The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks is increasing

[colinistheman]

What do you guys think about this?

[1714582249]

1714582249

[1714582249]

1714582249

[1714582249]

1714582249

[LiteCoinGuy]

3,2,1 ...alt-section   ? hopefully not.

the site was updated every 1-2 days recently.

[meono]

http://XTnodes.com added a new chart: The number of mined Bitcoin XT blocks in the past 1000 blocks. This is important because 750 blocks = adoption of bigger blocks (75%)

Yup its the chart to watch for.

[jl2012]

3,2,1 ...alt-section   ? hopefully not.

To anyone who is considering to censor this post: Any Bitcoin XT blocks, with version 0x20000007, are perfectly valid Bitcoin blocks and will be accepted by any version of Bitcoin Core. This will remain true until at least 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC.

ref: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki

[shorena]

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

[meono]

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

LOL ,..... when was it? Last month? or last week ?

[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.

[thejaytiesto]

Good luck with it it but the XT nodes vs total nodes graph show a really marginal amount of nodes vs the core ones. I think it will be near impossible to reach the consensus needed to get away with a hard fork. It seems most people are too lazy to even care about the blocksize debate and they will keep running Core out of habit.

[LiteCoinGuy]

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.

qt is an altcoin too but some people are too young to know that  


@thejaytiesto

i dont think so:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0

[meono]

Good luck with it it but the XT nodes vs total nodes graph show a really marginal amount of nodes vs the core ones. I think it will be near impossible to reach the consensus needed to get away with a hard fork. It seems most people are too lazy to even care about the blocksize debate and they will keep running Core out of habit.

Node count is not a good indicator of consensus. If you rely on that, you're fucked as a botnet can trump all these nodes count.

Economic majority is what matters. Its how it works in EVERY peer2peer network.

[jl2012]

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

[Kazimir]

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

If >75% say otherwise, then by definition, Bitcoin XT is Bitcoin. And this "Bitcoin Core" you're referring to is the altcoin that needs to be moved to an appropriate section.

Anyway, I *really* hope the core devs can find a compromise between a sudden switch 8MB or no growth at all, so that Bitcoin doesn't have to be split into Core and XT.

[Lauda]

-snip-
Anyway, I *really* hope the core devs can find a compromise between a sudden switch 8MB or no growth at all, so that Bitcoin doesn't have to be split into Core and XT.

2 MB blocks in November 2015 is the proposed backup plan.
It is the current policy to move XT threads to the altcoin section. Whoever proposes this within the topic has not made a mistake but rather is following the policy (which is controversial according to some). XT has caused so many unneeded problems, and has yielded so many pointless discussions.

[Slark]

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

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

[LiteCoinGuy]

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

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

No they cant because people have to follow them.

But I feel that people are afraid that Bitcoin Core gives too much power to developers - and they are right.

[maku]

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

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

No they cant because people have to follow them.

But I feel that people are afraid that Bitcoin Core gives too much power to developers - and they are right.

XT probably can change the features of the bitcoin protocol without consensus from majority and just because the devs of XT wish to do so.
Bitcoin core does not allow sudden changes and follow strict rules regarding what blocks will be accepted in the chain and which ones will not be.

[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.

Please read BIP101 before you try to comment

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

No they cant because people have to follow them.

But I feel that people are afraid that Bitcoin Core gives too much power to developers - and they are right.

XT probably can change the features of the bitcoin protocol without consensus from majority and just because the devs of XT wish to do so.
Bitcoin core does not allow sudden changes and follow strict rules regarding what blocks will be accepted in the chain and which ones will not be.

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.

[meono]

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

It is not that simple anymore. XT nodes are currently not used by any altcoin whatsoever and are part of Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin XT is currently no altcoin - that change however can occur in the future with the upgraded size of the blocks.
But I feel that people are afraid that XT gives too much power to developers (as they can change everything on their own with XT) and that is the main problem.

No they cant because people have to follow them.

But I feel that people are afraid that Bitcoin Core gives too much power to developers - and they are right.

XT probably can change the features of the bitcoin protocol without consensus from majority and just because the devs of XT wish to do so.
Bitcoin core does not allow sudden changes and follow strict rules regarding what blocks will be accepted in the chain and which ones will not be.

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.

You're talking too much sense. These idiots start to lose ground so they resort in politics debate.

LoL

[Lauda]

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.

Update: How many times do I need to say this. You're essentially agreeing to a risky path for future development. If people reject Hearn and Gavin at some point due to a controversial change, who will continue with the development (it will be very hard to reach consensus for this, since we can't even achieve it for a simple change)? This will ultimately cause unnecessary trouble for Bitcoin.
If XT forks without consensus and thus creating chain A (old) and chain B (new) then you can say goodbye to Bitcoin.

[meono]

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.

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 means