Not Bitcoin XT

[mmortal03]

As far as I can see the argument is already over if the anti-XT crowd feels it is so certain to lose any fair contest that it will resort to tactics like this.

Seriously.  They screamed all rational discussion about ending the block size limit to a standstill even though ~75% of the users and an even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, and now that they are facing an actual implementation of a client that will hardfork to >1MB blocks they're trying to sabotage the consensus process rather than allow consensus to be decided by adoption? 

At what point do they admit they've already lost?

If ~75% of the users and even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, how come XT doesn't have 75% of the nodes and a large portion of the blocks aren't blocks with the XT version number?

Part of it is all the fear mongering out there from the small blocks camp, as well as just the human psychology/sociology involved. A lot of people simply won't make a decision until they see others have already decided, and the existence of Not Bitcoin XT doesn't help that one bit. It proves that we don't even *have* an accurate way for people to find out how many other people have already gotten on board.

[lemipawa]

As far as I can see the argument is already over if the anti-XT crowd feels it is so certain to lose any fair contest that it will resort to tactics like this.

Seriously.  They screamed all rational discussion about ending the block size limit to a standstill even though ~75% of the users and an even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, and now that they are facing an actual implementation of a client that will hardfork to >1MB blocks they're trying to sabotage the consensus process rather than allow consensus to be decided by adoption? 

At what point do they admit they've already lost?

If ~75% of the users and even greater fraction of the miners are solidly in favor of >1MB blocks, how come XT doesn't have 75% of the nodes and a large portion of the blocks aren't blocks with the XT version number?

Part of it is all the fear mongering out there from the small blocks camp, as well as just the human psychology/sociology involved. A lot of people simply won't make a decision until they see others have already decided, and the existence of Not Bitcoin XT doesn't help that one bit. It proves that we don't even *have* an accurate way for people to find out how many other people have already gotten on board.

There are also other BIPs that propose and implement bigger blocks such as BIP 100 and 102. Some people may support bigger blocks, but not XT specifically.

[Cryddit]

Part of it is all the fear mongering out there from the small blocks camp, as well as just the human psychology/sociology involved. A lot of people simply won't make a decision until they see others have already decided, and the existence of Not Bitcoin XT doesn't help that one bit. It proves that we don't even *have* an accurate way for people to find out how many other people have already gotten on board.

More to the point it proves that the people opposed to XT don't want anyone to know how many other people are on board because they are fully aware that if people had accurate information about it, they'd be the losers.  

If the anti-XT people are that sure they're losing, why should any of the rest of us doubt?

[mezzomix]

The point is we need to the name the things correctly. In case of a fork we have two coins and every users and every service has to be able to distinguish between them. This has to be done until one of the two chains is not used anymore.

It makes no sense to rename the longest Bitcoin chain as this the original chain with the original consensus rules. As BitcoinXT is the new coin we have to find a new name for this coin which could be BXT. If someone pays with BTC/BXT or accepts BTC/BXT it should be clear for everyone which coin is meant to be used. If we immediately reach 100% consensus we can name the BXT fork BTC as we did in the previous forks, but as long as there are BTC users we need to distinguish between the forkcoin (for those who don't like the name alternative coin or altcoin) and between the original BTC.

The problem did not occur in the past as we almost immediately reached 100% consensus when the hard fork takes place. This time it looks like we will end with BTC users and we will have BXT users when the chain is forked. The miners have to decide which coin to mine and we continue with to competing chains. This is fine for me. Depending on the value I will try to change my BXT into BTC as I will not be able to deal with a coin that allows blocks with 8GB (Gigabytes) every 10 minutes (in 2036).

[Cryddit]

No.  We really don't. 

If there is a fork, then one or the other of the two chains dies within a day.  Whatever is left is BTC. 

[domob]

No.  We really don't. 

If there is a fork, then one or the other of the two chains dies within a day.  Whatever is left is BTC. 

If it works out like this, then I think everyone agrees that the remaining chain can be named "Bitcoin".  However, I don't see how anyone could know for sure that it will, indeed, play out this way.  As far as I can tell, we never had a fork that was even comparatively as disputed as this one.

[mezzomix]

No.  We really don't.  

If there is a fork, then one or the other of the two chains dies within a day.  Whatever is left is BTC.  

That was the case in with the previous forks where we had almost 100% consensus before the chain was forked. We now have two people and some followers that try to force the majority to accept their change package. Several people and some pools will not switch to the BXT forkcoin or use both coins BTC and BXT. There are good chances that we will continue with two chains. If this is established as a good way to push changes into the market, we might see several additional chains in the future.

This is fine with me. Everybody and every group of people is free to use their own set of consensus rules and fork the coin. But as long as the original coin is alive the forkcoin should not use the name of the original coin.

[JorgeStolfi]

The point is we need to the name the things correctly. In case of a fork we have two coins and every users and every service has to be able to distinguish between them. This has to be done until one of the two chains is not used anymore.

