Consequences of the ongoing core vs. XT battle.

[Mickeyb]

I have read many pages of this problematic, so I would also like to hear the opinions of the community on this matter. There are some people claiming that this split can destroy Bitcoin, on the other side, some others claim that nothing major will happen.

What are your opinions? Please be specific and serious!

[Lauda]

[1] Bitcoin Core is increasing the block size to some degree, so I do not understand what some want from XT now?

Where do I begin? Pick one:
The plethora of threads and fruitless discussions/drama that is just a waste of time
The random people without proper knowledge or information posting propaganda
The trolls, flamers and whatnot
etc.

XT is not a proper hard fork and will cause a dangerous split that will damage Bitcoin if it comes into existence. Hearn will be your dictator and will implement something controversial afterwards (note: it is easy to manipulate and make most quickly upgrade without review of code using the alert key and media manipulation).

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.

Which is not what XT is.
[1] - See BIP 100 and 102.

[Blazr]

There are two seperate issues right now. The blocksizelimit issue, and the Bitcoin-XT issue.

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared. However what I am TOTALLY against is Bitcoin-XT.

How Bitcoin-Xt works is this:

Right now its the same as Bitcoin. It connects to Bitcoin Core nodes, you can import your wallet into it and you can spend your coins at merchants that use XT or Bitcoin Core. The main difference however is that miners running XT add a message to the block they mine indicating they are running XT.

Once 75% of the hashpower is running XT, the bitcoin-XT nodes will stop connecting to Bitcoin Core nodes and they will now be on a separate network/currency. The bitcoin core network will still function with 25% hashpower and will still work as normal. What happens next nobody really knows, but if XT triggers then there will most likely be two different Bitcoin currencies for a period of time. The XT developers hope that most people will then switch to XT or will have already done so by this point.

Note that it is NOT nodes, users or miners who get to participate in this vote. Only mining pools do and the XT devs claim they have the chinese miners on board. Running a node is not voting, nobody gets to vote except for the OWNERS of the mining pools, less than 10 people.

I am totally against changing Bitcoin in this way. It is highly risky and not fair even in the slightest, we could very easily end up with half of Bitcoin users running Bitcoin Core and half running XT. This way of changing Bitcoin is too dangerous and that is what I am totally against XT. We need to change Bitcoin Core like we did before and raise the blocksizelimit. If people are stalling the process, we need to try and fix it the right way and not try and change bitcoin some other way, even if it seems hopeless, it's still a better shot than changing it this way when 2 out of 3 Bitcoin expose oppose the change.

[Meuh6879]

People (main street) don't use Bitcoin (Core) ... and you talk about XT branch ?

  XT & Core battle is only a fan game for Bitcoin member ...



BIP100 to 103 solve the Bitcoin Core block size limit ... 

[Kazimir]

I am 100% pro the changes that Bitcoin XT brings (although I would have chosen somewhat different growth parameters, but still).

However I'm very much against Bitcoin XT.

Splitting up Bitcoin in Core vs XT is absolutely NOT what we need or want. Even if no major problems would occur, it WILL cause a truckload of uncertainty, doubt, FUD, fear, ambiguity, market disturbance, and delay in Bitcoin going mature and mainstream.

PLEASE, CORE DEVS, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN 

[insidertradingeverywhere]

This was discussed in many threads already.

Given many people believe there is a risk for fatal failure it would be unwise to go against the part of the community who think so.

The whole debate is a political one if people will let Mike and Gavin be the bosses of BTC or not - the debate is not a technical one at all. It's a political debate carmuflaged as a technical one.

Gavincoin is an attempt of a hostile takeover - it's not about tps at all.

[Blazr]

I am 100% pro the changes that Bitcoin XT brings (although I would have chosen somewhat different growth parameters, but still).

However I'm very much against Bitcoin XT.

Splitting up Bitcoin in Core vs XT is absolutely NOT what we need or want. Even if no major problems would occur, it WILL cause a truckload of uncertainty, doubt, FUD, fear, ambiguity, market disturbance, and delay in Bitcoin going mature and mainstream.

PLEASE, CORE DEVS, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN 

Thank you fellow sane person. I have hope for the Bitcoin community.

[Carlton Banks]

I agree with basically all of the above



Transaction rate increase - Yes

Bitcoin XT - No


The people responsible for XT have shown bad intentions towards Bitcoin in the past, including using Bitcoin as a tool for political and moralistic purposes. Mike specifically is against decentralisation, privacy and anonymity, and unashamedly so. Not the bitcoin I signed up for.

