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!

[1715133752]

1715133752

[1715133752]

1715133752

[1715133752]

1715133752

[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.