The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks is increasing

[DooMAD]

If future versions of XT have further changes, those changes will only be implemented if users download and run the new code.  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits.  If developers introduced a change in a client that the majority didn't agree with, that change would not be propagated across the network.  This applies to all clients, whether it be XT, Core or something else entirely.  Developers can only release code to the public, they can't force the public to run it.

Tl;dr version of the events that will occur: Hearn forces some weird changes and tells others to make their own fork if they don't like it.

The clearest statement I've seen on governance has been by Mike Hearn on our podcast. He said that there should be a benevolent dictator who makes the final calls and if people don't like it they can fork the code and convince users to switch.

It's one thing to support bigger blocks, and another to support Bitcoin XT with its (potential) dictator. I was actually supporting XT at first until he started proposing weird ideas, such as the dictatorship or ignoring the 'longest chain' using 'checkpoints'. Ignoring consensus and dictating is one of the prime reasons for which I do not think that it should be considered as a valid hard fork candidate.

Clearly he has quite a few controversial ideas, many of which I don't agree with, like whitelisting or ignoring the longest chain.  If he ever enacts such changes, I won't be supporting it.  And no, he can't "force some weird changes" because if the next release of XT 0.11B or whatever it ends up being called introduces any such changes, people can stick with the current release that doesn't have those changes.  

Repeated with bolding in case it didn't register last time:  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits.  If developers introduced a change in a client that the majority didn't agree with, that change would not be propagated across the network.

The users decide, not the developers.  How many more times does it need to be explained?

[1713446467]

1713446467

[1713446467]

1713446467

[RoadTrain]

The users decide, not the developers.  How many more times does it need to be explained?

That's only partially true. Because many users can't make really informed decisions but they can be convinced by some authority. There are currently some serious issues with raising blocksize limit, yet many people choose Gavin's very aggressive increases (doubling every 2 years? I can't believe he proposes this for real).

I'd personally favor a technical discussion than a political one.

[RoadTrain]

Can a moderator move this to the altcoin section please? I dont remember XT-coin having anything to do with Bitcoin last I checked.

You're not checking hard enough, then.  If XT belongs in the altcoin section, so does Armory, MultiBit and Electrum.  They're alternative clients, not altcoins.  Altcoins don't relay bitcoin transactions on Bitcoin's blockchain.  XT does.

How on earth are you able to derive this conclusion? Armory, MultiBit and Electrum are clients strictly following the current protocol, and they don't propose any changes to it. XT is following a different protocol, even if changes are not activated yet -- they are still in the code (are they already?).

I can create a NewBitcoin which forks after some future block, and then uses SHA3 hashing with unlimited coin supply. It would be an altcoin, even if I try to argue for pushing it to Core. The only difference between me and Gavin&Mike is that they have some authority, reasoning and expertise while I don't.

[DooMAD]

Can a moderator move this to the altcoin section please? I dont remember XT-coin having anything to do with Bitcoin last I checked.

You're not checking hard enough, then.  If XT belongs in the altcoin section, so does Armory, MultiBit and Electrum.  They're alternative clients, not altcoins.  Altcoins don't relay bitcoin transactions on Bitcoin's blockchain.  XT does.

How on earth are you able to derive this conclusion? Armory, MultiBit and Electrum are clients strictly following the current protocol, and they don't propose any changes to it. XT is following a different protocol, even if changes are not activated yet -- they are still in the code (are they already?).

I can create a NewBitcoin which forks after some future block, and then uses SHA3 hashing with unlimited coin supply. It would be an altcoin, even if I try to argue for pushing it to Core. The only difference between me and Gavin&Mike is that they have some authority, reasoning and expertise while I don't.

If the majority of Bitcoin users were crazy enough to support those changes and consensus was reached, like it or not, that would then become Bitcoin.  Bitcoin Core is not a permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is".  Nor are its developers.  Any developer can propose a change to Bitcoin, but only the users securing the network can permit that change to go ahead.  If it forks without consensus of the Bitcoin network, it becomes an altcoin and Bitcoin carries on in it's existing state.  If it forks with consensus, it becomes Bitcoin and the old chain becomes the alt.  There is literally no arguing with this.  You can't rationally tout the merits of open source decentralisation and then start to cry "altcoin" or "dictatorship" when someone proposes a change.  Either the network agrees to the change, or it carries on as before.  Consensus is king.  If you don't like that, go use Ripple or some other closed-source coin where the developers make all the decisions for you. 