[IIOII]

This was discussed in many threads already.

Given many people believe there is a risk for fatal failure it would be unwise to go against the part of the community who think so.

The whole debate is a political one if people will let Mike and Gavin be the bosses of BTC or not - the debate is not a technical one at all. It's a political debate carmuflaged as a technical one.

Gavincoin is an attempt of a hostile takeover - it's not about tps at all.

Exactly. XT is another attempt of power grabbing by Gavin and his friends, after the failure of their first attempt with the Bitcoin Foundation.

What Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are doing here is a serious threat to Bitcoin as a whole.

I will never support such actions.

[Krona Rev]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Most of the doomsday scenarios here are propaganda in both sides to exaggerate the consequences of choosing their respective "enemy" and scare people away from it. At the end of the day Bitcoin will survive and continue evolving.

[Eastfist]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

That "Satoshi" would have either been Jeff Garzik or Gavin Andresen way, way, way after the original Satoshi left. That's why all this debating is nonsense. They're arguing with themselves, don't you guys realize that? Here's an example: Gavin says something like "Satoshi said this and that" and quotes himself when he took his turn as Satoshi. Then he gets his way. Hearn knows this, so he quotes Gavin (as Satoshi) so that Hearn gets HIS way. In the end, they get what they want. So Bitcoiners need to be more aware of what's going on.

[Krona Rev]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

That "Satoshi" would have either been Jeff Garzik or Gavin Andresen way, way, way after the original Satoshi left. That's why all this debating is nonsense. They're arguing with themselves, don't you guys realize that? Here's an example: Gavin says something like "Satoshi said this and that" and quotes himself when he took his turn as Satoshi. Then he gets his way. Hearn knows this, so he quotes Gavin (as Satoshi) so that Hearn gets HIS way. In the end, they get what they want. So Bitcoiners need to be more aware of what's going on.

Wait. Now I'm even more confused, and I thought I knew the history of this. It was Satoshi who introduced the 1MB block size limit, right? He did in 2010 to help prevent denial of service attacks. I'll see if I can find some sources.

[acquafredda]

There are two seperate issues right now. The blocksizelimit issue, and the Bitcoin-XT issue.

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared. However what I am TOTALLY against is Bitcoin-XT.

How Bitcoin-Xt works is this:

Right now its the same as Bitcoin. It connects to Bitcoin Core nodes, you can import your wallet into it and you can spend your coins at merchants that use XT or Bitcoin Core. The main difference however is that miners running XT add a message to the block they mine indicating they are running XT.

Once 75% of the hashpower is running XT, the bitcoin-XT nodes will stop connecting to Bitcoin Core nodes and they will now be on a separate network/currency. The bitcoin core network will still function with 25% hashpower and will still work as normal. What happens next nobody really knows, but if XT triggers then there will most likely be two different Bitcoin currencies for a period of time. The XT developers hope that most people will then switch to XT or will have already done so by this point.

Note that it is NOT nodes, users or miners who get to participate in this vote. Only mining pools do and the XT devs claim they have the chinese miners on board. Running a node is not voting, nobody gets to vote except for the OWNERS of the mining pools, less than 10 people.

I am totally against changing Bitcoin in this way. It is highly risky and not fair even in the slightest, we could very easily end up with half of Bitcoin users running Bitcoin Core and half running XT. This way of changing Bitcoin is too dangerous and that is what I am totally against XT. We need to change Bitcoin Core like we did before and raise the blocksizelimit. If people are stalling the process, we need to try and fix it the right way and not try and change bitcoin some other way, even if it seems hopeless, it's still a better shot than changing it this way when 2 out of 3 Bitcoin expose oppose the change.

Dear Blazr, thank you very much for this post.
Simple and clear.
I completely agree with your point of view.
For what it's worth I am TOTALLY and DEFINITELY against changing this technology in this way.

Thanks again! You made your point very easy to understand.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Just what we needed - ANOTHER Core vs XT thread.

[Pedja]

There is no Bitcoin fork.

There is a small XT sect breaking away from Bitcoin and creating new cryptocurrency.

[MicroGuy]

I have read many pages of this problematic, so I would also like to hear the opinions of the community on this matter. There are some people claiming that this split can destroy Bitcoin, on the other side, some others claim that nothing major will happen.

What are your opinions? Please be specific and serious!

I'm not sure about destroying Bitcoin, but its subreddit sure is taking a hit today: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin

[LiteCoinGuy]

I am 100% pro the changes that Bitcoin XT brings (although I would have chosen somewhat different growth parameters, but still).

