...

[dothebeats]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

[forlackofabettername]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

For a powergrab. This isn't about blocksize, it's about a takeover of the developement departement. A trojan horse if you want see it that way.

[quakefiend420]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

[dothebeats]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

I agree that there will come a time that 1MB isn't just enough to handle all the transactions in the network, but aggressively increasing the block size to 8MB is just way too high. There should be another solution to this impending problem other than increasing it by 8x.

[quakefiend420]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

I agree that there will come a time that 1MB isn't just enough to handle all the transactions in the network, but aggressively increasing the block size to 8MB is just way too high. There should be another solution to this impending problem other than increasing it by 8x.

Keep in mind, just because the max is 8MB doesn't mean that we start getting 8MB blocks immediately.  That just gives us breathing room to not need to do another hard fork for a while to let other scaling solutions mature.

[dothebeats]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

I agree that there will come a time that 1MB isn't just enough to handle all the transactions in the network, but aggressively increasing the block size to 8MB is just way too high. There should be another solution to this impending problem other than increasing it by 8x.

Keep in mind, just because the max is 8MB doesn't mean that we start getting 8MB blocks immediately.  That just gives us breathing room to not need to do another hard fork for a while to let other scaling solutions mature.

Yes, raising it to 8MB doesn't necessarily mean that we are getting 8MB blocks, but the point here is even 2MB will give us "room for breathing" when it comes to transactions of the current times while the devs are working on a way to patch this up for long. Only stress-testing on the network cause the rise in transactions, when in reality 1MB is still sufficient for the network to go on without backlogs.

[quakefiend420]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion.

Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block.

The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not.

And what about when those spam transactions are real users trying to really use the network?  Do you propose a constant bidding war between users trying to get their transactions confirmed?  All that's going to do is frustrate users and stall adoption.

[Denker]

Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?

1MB isn't right.  We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing).  I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient.

LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while.  This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed.

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

Really good post.I'm thinking the same. We need bigger blocks and off chain solutions in the future.So both sides should find an arrangement. I would be happy with an increase up to 4MB already. But fact is something hs to happen.

[Thekool1s]

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

[meono]

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

\

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

Worth the read

Then read this : https://bitcoinxt.software/

[Thekool1s]

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

\

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

Worth the read

Then read this : https://bitcoinxt.software/

Thanks meono, Your help is appreciated

[Scaccomatt0]

It would be nice to keep the [block chain] files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

I bet 100BTC that if I ask media and the majority of journalists to explain what's the bitcoinXT situation, I'll receive a bunch of trolling words.

[johnyj]

Exactly.. Regardless whether Bitcoin XT will get enough nodes or miners to fork, or not, is not very important. And sure, Bitcoin will be able to handle this, technically.

What IS important is the very bad influence this all has on the market and trust in Bitcoin by the general audience. Lots of (unnecessary) confusion, panic, harm to Bitcoin's reputation, stalling it's acceptance and growth.

the very bad influence seems already started the price is tanking slowly but inexorably, i'm sure it has to do with the fork and XT, but if true that it will be possible to double spend your coins then in the case that the price will fall to 50% we have still the same value

Could be far below that, because the biggest promise of bitcoin - limited supply - is broken. It means it does not make any sense to use it as a currency or store value, once in a while its price will crash by 50% when core devs disagree with each other

No, it basically killed the whole concept of currency of limited supply, and then we'd back to the fiat world and forget about this programmer's game

Then there is a chance that a new coin which have built-in mechanism to prevent a protocol change will take over. This kind of design should be in there in the first place

[zeroday]

Can somebody explain why some people disagree with the necessity of increasing block size ?
It should be increased to allow further BTC development, but harsh forking to XT without consensus is harmful, IMO.

[bimasena25]

panic not so good
will decrease coin value more
just sit down, n think plan strategy for worst situation, my friend

[forlackofabettername]

Can someone link me to thread which explains this "XT" Thing, I clearly dont understand what the situation is going in bitcoin technical world. What is bitcoin XT? Is it for faster or bigger transactions? I cant understand a bit can someone explain or link me to where get started about this situation?

The real insight to get the bigger pricture, not that manipulative crap these Gavincoiners post on here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.0

[Mickeyb]

I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing.  Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now.

This is exactly my hope as well. I don't know about the others, but I refuse to believe that Gavin has become corrupt. I think he would have easily settled to 4MB block, just if there was consensus.

His XT move is a bluff as well in my opinion. If it works, great, we will have 8MB blocks. But it probably won't get 75% of the nodes on board. So when the XT starts approaching 35%-40%, core devs will start panicking and then the negotiation time will start. Then we will get some consensus and finish this drama.

[conspirosphere.tk]

Can somebody explain why some people disagree with the necessity of increasing block size ?
It should be increased to allow further BTC development, but harsh forking to XT without consensus is harmful, IMO.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155498.msg12176765#msg12176765

Quote from: knight22 on Today at 03:30:06 AM

BitcoinXT is just a fall back plan

no: it's an inside job to destroy it, pure & simple:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/block-size-bitcoin-not-scale-effectively/

And it has good chances to succeed even if it does not get implemented, by dividing the community, crashing the price and so expectations, and obstructing a real solution to spam (attacks or crap indifferently) like this one:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114791/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin

more:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg12157254#msg12157254

[kwukduck]

Can't expect anything else from mainstream media. They live on drama.
Then again if this scares people they obviously don't know what they have invested in in the first place, better to get rid of them if you ask me.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Community needs to aggressively educate BitcoinXT supporters.

How do you reckon industry leading retards are going to educate anyone? 

Give me an example of this'education' you propose to give? Whats your key point to stick to 1mb?