Exactly what is it that people have against the XT patch?

[Kazimir]

Personally I think it would be much better if the changes that XT brings, would simply be integrated in the regular Bitcoin Core. Thus avoiding the whole thing to be split up essentially two bitcoins (this sucks for everybody).

As I understand, Gavin and Mike are pro XT, and the other 3 core devs (who are they? Gregory, Peter? LukeJr?) and some other people like theymos are against.

Why is that? Exactly what is the standing argument to deny the XT changes to be just included right into Bitcoin Core?

[Carlton Banks]

Scaling.

It's a little pointless scheduling moves up to 8GB blocks in 18 years time when we have no guarantees that bandwidth and disk storage costs will scale alongside that projected increase. They might do, according to previous trends. They might not, according to current trends (Moore's law is running out of steam using the silicon/Von Neumann paradigm).

The best compromise IMO would be to do what happened last time; one-off simple can-kicker. Finish the current work on the spam limiter, then up the static limit to 2 or 4 MB as a temporary measure. Use the time that buys to solve the tx/s problem with some efficient offchain design (claims that Blockstream "win" are unfounded IMO, miners will be mining sidechains, not Blockstream themselves).

[Kazimir]

So why can't we apply the same strategy with XT? As in, accept that as a solution (as a patch for Core, I mean) for the time being, and update to a more sophisticated growth scheme later on. It's here, it's ready, and it would avoid a whole lot of fuss.

[Carlton Banks]

So why can't we apply the same strategy with XT?

No-one has seriously proposed that yet. Maybe BIP 102.... but I think even that idea includes doubling every two years. If I'm wrong, and it's a one-off increase, then that style of solution is already on the table as BIP 102.

[Kazimir]

Well, it seems the chinese mining pools are considering this as well:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114657/chinese-mining-pools-call-for-consensus-refuse-switch-to-bitcoin-xt

“We think Gavin's proposal is a well-balanced solution that we all can stand behind and support. The initial 8 megabyte block size increase was also the agreed number amongst all mining operators in China. BTCChina Pool will unfortunately not be running Bitcoin XT due to its experimental nature, but we are looking forward to see this patch merged into Bitcoin Core.”

Another of the “big three” Chinese exchanges, Huobi, which also runs its own mining pool Huobi Pool, called for cooperation among Core developers as well.

CEO of Huobi's mining project Digcoin, Evan Mo, emphasized that the Core developers need to restore their collaborative process in order to come to a consensus on Bitcoin scalability issues.

This sounds very promising! The changes in XT are fine, using XT itself is not.

It would be in everybody's best interest if the core devs find an agreement, and patch XT (either in its current form, or with some adjustments if that's what it takes to find consensus) into Core.

[Carlton Banks]

“We think Gavin's proposal is a well-balanced solution that we all can stand behind and support. The initial 8 megabyte block size increase was also the agreed number amongst all mining operators in China. BTCChina Pool will unfortunately not be running Bitcoin XT due to its experimental nature, but we are looking forward to see this patch merged into Bitcoin Core.”

Another of the “big three” Chinese exchanges, Huobi, which also runs its own mining pool Huobi Pool, called for cooperation among Core developers as well.

CEO of Huobi's mining project Digcoin, Evan Mo, emphasized that the Core developers need to restore their collaborative process in order to come to a consensus on Bitcoin scalability issues.

This sounds very promising! The changes in XT are fine, using XT itself is not.

No, not all of the changes in XT, just those relating to the blocksize limit.

It would be in everybody's best interest if the core devs find an agreement, and patch XT (either in its current form, or with some adjustments if that's what it takes to find consensus) into Core.

No, it wouldn't. The changes to the consensus algorithm keep getting forgotten, but XT features those changes also (not to mention dropping Tor support). I would not accept Bitcoin Core without "longest chain wins" and Tor support. I would accept Bitcoin Core with 8MB blocks.

[amaclin]

Personally I think it would be much better if the...

OK, let us define what is "better" and what is "worse".
Without definition of these terms our speculation has no sense, because everyone has his own "better" and "worse"

[Kazimir]

No, it wouldn't. The changes to the consensus algorithm keep getting forgotten,

I missed have missed that -- which changes to the concensus algo, exactly?

Didn't see anything about dropped TOR support either. I searched around in XT's github repos, but couldn't find it?

According to the description on github there are 4 changes in XT, which all kinda make sense to me? At least from what I'm reading there, I would hope those improvements get patched into Core as well.

[Carlton Banks]

No, it wouldn't. The changes to the consensus algorithm keep getting forgotten,

I missed have missed that -- which changes to the concensus algo, exactly?

Didn't see anything about dropped TOR support either. I searched around in XT's github repos, but couldn't find it?

According to the description on github there are 4 changes in XT, which all kinda make sense to me? At least from what I'm reading there, I would hope those improvements get patched into Core as well.

The consensus changes are possibly date to version 10 if they're not listed there, the Tor issue is a user report from on this forum.

Tor compatibility broken in XT: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148916.msg12117575#msg12117575

I'd be surprised if icebreaker would get it wrong, but he also didn't link to any evidence.