However I'm very much against Bitcoin XT.

Splitting up Bitcoin in Core vs XT is absolutely NOT what we need or want. Even if no major problems would occur, it WILL cause a truckload of uncertainty, doubt, FUD, fear, ambiguity, market disturbance, and delay in Bitcoin going mature and mainstream.

PLEASE, CORE DEVS, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN 

and what do you do when you have to choose between 1 MB blocks and 8 MB blocks? i would choose 8 MB blocks - so my way is XT.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I have read many pages of this problematic, so I would also like to hear the opinions of the community on this matter. There are some people claiming that this split can destroy Bitcoin, on the other side, some others claim that nothing major will happen.

What are your opinions? Please be specific and serious!

it's just Bitcoin Core but with ability to have larger blocks, a bug fix, and two minor things that are useful for app developers. we need bigger blocks. 99% agree with that.

[Krona Rev]

This is a well known thread from October 2010 (well, the first 12 posts are from then):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347

Jeff Garzik proposed a patch to lift the max block size limit. It can be seen from the code that the size limit at that time was already 1MB.

We should be able to at least match Paypal's average transaction rate...

Code:

diff --git a/main.h b/main.h
...
-static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
...

...

Theymos and Satoshi warned against the patch:

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

This is the thread in which Satoshi had an often quoted reply about how to raise the limit:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I wasn't around back then, but it seems clear to me that Satoshi was still around when the 1MB limit was put in place. I know I've read that he introduced it himself in mid-2010, but I don't have a source to back that up. Is there some evidence that the limit was originally smaller than 1MB and then was lifted (twice?) until it was 1MB? I have to admit, I'm skeptical of the claim that it's been raised before. But I could be wrong.

[unamis76]

I am 100% pro the changes that Bitcoin XT brings (although I would have chosen somewhat different growth parameters, but still).

However I'm very much against Bitcoin XT.

Splitting up Bitcoin in Core vs XT is absolutely NOT what we need or want. Even if no major problems would occur, it WILL cause a truckload of uncertainty, doubt, FUD, fear, ambiguity, market disturbance, and delay in Bitcoin going mature and mainstream.

PLEASE, CORE DEVS, DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN 

Now this was a really good post, 100% agreed. A pretty nice way to put, haven't actually thought about that. It would be amazing if Core eventually ends up adopting some XT features!

[LiteCoinGuy]

then just add BIP 101. Gavin tried to archive this since months but 3-4 other devs dont want that. that is the story. that is the reason why we are here.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/blocksize/bip-0101.mediawiki

[MarketNeutral]

Increase the transaction size? Yes, please.

XT? No. Never.


Either there is a stratagem of divide-and-conquer, good cop / bad cop deriving from the core devs, such that they actually support XT's usurpation of bitcoin (I doubt this scenario); or, the merchants, miners, and devs need to stop Mike Hearn & Co. by taking boycotting his interests and refusing to run XT. Gavin's leadership has been steady albeit questionable at times, but Mike Hearn has shown himself to be antithetical to bitcoin's and satoshi's decentralization principles. He frames the narrative to stifle debate, he cherrypicks Satoshi's posts out of context, and he arrogantly speaks as if what he desires is inevitable. Look to the likes of Szabo, not Hearn. I have no doubt that Mike Hearn has been paid off and has ulterior motives.

Allow Bitcoin Core to implement increased transaction sizes.

[LiteCoinGuy]

The merchants & miners are in favor of 8 MB blocks my friend  

summary:

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


Some people think that creating a hard fork like this could kill Bitcoin. I think this will save it. But you can try to convince people like Maxwell etc. Chances are not very good because of their Blockstream Company.

[coinpr0n]

I agree with what's generally being said - block size increase, no fork. The good I'm hoping will come from this is that Core devs implement an increase sooner rather than later. And in my perfect world, BIP100 would be implemented instead of BIP101.

[LiteCoinGuy]

nodes dont control the network, miners do that. with 51% nodes you cant do much  

Some people think that creating a hard fork like this could kill Bitcoin. I think this will save it. But you can try to convince people like Maxwell etc. Chances are not very good because of their Blockstream Company.

i would like a BIP too but in reality that seems to be not possible.

[Carlton Banks]

The merchants & miners are in favor of 8 MB blocks my friend  

summary:

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

Then the debate is finished, yes?

All the people in your list support 8MB blocks. They also support Bitcoin Core, not XT.