[RoadTrain]

Can a moderator move this to the altcoin section please? I dont remember XT-coin having anything to do with Bitcoin last I checked.

You're not checking hard enough, then.  If XT belongs in the altcoin section, so does Armory, MultiBit and Electrum.  They're alternative clients, not altcoins.  Altcoins don't relay bitcoin transactions on Bitcoin's blockchain.  XT does.

How on earth are you able to derive this conclusion? Armory, MultiBit and Electrum are clients strictly following the current protocol, and they don't propose any changes to it. XT is following a different protocol, even if changes are not activated yet -- they are still in the code (are they already?).

I can create a NewBitcoin which forks after some future block, and then uses SHA3 hashing with unlimited coin supply. It would be an altcoin, even if I try to argue for pushing it to Core. The only difference between me and Gavin&Mike is that they have some authority, reasoning and expertise while I don't.

If the majority of Bitcoin users were crazy enough to support those changes and consensus was reached, like it or not, that would then become Bitcoin.  Bitcoin Core is not a permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is".  Nor are its developers.  Any developer can propose a change to Bitcoin, but only the users securing the network can permit that change to go ahead.  If it forks without consensus of the Bitcoin network, it becomes an altcoin and Bitcoin carries on in it's existing state.  If it forks with consensus, it becomes Bitcoin and the old chain becomes the alt.  There is literally no arguing with this.  You can't rationally tout the merits of open source decentralisation and then start to cry "altcoin" or "dictatorship" when someone proposes a change.  Either the network agrees to the change, or it carries on as before.  Consensus is king.  If you don't like that, go use Ripple or some other closed-source coin where the developers make all the decisions for you.  

Yes, it would become Bitcoin, but until then it would be a stupid altcoin. In the current process, consensus must be reached before a fork happens. Until it's reached, it's not Bitcoin. That's a safe approach to changes in a decentralized payment network.

What Bitcoin is is decided by consensus (that buzzword, lol). XT protocol (in its entirety) does not have consensus, thus is not Bitcoin.

[dserrano5]

And no, he can't "force some weird changes" because if the next release of XT 0.11B or whatever it ends up being called introduces any such changes, people can stick with the current release that doesn't have those changes.  

Repeated with bolding in case it didn't register last time:  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits. […]

The users decide, not the developers.

But, what if all this block size stuff is just a bait to make everyone do the switch (let's leave aside the probabilites of that IRL) and only after the world has been conquered, do the controversial changes start to come in? (eg. that "redlisting" thing that MH was all for). The world is not going to switch back even if Bitcoin Core supports bigger blocks.

[DooMAD]

Can a moderator move this to the altcoin section please? I dont remember XT-coin having anything to do with Bitcoin last I checked.

You're not checking hard enough, then.  If XT belongs in the altcoin section, so does Armory, MultiBit and Electrum.  They're alternative clients, not altcoins.  Altcoins don't relay bitcoin transactions on Bitcoin's blockchain.  XT does.

How on earth are you able to derive this conclusion? Armory, MultiBit and Electrum are clients strictly following the current protocol, and they don't propose any changes to it. XT is following a different protocol, even if changes are not activated yet -- they are still in the code (are they already?).

I can create a NewBitcoin which forks after some future block, and then uses SHA3 hashing with unlimited coin supply. It would be an altcoin, even if I try to argue for pushing it to Core. The only difference between me and Gavin&Mike is that they have some authority, reasoning and expertise while I don't.

If the majority of Bitcoin users were crazy enough to support those changes and consensus was reached, like it or not, that would then become Bitcoin.  Bitcoin Core is not a permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is".  Nor are its developers.  Any developer can propose a change to Bitcoin, but only the users securing the network can permit that change to go ahead.  If it forks without consensus of the Bitcoin network, it becomes an altcoin and Bitcoin carries on in it's existing state.  If it forks with consensus, it becomes Bitcoin and the old chain becomes the alt.  There is literally no arguing with this.  You can't rationally tout the merits of open source decentralisation and then start to cry "altcoin" or "dictatorship" when someone proposes a change.  Either the network agrees to the change, or it carries on as before.  Consensus is king.  If you don't like that, go use Ripple or some other closed-source coin where the developers make all the decisions for you.  

Yes, it would become Bitcoin, but until then it would be a stupid altcoin. In the current process, consensus must be reached before a fork happens. Until it's reached, it's not Bitcoin. That's a safe approach to changes in a decentralized payment network.

What Bitcoin is is decided by consensus (that buzzword, lol). XT protocol (in its entirety) does not have consensus, thus is not Bitcoin.

