coinableS
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1186
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:22:04 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1124
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:27:02 PM |
|
Cool, thanks (and asking: Could an update be done more often? Just in the first few days....?)
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:27:18 PM |
|
Awesome, thank you for this.
|
|
|
|
bccenter
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 6
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:37:34 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2338
Merit: 1124
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:42:18 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:43:21 PM |
|
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. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
coinableS
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1186
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 15, 2015, 10:47:58 PM |
|
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. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) That's the modification that all the chinese pools and exchanges agreed to and signed on right? The 8MB limit?
|
|
|
|
|
johnyj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:29:24 AM Last edit: August 16, 2015, 12:46:14 AM by 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:40:55 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:48:18 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:53:01 AM |
|
yeah great fork with only 206 nodes and 0 bitcoin from miners ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) . Ok is official this will fail http://www.xtnodes.com/
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2590
Merit: 3014
Welt Am Draht
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:57:04 AM |
|
yeah great fork with only 206 nodes and 0 bitcoin from miners ![Tongue](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/tongue.gif) . 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 12:59:02 AM Last edit: August 16, 2015, 01:57:38 AM by 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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 01:00:47 AM |
|
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
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 01:05:39 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
kekek
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 01:53:26 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 02:17:04 AM |
|
While remaining useless and unscalable.
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 16, 2015, 02:21:56 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|