Consequences of the ongoing core vs. XT battle.

[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?