Until the 'C' word is reached, there's no change.  It conforms to all the current limits and is following the current protocol to the letter.  Ergo, it's Bitcoin but with a vote for a possible future change.  It sends and receives Bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.  It. Is. Bitcoin.   If it had already forked and was producing 8mb blocks on a separate blockchain without a majority agreeing, then and only then would it be an altcoin.  

Imagine if I came up with a new IP protocol (for argument's sake we'll call it IPvXT   ) that added support for new features for the internet but only if the majority of the internet used it.  Until then it remains fully compatible with the current IPv4 or IPv6 implementations and you argued that using it means you aren't using the internet anymore.  You're using an altnet.  It just sounds farcical.

If XT deviates from Bitcoin's blockchain without consensus then I'll be right there with you dismissing it as an altcoin, but until then you either sound like you're calling it an altcoin out of ignorance or malice.  I honestly can't decide which it is.

And no, he can't "force some weird changes" because if the next release of XT 0.11B or whatever it ends up being called introduces any such changes, people can stick with the current release that doesn't have those changes.  

Repeated with bolding in case it didn't register last time:  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits. […]

The users decide, not the developers.

But, what if all this block size stuff is just a bait to make everyone do the switch (let's leave aside the probabilites of that IRL) and only after the world has been conquered, do the controversial changes start to come in? (eg. that "redlisting" thing that MH was all for). The world is not going to switch back even if Bitcoin Core supports bigger blocks.

It's disheartening to see this from forum staff [//EDIT: retracted].  Just because someone installs version 1 of a piece of software, doesn't mean they're automatically going to install version 2 without seeing what the changes are.  For example, I'm certainly in no rush to upgrade to Windows 10 and will stick with 7 for the foreseeable future.  Similarly, if people agree with the code in XT 0.11A they can choose to run it, but it doesn't mean they're going to run the next version if it introduces further changes that users don't approve of.  They don't necessarily have to switch back to core if the present version of XT does what they want it to.  They could stay with the present version of XT until it requires a bugfix or other such update, or instead wait until yet another developer releases a version they do like, whether it be core, XT or something else entirely.  The users decide.

[meono]

And no, he can't "force some weird changes" because if the next release of XT 0.11B or whatever it ends up being called introduces any such changes, people can stick with the current release that doesn't have those changes.  

Repeated with bolding in case it didn't register last time:  This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in.  Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits. […]

The users decide, not the developers.

But, what if all this block size stuff is just a bait to make everyone do the switch (let's leave aside the probabilites of that IRL) and only after the world has been conquered, do the controversial changes start to come in? (eg. that "redlisting" thing that MH was all for). The world is not going to switch back even if Bitcoin Core supports bigger blocks.

LOL WUT??

Did you just run out of ideas to talk down about bicoinXT ? Are you implying the ppl who support bitcoinXT are just a bunch of idiots?

[dserrano5]

It's disheartening to see this from forum staff.

I stopped reading at this point. WTF people, does having a stupid label make me a kind oh God or something like that?

*goes register an alt NAO (edit: and not visiting this thread again)

[DooMAD]

It's disheartening to see this from forum staff.

I stopped reading at this point. WTF people, does having a stupid label make me a kind oh God or something like that?

*goes register an alt NAO

Actually, you're quite right in that regard.  My apologies.  I shouldn't hold admins, moderators or other staff members to a higher standard than others (unless they're using their mod-powers to move legitimate threads into altcoins unilaterally).  That's no different to people holding developers to a higher standard than others.  At the end of the day we should all remain objective and consider all views on an equal footing.

[RoadTrain]

Until the 'C' word is reached, there's no change.

I wonder if you call 75% of miners a consensus. Because it's not, it's ridiculous. There's a high probability it can possibly go wrong with this approach, I simply detest it.

It conforms to all the current limits and is following the current protocol to the letter.  Ergo, it's Bitcoin but with a vote for a possible future change.  It sends and receives Bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain.  It. Is. Bitcoin.   If it had already forked and was producing 8mb blocks on a separate blockchain without a majority agreeing, then and only then would it be an altcoin.

It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.

It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software.

Imagine if I came up with a new IP protocol (for argument's sake we'll call it IPvXT   Grin ) that added support for new features for the internet but only if the majority of the internet used it.  Until then it remains fully compatible with the current IPv4 or IPv6 implementations and you argued that using it means you aren't using the internet anymore.  You're using an altnet.  It just sounds farcical.

