Did you read this? This is crazy shit.

[tokeweed]

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.This very well could be the end of Bitcoin.

Stop acting like Bitcoin is a cult you retard.

[1715065445]

1715065445

[1715065445]

1715065445

[1715065445]

1715065445

[1715065445]

1715065445

[1715065445]

1715065445

[n2004al]

IT is not in ma nature to bet but if possible the contrary i will bet with satisfaction about your news. Nothing will happen to bitcoin nor tomorrow, nor after a week and nor after a hundred of years. Bitcoin will be only developed more and more and will be more and more popular. More people will known it and even more will use it as a everyday currency or as e way of investment.

[uvt9]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

There is no way to prove that guy is real Satoshi, that message didn't have signature.

[TheMage]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

Please elaborate, what are these ulterior motives that Gavin and Mike have? I am not aware of any, but then again I dont read everything involved in this.

[iCEBREAKER]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

Wish granted:

[QuestionAuthority]

I predict this news will cause the exchange rate to fluctuate between $250 and $300. lol

[Herbert2020]

[u rl=https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1]https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1[/url]

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin.  In every case, it is insanely serious.  Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken". 

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday.  Bet me. 

you are over reacting to this.
it is a crazy and big incident for bitcoin but the price is not going to be affected in large scale as you are claiming. the effect is small and going to end soon.

[TheMage]

I predict this news will cause the exchange rate to fluctuate between $250 and $300. lol

Ha!

I'll take that bet .

[LiteCoinGuy]

you can find a good overview about the 8MB consensus here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.0

[insidertradingeverywhere]

What's Mike whining about? He's such a crybaby ...

Mike is the most obvious Sockpuppet i have seen in a while ...

Gavincoin doing hostile takeover of BTC? GTFO Mike.


This whole shit gets far too much attention ...

[IIOII]

It could be the end of Gavin and Mike in the bitcoin developing world. If everyone stays with core, that is. I don't believe the developer base for XT is as large as it is for bitcoin core.

Gavin and Mike do not have support from the majority of developers for good reason, because their plan puts Bitcoin at risk.

I really hope that these two narcissistic dictators will leave Bitcoin core forever.

[tokeweed]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

Please elaborate, what are these ulterior motives that Gavin and Mike have? I am not aware of any, but then again I dont read everything involved in this.

Who knows.  But they become masters of the universe of bitcoin that's for sure.

[JackH]

BitcoinXT is the most dangerous proposal ever! It requires a hard fork and will ultimately destroy Bitcoin if it gets implemented. This is a hostile takeover from Mike Hearn in order to destroy Bitcoin. Choosing XT is like saying no to what we have today! Stability will be gone and XT will pretty much damage everything we have been spending time on the past 6 years.

[BornBlazed]

Buying on the Dips a good idea? cause the price is kinda tanking

[MarketNeutral]

It is crazy shit.  absolutely.

the sad thing is, Hearn is right.  (yeah.... the same Mike Hearn that previously said whitelisting is a good idea... the same Mike Hearn that I said shouldn't be trusted) Sadly, he is making a lot more sense and communicating a lot better than the so called core devs!

I am hopeful the community will do the right thing and move to bigger blocks in time to avert bandwidth issues.

And I think Hearn is right: the "core devs" are being stubborn and selfish and want to do things their own way.  They may be motivated as much by intellectual righteousness as by greed.  Regardless, they have failed to articulate their positions to the community (as far as I have seen) and so as much as I've had a bias against Hearn, he's the good guy right now.

Good point. You're correct that Hearn is superior at communicating. The Core Devs are not clearly articulating their positions. At all.

I am indeed in the anti-Hearn camp, yet neither can I ally myself with the stumbling selfishness of the Core Devs.

What's disheartening is that this should be a nonissue, as most everyone supports larger blocks.

[RoadTrain]

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.This very well could be the end of Bitcoin.

Stop acting like Bitcoin is a cult you retard.

Interestingly, Mike mentions Satoshi so many times in his post... This is called appeal to authority and doesn't constitute an argument.

[LiteCoinGuy]

BitcoinXT is the most dangerous proposal ever! It requires a hard fork and will ultimately destroy Bitcoin if it gets implemented. This is a hostile takeover from Mike Hearn in order to destroy Bitcoin. Choosing XT is like saying no to what we have today! Stability will be gone and XT will pretty much damage everything we have been spending time on the past 6 years.

No dude, calm down 

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.

[ajareselde]

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.This very well could be the end of Bitcoin.

Stop acting like Bitcoin is a cult you retard.

Interestingly, Mike mentions Satoshi so many times in his post... This is called appeal to authority and doesn't constitute an argument.

None the less, bitcoin needs to change and solve the possible spam from happening once again.
imho, just chill til jan 2016, and if you can't, sell and try to rebuy on the quite possible dip within next week.
News from op are not really news, it was debated many times over and over again.

[Lethn]

You guys are overreacting, big time. This isn't the end of the world. Bitcoin will be fine.

Honestly, Bitcoin will be just fine I agree.

Indeed but bitcoin seems addicted to drama...

Remember when ASIC's came along, what was the other thing? I don't even remember, every time this shit happens I roll my eyes as well, everybody forgets about the open source nature of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin itself, there will be changes, people will disagree but in the end conclusions will be drawn and we'll experiment with what works and what doesn't.

This is how economic and political problems should be fixed, not through a narrow minded viewpoint forcing everyone else to co-operate at the barrel of a gun.

[RoadTrain]

None the less, bitcoin needs to change and solve the possible spam from happening once again.

It's debatable whether Bitcoin really needs to change this way. It's also debatable whether this is an effective solution to spam.

I don't buy the spam argument at all. As I have argued, Bitcoin withstood that attack pretty well, and functioned as intended. The problem was that not every user had proper fee estimation algorithms built into their wallets, so some users have experienced delays. Had they used proper fees, there wouldn't be any problem, apart from slightly higher average and minimum fees.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the limit, but the reason for this is different.