Edit: link to evidence: https://github.com/mikehearn/bitcoinxt/commit/5e62628118e7e5df2c19093911d04d197a12d0e7

What he's doing is hardcoding the Tor exit nodes that you're permitted to connect to, as an anti-DOS measure.

[Kazimir]

OK, let us define what is "better" and what is "worse".
Without definition of these terms our speculation has no sense, because everyone has his own "better" and "worse"

"Worse" is in this case is dividing Bitcoin into Core and XT, and all the confusion, doubt, loss of trust, market disturbance, delay in going mainstream, wasted effort in hundreds of discussions on distinguishing Core vs XT, ambiguity, all all other misery that comes with it.

"Better" is all of that not happening, because there is still one "Bitcoin" which everybody (or at least a vast majority, including miners, mining pool operators, exchanges, and users) will feel comfortable using. And if Bitcoin needs to be patched to support larger blocks, this can be rolled out as a smooth, problem free update process without Bitcoin splitting up in two variants.

LET'S NOT SPLIT BITCOIN INTO CORE AND XT, PLEASE!

[amaclin]

"Worse" is in this case is dividing Bitcoin into Core and XT...
"Better" is all of that not happening...

Are you sure that your "worse" is worse for everyone and your "better" is better for everybody? Why?
Can you prove it?

[ashour]

I think that we should increase the block size each X years to Y size. This way we can scale with the future technological growth of the storage and processing .

[smoothie]

1. Some fear change

2. An example of that fear (similarly) was a bunch of precious metals supporters on youtube in 2011 bashing bitcoin and just to find that PMs did worse than bit coin and other cryptos. Some of these users consist of RawDog and StellaConcepts

3. Financial incentive to create off chain payment channels (supposedly "trust less") to collect fees for having these "payment channels" open.

4. To troll and feel superior to other users

5.  

[Kazimir]

Are you sure that your "worse" is worse for everyone and your "better" is better for everybody? Why?
Can you prove it?

Well, OK, this:

"Worse" is in this case is dividing Bitcoin into Core and XT, and all the confusion, doubt, loss of trust, market disturbance, delay in going mainstream, wasted effort in hundreds of discussions on distinguishing Core vs XT, ambiguity, all all other misery that comes with it.

Would of course not be worse for banks, paypal, and other institutes who prefer not to be replaced by cryptocurrency.

Seriously, are you arguing here that splitting Bitcoin into Core vs XT would be "better" for anyone who is not anti-Bitcoin to begin with?

[meono]

OP, the main reason why they bash bitcoinXT is because its not Bitcoin 0.12

Simple as that.

[Kazimir]

OP, the main reason why they bash bitcoinXT is because its not Bitcoin 0.12

Simple as that.

Yes, exactly! I am against XT as well, not because of the changes it brings (I'm mostly OK with those) but because it causes Bitcoin to be divided into Core and XT (which to some seems like a technicality that will work out, but is disastrous in actual practice).

I would strongly encourage to patch the changes from XT into Bitcoin Core, so it is Bitcoin 0.12.

So exactly what are the reasons that the other core devs don't want this? So far I read about Tor support, I don't fully understand the implications but Mike's comment seems to make some sense?
And Carlton Banks mentioned "consensus changes", it's still unclear to me what that refers to?

[Kazimir]

By the way, Pieter Wuille's suggestion to increase the block size is also very elegant imho. And more moderate than suddenly 8× and then 2× every two years.

[letsplayagame]

An agreement is what is best for bitcoin. Right now that is looking less and less unlikely near term.

Perhaps the core devs should all participate in non binding arbitration. Maybe an independent view (assuming an arbitrator with sufficient technical knowledge to be helpful can be found) could help the parties reach an agreement.

[Carlton Banks]

I would strongly encourage to patch the changes from XT into Bitcoin Core, so it is Bitcoin 0.12.

I wouldn't. The only part I would accept is the blocksize change, and even then it's not my preference.

So exactly what are the reasons that the other core devs don't want this? So far I read about Tor support, I don't fully understand the implications but Mike's comment seems to make some sense?

Read the code as well as what he wrote. At the bottom, there's a static const data structure that contains the IP addresses for all the Tor exit nodes that Mike thinks are the right ones for you to conect with while using Tor. Do. Not. Want.

He even says something like: "...oh, and hardcoding the Tor exit nodes is just a temporary thing....". I'll believe that when I see it.

And Carlton Banks mentioned "consensus changes", it's still unclear to me what that refers to?

Normally, the longest chain with the largest amount of proof of work wins. Mike's scrapping that. So there's another XT change you don't want in Core. Implications are that mining attacks become easier, basically.

[amaclin]

Would of course not be worse for banks, paypal, and other institutes who prefer not to be replaced by cryptocurrency.

Seriously, are you arguing here that splitting Bitcoin into Core vs XT would be "better" for anyone who is not anti-Bitcoin to begin with?

I am not "anti-Bitcoin" but I am not "pro-Bitcoin".
This is your game, not mine. I do not play this game.
Changing the rules in community affects only the members of your community and does not affect others.
So, you have the freedom - to change rules or not to change. You. I mean all bitcoin community.
I am not a member, so your changes neither "better" for me not "worse".