[zeroday]

Why doesn't core add fix increasing block size ?

[Carlton Banks]

Why doesn't core add fix increasing block size ?

The Core software developers disagree how/when to change the blocksize, too.

[Mickeyb]

Thanks for all of the answers, there are really some great ones. After everybody read all of the answers it becomes clear, yes to the block size increase, no to the XT!

What I do not understand, how will we make people that are against block size increase in the core change their mind if XT doesn't regain majority of the nodes in the near future.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against the XT after seeing all of theses answers and after reading through a lot of material last few days and I am for the bigger blocks.

[zeroday]

Don't think it was good idea to release XT that way, but the final decision is up to miners.

[thejaytiesto]

Don't think it was good idea to release XT that way, but the final decision is up to miners.

What way? the only way to do this was to release it into the wild and let things develop naturally, let people vote. It wasn't possible any other way. It would always have created disruption.

[gentlemand]

Note that it is NOT nodes, users or miners who get to participate in this vote. Only mining pools do and the XT devs claim they have the chinese miners on board.

I was under the impression that the Chinese said yes to 8mb and nothing more. In that case surely they're not going to swallow XT?

[Alley]

Core devs will never increase block size so all this discussion is pointless.

[harrymmmm]

Core devs will never increase block size so all this discussion is pointless.

They might. They mostly agree it needs to be done.
There's bip103 already there for it. Even luke, who wanted smaller blocks, says (iirc) bip103 is ok. It starts block size limit increases in 2017 tho...

[lottery248]

i have some of the points to explain with bitcoin XT, i could only agree for the block size up to 128 to 256 mb:

1. encouragement of transaction spamming.
as the block size increases, if the numbers of bitcoin users did not increase, some of the people would be able to do major amount of bullshit transactions into the blockchain, but their transaction would be done after a block. that would be unfair to the people with transaction which makes more sense. every time the block size was full of garbage transactions, people would have no choice but to get an online wallet. as a result, people with the XT node wallet would be in trouble of storage, most of the people could not afford at least 4tb HDD to support the blockchain.

2. breaking the protocol of bitcoin.
simply, if bitcoin was newbie friendly, we would not have the XT node. the XT node eats major amount of storage, and what worse is those data could not be archived at all! at the second point, not all of the bitcoin user enjoys the fast speed to synchronise every single transaction easily. newbies are probably have insufficient money to use the XT node wallet, you know, blockchain.

3. leading the bitcoin to unsustainable (susceptible of 51% attacks)
you know, if we started to use bitcoin XT, people would be able to spam the transaction as many as they want, fine with them, but not you guys even if you have enough money to buy the storage for. as people stopped using the XT node, monopolies would be able to monopolise the XT node wallet easily and centralise all of the miners. 51% would be surely crash the bitcoin. data storage requires the certain energy to work for them, single HDD consumes at least 4 watt, as the amount increases, the more HDD (or others) you need, meaning the more power you will need for, i am afraid that people stopped using bitcoin because of the power consuming matter, maybe one day, the consumption of the synchronising would be more than mining.

4. you won't know the node inside (apparently)
so if you don't know what that node will be, then you should stick with the bitcoin core. you know, suddenly changing the core would be risky and could even lose your coins. make more decision before you use the XT node, nobody has ability to change the fate if you lost the coin due to the upgrade. also, if you use the unstable OS, especially windows 10, you would risk the coins being stolen at worse.

idk why i just posted this, but lemme know what are you thinking about this.

[gentlemand]

idk why i just posted this, but lemme know what are you thinking about this.

Technicalities aside, I think my main concern is that people are taking positions on more of a 'fuck you' basis rather than what benefits them or the system as a whole. I wonder how many xt nodes are nothing more than a protest vote. That's a lot easier than taking the time to truly consider your position.

[lottery248]

idk why i just posted this, but lemme know what are you thinking about this.

Technicalities aside, I think my main concern is that people are taking positions on more of a 'fuck you' basis rather than what benefits them or the system as a whole. I wonder how many xt nodes are nothing more than a protest vote. That's a lot easier than taking the time to truly consider your position.

i support XT at a part, but the block size maximum limit would be 128 or 256mb, in order to ensure the speed is enough for the low speed users.
i support core, it is much more newbie friendly.

[tadakaluri]

The community is divided and Bitcoin is forking: both the software and, perhaps, the block chain too. The two sides of the split are Bitcoin Core and a slight variant of the same program, called Bitcoin XT.