It makes no sense to rename the longest Bitcoin chain as this the original chain with the original consensus rules. As BitcoinXT is the new coin we have to find a new name for this coin which could be BXT.

Indeed that is the point.  The way the fork is programmed, every transactions will be in principle valid under both sets of 'consensus rules' and executed in both branches of the blockchain.  Sometimes, by accident or crafty art, a transaction may be executed in only one branch; or the same input may be sent to two different adrresses, one in each branch.  However, ordinary clients will have no control over such events (and may be confused by them).

So, it does not make sense to call either branch an altcoin, or to invent a symbol for it.  Splits of the chain (ophaning) happens all the time even when everyone is running the same version of the software.  

It is also not logical to say that one branch is an altcoin because it uses different 'consensus rules' than those that were in force before.  Once a block smaller than 1 MB has been solved, it is impossible to tell which software was used to solve it.  (There is a version field in the header, but the software can set ti to anything it wants; it is ignored by the protocol.) Thus one can claim that the limit has always been 8 MB since genesis, or 17.3 GB; and both branches would then be valid according to these 'consensus rules' too.

Or also: suppose that someone posts a version of the software -- let's call it BitcoinZZ -- that does NOT cut the block reward in half when it should.  If that version attracts enough miners, but not 100%, the chain will split into two branches, one with 25 coins of block rewards, as in the common trunk, and the other with 12.5 coins.  Which one will be the true Bitcoin: the one with a change in the reward, or the one whithout the change?

This question is connected tp a famous logical/philosophical paradox of Bleen and Grue.  Everybody knows that emeralds are grue, and sapphires are bleen.  But a curious thing will happen on March 17, 2017, when emeralds will suddenly become bleen and sapphires will turn grue.  Some weirdos say that things are 'green' if they are grue until that date and bleen afterwards; but why would one give a name for a color that becomes a different color at some date? That is stupid...

[achow101]

No.  We really don't.  

If there is a fork, then one or the other of the two chains dies within a day.  Whatever is left is BTC.  

That was the case in with the previous forks where we had almost 100% consensus before the chain was forked. We now have two people and some followers that try to force the majority to accept their change package. Several people and some pools will not switch to the BXT forkcoin or use both coins BTC and BXT. There are good chances that we will continue with two chains. If this is established as a good way to push changes into the market, we might see several additional chains in the future.

This is fine with me. Everybody and every group of people is free to use their own set of consensus rules and fork the coin. But as long as the original coin is alive the forkcoin should not use the name of the original coin.

The only way that I can see that we end up with two chains is if the fork occurs without consensus. With BitcoinXT, the fork is programmed to occur with consensus, therefore that fork becomes BTC. If it occurs without consensus (which is what NotBitcoinXT is doing) then we will end up with two chains and both BTC and BXT will be discredited and then both will crash and die.

[valkir]

We manage to get here by working together. Bitcoin is a community system base on multiple person.
If 2 persons want to take control, this could only be bad.

This will also not help us for the mass adoption. We need to fix that. Do not download XT or NOTXT its making think more complicated and investors will just leave. my 2 cent

[JorgeStolfi]

We manage to get here by working together. Bitcoin is a community system base on multiple person.
If 2 persons want to take control, this could only be bad.

Right now 1 company has control over bitcoin's future, and has been spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominem because it does not intend to relinquish it.  If that is not bad enough already...

[domob]

The only way that I can see that we end up with two chains is if the fork occurs without consensus. With BitcoinXT, the fork is programmed to occur with consensus, therefore that fork becomes BTC. If it occurs without consensus (which is what NotBitcoinXT is doing) then we will end up with two chains and both BTC and BXT will be discredited and then both will crash and die.

This is simply wrong.  XT is programmed to fork with 75% support of the hash rate, but that is not consensus, not even among miners.  Even more importantly, the miners are not what actually counts here.  It is the users and the "economic majority" that is often quoted recently.

[desired_username]

The only way that I can see that we end up with two chains is if the fork occurs without consensus. With BitcoinXT, the fork is programmed to occur with consensus, therefore that fork becomes BTC. If it occurs without consensus (which is what NotBitcoinXT is doing) then we will end up with two chains and both BTC and BXT will be discredited and then both will crash and die.

This is simply wrong.  XT is programmed to fork with 75% support of the hash rate, but that is not consensus, not even among miners.  Even more importantly, the miners are not what actually counts here.  It is the users and the "economic majority" that is often quoted recently.

Miners directly depend on the users. 75+% of the hashrate constitutes super majority. (if we would go after a higher % of the miners, then a single big miner could veto the change)

It was chosen because all other metrics can be spoofed, hashrate cannot.

[desired_username]

We manage to get here by working together. Bitcoin is a community system base on multiple person.
If 2 persons want to take control, this could only be bad.

Right now 1 company has control over bitcoin's future, and has been spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominem because it does not intend to relinquish it.  If that is not bad enough already...

Very well said.

[Rampion]

We manage to get here by working together. Bitcoin is a community system base on multiple person.
If 2 persons want to take control, this could only be bad.