The analogy is flawed, because internet is not a consensus-critical network. There can be any number of protocols in use, e.g. IPv4 and IPv6 currently. Internet is not defined by a single universal protocol, Bitcoin is.

If XT deviates from Bitcoin's blockchain without consensus then I'll be right there with you dismissing it as an altcoin, but until then you either sound like you're calling it an altcoin out of ignorance or malice.  I honestly can't decide which it is.

Oh ok, so I'm either ignorant or malicious. The possibility of yourself being wrong is not even considered, I guess.

[DooMAD]

Until the 'C' word is reached, there's no change.

I wonder if you call 75% of miners a consensus. Because it's not, it's ridiculous.

You should be thankful we didn't need a hard fork to introduce the 1MB cap in the first place, otherwise there's a possibility it might still be 32MB (or was it 33.5MB?).  I suppose you think Bitcoin would have broken and died by now if the 1MB cap hadn't happened?  

There's a high probability it can possibly go wrong with this approach, I simply detest it.

You can detest it all you like, but if you use Bitcoin, this is what you're signing up for.  Bitcoin can fork at any time for any reason if enough users want it to.  If you can't handle that, there are plenty of closed-source projects that might suit you better.  You have a vote if you choose to use it, but that's all.  Either go with the flow or go somewhere else.  It's up to you.  

Imagine if I came up with a new IP protocol (for argument's sake we'll call it IPvXT ) that added support for new features for the internet but only if the majority of the internet used it.  Until then it remains fully compatible with the current IPv4 or IPv6 implementations and you argued that using it means you aren't using the internet anymore.  You're using an altnet.  It just sounds farcical.

The analogy is flawed, because internet is not a consensus-critical network. There can be any number of protocols in use, e.g. IPv4 and IPv6 currently. Internet is not defined by a single universal protocol, Bitcoin is.

I never said it was a good analogy, it's not like there's anything else I can really compare Bitcoin to, is there?  Still doesn't make it an altcoin, though.

If XT deviates from Bitcoin's blockchain without consensus then I'll be right there with you dismissing it as an altcoin, but until then you either sound like you're calling it an altcoin out of ignorance or malice.  I honestly can't decide which it is.

Oh ok, so I'm either ignorant or malicious. The possibility of yourself being wrong is not even considered, I guess.

I'm not one of those people who are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong (as per my previous post).  If you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll concede.  It's not my fault you're doing a really bad job of convincing me.  

Not.  An.  Altcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

You forgot to add a picture of the chart...

OMG WHO CENSORED THAT CHART?  WAS IT HITLER-THERMOS?!?  EPITOME OF AUTHORITARIANISM CONFIRMED!!1!

 

[iCEBREAKER]

It seems most people are too lazy to even care about the blocksize debate and they will keep running Core out of habit.

And/or most people understand the technical issues and risks involved with bigger blocks and contentious hard forks.

Keep making more creative excuses for XT's utter failure.  You're going to need them!   

[iCEBREAKER]

Can a moderator move this to the altcoin section please? I dont remember XT-coin having anything to do with Bitcoin last I checked.

Please read BIP101 before you try to comment

Please read

https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy

before you try to comment.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

[iCEBREAKER]

If >75% say otherwise, then by definition, Bitcoin XT is Bitcoin.

Incorrect.  Nodes and miners are irrelevant.  The economic majority is what matters:

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

Stay in school, kid.   

[iCEBREAKER]

It's one thing to support bigger blocks, and another to support Bitcoin XT with its (potential) dictator. I was actually supporting XT at first until he started proposing weird ideas, such as the dictatorship or ignoring the 'longest chain' using 'checkpoints'. Ignoring consensus and dictating is one of the prime reasons for which I do not think that it should be considered as a valid hard fork candidate.

The drooling masses are clamoring for a Strong Man to take them into space faster than the free world, IE a Stalin for Satoshi's Gagarin.

What is it with dictators and checkpoints anyway?  Hearn (not theymos) is the "epitome of authoritarianism."   

[iCEBREAKER]

You keep using that word, i dont think you know what it means

Maybe you can go and live in China to understand what dictationship censorship means

Fixed it for you.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin can fork at any time for any reason if enough users want it to

Incorrect.  Bitcoin is not a democracy.  EG, even if 99% of the drooling masses want to raise the 21e6 coin limit, La Serenissima will simply ignore them.

[Alley]

I have 100 bitcoins on my XT client.  I will sell them for $50 each.  But I guess since its just a altcoin nobody here would be interested?