Communication has broken down, both sides feel they are vigorously defending decentralization and the One True Bitcoin Vision. The community is divided.

[harrymmmm]

idk why i just posted this, but lemme know what are you thinking about this.

Technicalities aside, I think my main concern is that people are taking positions on more of a 'fuck you' basis rather than what benefits them or the system as a whole. I wonder how many xt nodes are nothing more than a protest vote. That's a lot easier than taking the time to truly consider your position.

Or when negotiating with people who won't budge an inch.
I'm sure an almost insignificant move towards compromise by the core devs would take the wind out of this fork.

[n2004al]

I think nothing will happen. Bitcoin is a big thing to have consequences from such things. It is biggest the whole technology behind it. So, at the end, all the parts will see each other in a round table (in the worst of the cases) and will find the resolution of everything.

[harrymmmm]

I think nothing will happen. Bitcoin is a big thing to have consequences from such things. It is biggest the whole technology behind it. So, at the end, all the parts will see each other in a round table (in the worst of the cases) and will find the resolution of everything.

I bloody well hope so. This is a large financial proposition and seeing it placed at risk to assuage egos is hardly the kind of thing we want the world to see.

[chek2fire]

Is simple. BitcoinXT means the end of independence of Bitcoin and a new era that bitcoin will work only for the financial system and governments and not for the people. Before that i have respect soo much Gavin but now i think he breaks his reputation in the bitcoin community forever. I think was a hidden shady person that act for his own propose and not for the good of bitcoin and for bitcoin community.

[Scaccomatt0]

There are two seperate issues right now. The blocksizelimit issue, and the Bitcoin-XT issue.

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared. However what I am TOTALLY against is Bitcoin-XT.

How Bitcoin-Xt works is this:

Right now its the same as Bitcoin. It connects to Bitcoin Core nodes, you can import your wallet into it and you can spend your coins at merchants that use XT or Bitcoin Core. The main difference however is that miners running XT add a message to the block they mine indicating they are running XT.

Once 75% of the hashpower is running XT, the bitcoin-XT nodes will stop connecting to Bitcoin Core nodes and they will now be on a separate network/currency. The bitcoin core network will still function with 25% hashpower and will still work as normal. What happens next nobody really knows, but if XT triggers then there will most likely be two different Bitcoin currencies for a period of time. The XT developers hope that most people will then switch to XT or will have already done so by this point.

Note that it is NOT nodes, users or miners who get to participate in this vote. Only mining pools do and the XT devs claim they have the chinese miners on board. Running a node is not voting, nobody gets to vote except for the OWNERS of the mining pools, less than 10 people.

I am totally against changing Bitcoin in this way. It is highly risky and not fair even in the slightest, we could very easily end up with half of Bitcoin users running Bitcoin Core and half running XT. This way of changing Bitcoin is too dangerous and that is what I am totally against XT. We need to change Bitcoin Core like we did before and raise the blocksizelimit. If people are stalling the process, we need to try and fix it the right way and not try and change bitcoin some other way, even if it seems hopeless, it's still a better shot than changing it this way when 2 out of 3 Bitcoin expose oppose the change.

I support your arguments. Changing Bitcoin in this way is totally risky.

For me, passing to XT means a big foot moving from decentralization to centralization.

[Amph]

i'm also in favor of the changes but not in favor of this whole mess of two possible chain, do it in the good old way with a simple upgrade to core

now that i think about it when they changed the name from QT to Core, there were no complain at all, how come?

[VeritasSapere]

i'm also in favor of the changes but not in favor of this whole mess of two possible chain, do it in the good old way with a simple upgrade to core

now that i think about it when they changed the name from QT to Core, there were no complain at all, how come?

I am also in favor of this change, I would also prefer to see these changes to be implemented in Core. However that does not seem to be possible since some of the other core developers will not compromise and do not want to increase the block size limit at all. This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus that is unprecedented in history but it is a trial that we must go through, and it is better that we do this sooner as opposed to later.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

[Krona Rev]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

Since it doesn't seem to have come up again, I will be more definite in my assertions: Satoshi added a 1MB block size limit in 2010. It has never been raised since. It has been discussed many, many times, but it has never been raised.

The debate is acrimonious enough without trying to rewrite the history of what's happened.

[Carlton Banks]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

Since it doesn't seem to have come up again, I will be more definite in my assertions: Satoshi added a 1MB block size limit in 2010. It has never been raised since. It has been discussed many, many times, but it has never been raised.

The debate is acrimonious enough without trying to rewrite the history of what's happened.

