friend say Bitcoin XT is a virus

Gavin and Hearn are the virus! Lies on the core front won't help the fight. Even though it's my belief they won't have THEIR  "consensus" to fork they will take any inch they can get to adanvce their agenda.

[canth]

Or put the NOTXT Nodes back on core and let XT sit at 5-7% until they give up and relize their shit isn't going anywhere and they find a better solution.

That would be more productive, more honest and less risky for all involved. I'm running XT but I have no problem if it goes nowhere - that will mean that the will of the economic supermajority will be observed.

[canth]

my friend say Bitcoin XT is a virus

Lol...my "friend" says that Jared from the Subway commercials is really Satoshi Nakamoto.

[chennan]

This project can damage to Bitcoin network . how it is interesting ? .... Anyway
We know the problems and the question is what is the final solution ?

The project is interesting because it *might* damage Bitcoin.  Not many things can do that.

The solution is running and mining blocks with NotXT nodes.

Contact your favorite pool ops/devs and ask them to add a port for NotXT miners.

When XT is lulled into a false sense of security, we spring the trap and kill it.

Ppl get bias and are thinking in the way they get used to. Until XT reaches consensus from the majority, will they still mining NotXT which will be altcoin? I doubt it!

[dooglus]

If Bitcoin forks in January and there isn't something close to a 50/50 split, you can be damn sure that miners, merchants, exchanges are going to pick the winner real fast, no matter which side it's on. The market you are talking about would evaporate nearly instantly.

Yes, but I'm talking about launching it now, so you can put your money where your mouth is when it matters. Really think XT stands a chance? I'll sell you some XTcoin for your BTC. The market would tell us what people really have faith in.

[iCEBREAKER]

'We fake it, until they make it' is certainly a factor.

But every bit of faked support gives the economic veto power (IE MPEX's GavinCoin short) more leverage.

I don't think it will even get to that point.

If NotXT (and the devastating addition risk it creates for first mover defections) doesn't sufficiently demoralize the Gavinistas, the FUD about XT's hidden anti-Tor/pro-panopticon code will.  

So XT puts out a proposal requiring a vote. NoXT gambles with everyone's value using deceipt while hoping that it doesn't put the hashing power over the top. There can be no argument here - this is the riskiest part of the entire endeavor.

You've got it all wrong bro.  There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As the basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

[sgbett]

'We fake it, until they make it' is certainly a factor.

But every bit of faked support gives the economic veto power (IE MPEX's GavinCoin short) more leverage.

I don't think it will even get to that point.

If NotXT (and the devastating addition risk it creates for first mover defections) doesn't sufficiently demoralize the Gavinistas, the FUD about XT's hidden anti-Tor/pro-panopticon code will.  

So XT puts out a proposal requiring a vote. NoXT gambles with everyone's value using deceipt while hoping that it doesn't put the hashing power over the top. There can be no argument here - this is the riskiest part of the entire endeavor.

You've got it all wrong bro.  There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As the basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

[Nxtblg]

With all the damn threads, it seems like half of them, I think we know the f#$&king status.

lol

And yet, we can't stop reading them.

[canth]

If Bitcoin forks in January and there isn't something close to a 50/50 split, you can be damn sure that miners, merchants, exchanges are going to pick the winner real fast, no matter which side it's on. The market you are talking about would evaporate nearly instantly.

Yes, but I'm talking about launching it now, so you can put your money where your mouth is when it matters. Really think XT stands a chance? I'll sell you some XTcoin for your BTC. The market would tell us what people really have faith in.

Yeah, I realize that's what you mean. Personally I wouldn't be interested since I don't think I have any more prescience than others about what view other users/miners/exchanges will take. Hell, the bitcoin core devs could just implement BIP 101 or something with reasonable growth and the XT arguments would go away.

I don't view XT as a gamble - it's a binary outcome. Either it takes hold and produces a longer PoW chain or it doesn't. If there is any sort of 50/50 split - I would park my coins and wait it out. Unfortunately for exchanges, miners and bitpay/coinbase, that's not a good outcome but the good news is that I imagine it wouldn't take more than a few days to sort itself at the worst.

[canth]

'We fake it, until they make it' is certainly a factor.

But every bit of faked support gives the economic veto power (IE MPEX's GavinCoin short) more leverage.

I don't think it will even get to that point.

If NotXT (and the devastating addition risk it creates for first mover defections) doesn't sufficiently demoralize the Gavinistas, the FUD about XT's hidden anti-Tor/pro-panopticon code will.  