Right now 1 company has control over bitcoin's future, and has been spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominem because it does not intend to relinquish it.  If that is not bad enough already...

This is baseless FUD. There are many Bitcoin developers who are not related to Blockstream against XT because they favor a more cautious approach to the block-size increase.

Anyhow, anybody following your posts since the beginning knows you are anti-Bitcoin. You have said Bitcoin believers are delusional fools, you have also said Bitcoin is a ponzi-scheme that will go to 0 rather sooner than later, you've never supported Bitcoin and you never will.

It is not a surprise that you are pushing the most dangerous solution (8MB straight away and then x2 every year until 8GB are reached) that will probably lead to complete centralization and thus the death of Bitcoin. It is not a surprise that you go to great length to expose the "conflict of interest" of devs associated to Blockstream, while you don't comment on the very real issues that such an abrupt change in block size could bring to Bitcoin.... Nor you criticize Hearn's and Andresen's shady agendas.

Hopefully you've at least bought some.

[goatpig]

Right now 1 company has control over bitcoin's future, and has been spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominem because it does not intend to relinquish it.  If that is not bad enough already...

And how exactly is this not FUD against Core devs? Even if you concede to the accusations, how is this not a ad hominem argument? There is a very clear reason this debate should remain purely technical. This is an engineering problem, it should only be treated on this basis.

[JorgeStolfi]

This is baseless FUD. There are many Bitcoin developers who are not related to Blockstream against XT because they favor a more cautious approach to the block-size increase.

Who are the developers with commit rights to BitcoinCore, and what are their affiliations?

To help you, these developers are listed on Blockstream's "Team" page: Adam Back (President), Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Mark Friedenbach, Rusty Russell, Patrick "Intersango" Strateman, Jorge Timón, and Glen Willen. There may be others. Luke "Tonal" Jr works for Blockstream as contractor. Peter Todd works half-time for Viacoin, an altcoin that claims to be bitcoin done right -- e.g. with 25 times faster confirms.

Anyhow, anybody following your posts since the beginning knows you are anti-Bitcoin. You have said Bitcoin believers are delusional fools, you have also said Bitcoin is a ponzi-scheme that will go to 0 rather sooner than later, you've never supported Bitcoin and you never will.

Note quite.  I don't recall writing "delusional fools", bluntly like that, although I do believe that many of them are.  I understand that, strictly technically, bitcoin is not a ponzi; but it is a pyramid scheme, also called "ponzi" in comon parlance -- and that is the only aspect that many bitcoiners seem to care about.  I believe that the price will go to (practically) zero eventually, and the sooner that happens,  the better; but I have no idea how long it will take, actually. 

And I am not "anti-Bitcoin".  I think its is a significant invention and a great technical experiment, and I would admire it if it had not been hijacked by speculators and turned into a giant pyramid scheme -- that has already transferred a billion dollars or two from some naive investors and unlucky speculators to the pockets of smarter and luckier guys, and burned at least half a billion dollars of electricity so that its users could save maybe a million dollars in bank fees.

It is not a surprise that you are pushing the most dangerous solution (8MB straight away and then x2 every year until 8GB are reached) that will probably lead to complete centralization and thus the death of Bitcoin. It is not a surprise that you go to great length to expose the "conflict of interest" of devs associated to Blockstream, while you don't comment on the very real issues that such an abrupt change in block size could bring to Bitcoin.... Nor you criticize Hearn's and Andresen's shady agendas.

As a computer scientist, it really bothers me that Adam Back and the Blockstream devs keep spreading all that nonsensical and groundless FUD about the dangers of 8MB, claiming that the "fee market" will work and that the LN will save bitcoin -- while ignoring all data, all that is known about saturated network behavior and service pricing, and all inconvenient questions about the viability of the LN.   

I have no particular admiration for Gavin and Mike; in particular, I cannot respect Gavin given his continuing support for the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation.  But their "agendas" for pushing the block size limit increase are quite obvious: they want to keep bitcoin working as it has been working so far, and usable for the purpose it was created for -- and also reduce the risk of crippling spam attacks.  Whereas Blockstream's agenda, that makes them desperately wish for bitcoin to become unusable and vulnerable to spam attacks, can only be speculated upon.  (Maybe, as Napoleon would suggest, there is no malice, but only gross incompetence and irresponsibility.)

Hopefully you've at least bought some.

As you know, since I discovered Bitcoin I have been doubling my holdings every day.  (I was tempted to triple them during the recent dip, but I did not want to break a tradition.)

[nexern]

"All devs are equal, but some devs are more equal than others."

[tommorisonwebdesign]

If there is a fork in the blockchain, as pointed put above, it creates many security threats to the entire network. In addition, from what I have read so far, two different chains may lead to the creation of a new coin.If this were to happen, the value of Bitcoin will drop. That is why I am personally against this non-consensus fork. Is there anything I'm not understanding? Please let me know.

[Delek]

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set (0x20000007 in hex)."

So, what will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? Without the needed hashpower, XT will become surely an altcoin with near-zero value?