Blazr knows the history of what Satoshi posted on this forum very well, he's demonstrated many times in the past that he researches his Satoshi lore very diligently. I would be surprised if he was wrong (for instance, there was apparently a 32 MB limit before the 1MB limit was introduced).

[Digit-0]

I have read many pages of this problematic, so I would also like to hear the opinions of the community on this matter. There are some people claiming that this split can destroy Bitcoin, on the other side, some others claim that nothing major will happen.

What are your opinions? Please be specific and serious!

my opinion is that whatever happens, this benefits no one, I hope it ends soon because all this discussions are not doing a good favor to the bitcoin world.

Perhaps we are giving a bad image to people who still do not know the bitcoin and i dont like it.

[c4p0ne]

Ok, as I understand it, the people that don't want to go to XT are doing so because of ONE thing: The so-called anti-ddos code, which they believe is a slippery slope that may lead to a 1984-style version of Bitcoin in which the capability exists to arbitrarily prevent users/IP address from accessing the network. If this is not correct, stop me here. Now, I'm also under the impression that this anti-ddos code is but a mere section that does not conflict or malign the core consensus code. My question is, couldn't we just RIP OUT the offending code and still have a Bitcoin (XT) that supports bigger blocks but NOT any of the draconian-orwellian stuff like "redlisting", etc?

[Krona Rev]

IMO the blocksizelimit should be raised or removed altogether. It has been raised before twice and both times not many people cared.

This is the first time I've heard that the max block size limit has been raised twice before. My impression is that Satoshi added it as 1MB and people have debated raising it in the years that followed. Am I wrong? If so, can someone point me to a source.

Since it doesn't seem to have come up again, I will be more definite in my assertions: Satoshi added a 1MB block size limit in 2010. It has never been raised since. It has been discussed many, many times, but it has never been raised.

The debate is acrimonious enough without trying to rewrite the history of what's happened.

Blazr knows the history of what Satoshi posted on this forum very well, he's demonstrated many times in the past that he researches his Satoshi lore very diligently. I would be surprised if he was wrong (for instance, there was apparently a 32 MB limit before the 1MB limit was introduced).

I was trying to say it without sounding insulting to Blazr. He's been here longer than I have. If I'm wrong about the history, I'll admit it and apologize. I think he's probably confusing the block size limit with something else. Memory is imperfect. Regarding the 32 MB, I think that was effectively a limit since that was the size limit on all messages.

[ZephramC]

Again and again I am surprised how polarized the debate is. (This thread is actually quite good and polite.)
As I stated here, there are many more options (each with many fine-tunable parameters) than only two.

[HCLivess]

CI fuckin A
theybribed Slush to mine 1 XT block 
however, Slush is in danger of life now, because he switched back to core 

[Carlton Banks]

Ok, as I understand it, the people that don't want to go to XT are doing so because of ONE thing: The so-called anti-ddos code, which they believe is a slippery slope that may lead to a 1984-style version of Bitcoin in which the capability exists to arbitrarily prevent users/IP address from accessing the network. If this is not correct, stop me here. Now, I'm also under the impression that this anti-ddos code is but a mere section that does not conflict or malign the core consensus code. My question is, couldn't we just RIP OUT the offending code and still have a Bitcoin (XT) that supports bigger blocks but NOT any of the draconian-orwellian stuff like "redlisting", etc?

Yes that's perfectly plausible, but you're unlikely to be able to convince the XT development "team" to do that.

Also, note that redlisting/transaction censorship doesn't exist in the XT code. Yet.

[kelsey]

doesn't take a genus to understand despite all the misinformation, the battle has little to do with blocksize.

[zebedee]

The whole debate is a political one if people will let Mike and Gavin be the bosses of BTC or not - the debate is not a technical one at all. It's a political debate carmuflaged as a technical one.

Grow up.  I run XT and I don't want Mike, Gavin or anyone to be the "bosses" of bitcoin.

It's mindless children like you that are the problem society has.

[valiz]

The whole debate is a political one if people will let Mike and Gavin be the bosses of BTC or not - the debate is not a technical one at all. It's a political debate carmuflaged as a technical one.

Grow up.  I run XT and I don't want Mike, Gavin or anyone to be the "bosses" of bitcoin.

It's mindless children like you that are the problem society has.

In this case stop running XT, otherwise your logic is flawed. Isn't it obvious that by running XT you are enabling them to get in control of development and do whatever they like?

Personally I don't understand the part with the mindless children. Can you elaborate?