So XT puts out a proposal requiring a vote. NoXT gambles with everyone's value using deceipt while hoping that it doesn't put the hashing power over the top. There can be no argument here - this is the riskiest part of the entire endeavor.

You've got it all wrong bro.  There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As the basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

You could not be more wrong about this. NoXT supporters are the only high stakes gamblers in this whole process. The good news is that I doubt ANY miners of any significant size will run NoXT because they're don't embrace those sorts of risks.

[iCEBREAKER]

There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect?  I hope not!   

Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend.  I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself.  I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.

If XT wins, I will admit defeat.  May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?

[canth]

There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect?  I hope not!   

Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend.  I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself.  I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.

If XT wins, I will admit defeat.  May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?

NotXT is certainly capable of mining blocks and indicating support for BIP101 while actually not conforming to BIP101. To put it in simple terms so you understand, here is the problem.

Hashrate in January 2016:

25% - Core blocks
25% - NotXT blocks (indicating XT)
50% - XT blocks (indicating XT and allowing for BIP101 blocks)

In this case, 750  blocks will likely be mined at some point in 2016 triggering the allowance of larger blocks. If the NotXT nodes keep up the charade, the trigger commences and the first >1M block will be broadcast splitting the network essentially 50/50.

Please explain why you think that this is not essentially the worst possible outcome of any sort of hard fork.

[ZephramC]

There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."    

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger.  As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless.  It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost.  This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect?  I hope not!   

Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend.  I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself.  I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.

If XT wins, I will admit defeat.  May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?

NotXT is certainly capable of mining blocks and indicating support for BIP101 while actually not conforming to BIP101. To put it in simple terms so you understand, here is the problem.

Hashrate in January 2016:

25% - Core blocks
25% - NotXT blocks (indicating XT)
50% - XT blocks (indicating XT and allowing for BIP101 blocks)

In this case, 750  blocks will likely be mined at some point in 2016 triggering the allowance of larger blocks. If the NotXT nodes keep up the charade, the trigger commences and the first >1M block will be broadcast splitting the network essentially 50/50.

Please explain why you think that this is not essentially the worst possible outcome of any sort of hard fork.

M.A.D.
I think NotXT proponents know this. And hope that this perceived risk of "worst possible outcome" will convince XT nodes to "back off". And XT proponents likewise hope that NotXT proponents will back off.
Also situation can be 25:50:25 (or 25:35:40) instead of 25:25:50 in which case XT nodes will be hurt more. I suppose this is NotXT's plan B if XT won't diminish.
Also situation can be 25:10:65 in which case NotXT nodes and Core nodes will be hurt more.
There can also be "NotCore" Blocks that will switch to XT when the time comes.

People, we need some serious deescalation.

[sofu]

lol what happened with xtnodes.com?

[canth]

lol what happened with xtnodes.com?

Looks like it could use some more decentralization. Or funds.

DDoSed. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i2yvf/xtnodescom_request_for_ddos_protected_hosting/

[Furio]

The longer the core developers wait with (variabel) increased blocksize, the more confirmation opponnents of opensource software have, this is making al decentral initiatives look bad, because people can go --> DO YOU SEE or I TOLD YOU SO....

[btccashacc]

why we must upgrade from Core to XT ?

[canth]

why we must upgrade from Core to XT ?

Right now, you don't have to. You have until January 2016 at least to push the core devs to consider BIP 101 or an alternative for increasing throughput. Keeping the block size at 1MB seems very unlikely given miner, industry and user support for larger blocks. The only question is how this gets implemented and whether or not a 'contentious' hard fork is the mechanism used to make the change.

[ZephramC]

why we must upgrade from Core to XT ?

Right now, you don't have to. You have until January 2016 at least to push the core devs to consider BIP 101 or an alternative for increasing throughput. Keeping the block size at 1MB seems very unlikely given miner, industry and user support for larger blocks. The only question is how this gets implemented and whether or not a 'contentious' hard fork is the mechanism used to make the change.

You do not have to upgrade. Question whether to increase block size at all does not have "the only one valid" answer? (No matter what economic players, miners, XT developers, Core developers, Satoshi, etc. says.)
If there is a block size change (it do not have to be increase) there are multiple possible solutions to this issue (BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP1XX, other BIPs, suggestions and solutions aspiring to BIP status and multiple ideas).
Bitcoin XT is one of possible implementations of BIP101, although most finished and popular one.