Bitcoin is Forking

[coinableS]

So now, Bitcoin XT (what a crappy name, btw) is out of the box.

I don't think they just chose that name because they thought it was cool. If I recall correctly, XT was a build off of Bitcoin QT and the name is just a naming convention from previous versions.

[RealMalatesta]

I made a quick chart to keep track of Bitcoin XT adoption over time

http://www.blockchaincenter.de/

The chart will get updated daily at noon (GMT).

Cool, thanks (and asking: Could an update be done more often? Just in the first few days....?)

[knight22]

I made a quick chart to keep track of Bitcoin XT adoption over time

http://www.blockchaincenter.de/

The chart will get updated daily at noon (GMT).

Awesome, thank you for this.

[bccenter]

I made a quick chart to keep track of Bitcoin XT adoption over time

http://www.blockchaincenter.de/

The chart will get updated daily at noon (GMT).

Cool, thanks (and asking: Could an update be done more often? Just in the first few days....?)

Makes sense. I changed it so that the data gets updated every 30 minutes (Current day gets overwritten).
Bitcoin XT 0.11.0 gained 14 nodes in the last hour or so...

[RealMalatesta]

I made a quick chart to keep track of Bitcoin XT adoption over time

http://www.blockchaincenter.de/

The chart will get updated daily at noon (GMT).

Cool, thanks (and asking: Could an update be done more often? Just in the first few days....?)

Makes sense. I changed it so that the data gets updated every 30 minutes (Current day gets overwritten).
Bitcoin XT 0.11.0 gained 14 nodes in the last hour or so...

Thanks a lot - that's awesome!

[Meuh6879]

If people, they learn that the BIP101 is in discussion between developpers for Bitcoin Core to adopt a strategy to raise the block size.

So, wait the september and it will be done for integration.  

[coinableS]

If people, they learn that the BIP101 is in discussion between developpers for Bitcoin Core to adopt a strategy to raise the block size.

So, wait the september and it will be done for integration.  

That's the modification that all the chinese pools and exchanges agreed to and signed on right? The 8MB limit?

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Anyone wanting to stay in the loop can subscribe to the bitcoin-dev mailing list at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[johnyj]

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Actually this fork is a good test for the total decision making intelligence of bitcoin community, if majority of community members are just blind followers, then XT fork might receive enough support and become a hard fork, but if majority of the members can think independently, they are very unlikely to go with XT, which is a much higher risk road. Why take a higher risk decision when you can take a lower one??

[meono]

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.

This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.

[johnyj]

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.

This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.

Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up

[chek2fire]

yeah great fork with only 206 nodes and 0 bitcoin from miners . Ok is official this will fail

http://www.xtnodes.com/

[gentlemand]

yeah great fork with only 206 nodes and 0 bitcoin from miners . Ok is official this will fail

http://www.xtnodes.com/

It's exceedingly early days. There'll be plenty of screaming and shouting before we know where it's headed.

[meono]

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.

This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.

Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up

There is no such thing as free energy, Someone has to pay for it. Bitcoin network can not rely on a handful of tenants abusing their lease contract.

If you even understand an ounce of the whole bitcoin movement, you would understand it must not have biased rules for a set of players.

Beside having bandwidth as another variable in mining calculation, it help eliminate the geographic centralization of bitcoin mining. This does not mean home mining will hold a candle, mining should be purely business driven not some ideal day dreaming shit.

Your logic is so old and flawed, i feel like i'm back to arguing with Litcoin supporters when it came out. Right...... ASIC resistent huh?

[bitcoinstarter]

There is no such thing as free energy, Someone has to pay for it. Bitcoin network can not reply on a handful of tenants abusing their lease contract.

I've never understood why people never understand this aspect.

[meono]

There is no such thing as free energy, Someone has to pay for it. Bitcoin network can not reply on a handful of tenants abusing their lease contract.

I've never understood why people never understand this aspect.

because thats how most bitcoin miners start, sucking money from their landlord. It was only a hobby until 2011 bubble. Then greed took over and ppl rent space with "utilities included", rack of GPUs came in. 2013 made them rich and they went big..... rent datacenter, warehouse, hook up high power line..... only to fail miserably. They realized they couldnt compete with the big players who actually sold them chips/miners. As big money can build farms with the most economical sense.

Now they cried , mining is centralized.

Had they have any clue of economy, they would have seen this is inevitable if Bitcoin grow to $XXX/btc. There is no such thing as easy money.

[chek2fire]

Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

[kekek]

Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise

Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible

The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react

Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.

This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.

Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up

Except that many more don't, and it's barely feasible to heat anything with your typical rig

[knight22]

Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

While remaining useless and unscalable.

[chek2fire]

Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

While remaining useless and unscalable.

the idea is to keep a safe core and to built around this core an ecosystem with sidechains, colored coins, off chains  transcactions etc. I am not completely against the idea the bitcoin core to have a head to a new direction. I am afraid the idea that one or two developers have the power to fork the core.