Bitcoin Vs Bitcoin XT (is there any difference to the average person)

[keepdoing]

Your coins will still work on XT, but that shouldn't be your main concern.

I personally think 8MB blocks are superior to 1MB, but no way in hell do I think 8MB and a divided community is better than 1MB with an opportunity to compromise. When it comes down to it, the community is the most valuable variable to the value of Bitcoin. Without an active group of people believing in the value, Bitcoin will die. I see no reason to alienate certain members of the Bitcoin community when there is no pressing reason to do so.

If the XT fork was the same as Core but with a higher blocksize then there would be no controversy, the main problem is Gavin and Hearn are trying to pass a lot of shit in between the code with the excuse of the so called doomsday if we don't raise the blocksize limit about now.

And just to go on the record for the sheep.... we agree with the above highlight.  We don't WANT the blacklisting / IP tracking etc.  But we will have our bitcoin.  And if the Very Powerful wolves don't get some of what they want - then they will do away with our bitcoin and create something even more controlling - maybe even limiting our access to various functions (research the itbit setup for example).  So we are not naive enough to not realize that Mike & Gavin are embedding $#IT that isn't good for us - but realize that part of the reason they are doing it is because they are under immense pressure to compromise with the wolf lobby.  So our ultimate desire is that they (and all the voices that influence this) do give a good fight / negotiation into limiting the bad stuff - but we do still want our bitcoin - and in the end - the great scheme of things is that in this Age, which is not yet at an end, the finances are ultimately run by the Wolves.  Soon as everyone accepts and understands that and simply treats it like realistically for what it is - with intelligent positioning/negotiation/manipulation to minimize the damage, but still achieve the goal - then the quicker this moves along and back to business.

Peace, -d

[manselr]

Your coins will still work on XT, but that shouldn't be your main concern.

I personally think 8MB blocks are superior to 1MB, but no way in hell do I think 8MB and a divided community is better than 1MB with an opportunity to compromise. When it comes down to it, the community is the most valuable variable to the value of Bitcoin. Without an active group of people believing in the value, Bitcoin will die. I see no reason to alienate certain members of the Bitcoin community when there is no pressing reason to do so.

If the XT fork was the same as Core but with a higher blocksize then there would be no controversy, the main problem is Gavin and Hearn are trying to pass a lot of shit in between the code with the excuse of the so called doomsday if we don't raise the blocksize limit about now.

And just to go on the record for the sheep.... we agree with the above highlight.  We don't WANT the blacklisting / IP tracking etc.  But we will have our bitcoin.  And if the Very Powerful wolves don't get some of what they want - then they will do away with our bitcoin and create something even more controlling - maybe even limiting our access to various functions (research the itbit setup for example).  So we are not naive enough to not realize that Mike & Gavin are embedding $#IT that isn't good for us - but realize that part of the reason they are doing it is because they are under immense pressure to compromise with the wolf lobby.  So our ultimate desire is that they (and all the voices that influence this) do give a good fight / negotiation into limiting the bad stuff - but we do still want our bitcoin - and in the end - the great scheme of things is that in this Age, which is not yet at an end, the finances are ultimately run by the Wolves.  Soon as everyone accepts and understands that and simply treats it like realistically for what it is - with intelligent positioning/negotiation/manipulation to minimize the damage, but still achieve the goal - then the quicker this moves along and back to business.

Peace, -d

This is a pussy mindset. 0% compromise with the powers that be. We want a free and independent Bitcoin, fight till the end for it, no ifs. Anything else is a big failure and satoshi will be crying in anonymity (im asuming he isn't going to come back ever again in a legitimate way using his PGP key this point).

[keepdoing]

Your coins will still work on XT, but that shouldn't be your main concern.

I personally think 8MB blocks are superior to 1MB, but no way in hell do I think 8MB and a divided community is better than 1MB with an opportunity to compromise. When it comes down to it, the community is the most valuable variable to the value of Bitcoin. Without an active group of people believing in the value, Bitcoin will die. I see no reason to alienate certain members of the Bitcoin community when there is no pressing reason to do so.

If the XT fork was the same as Core but with a higher blocksize then there would be no controversy, the main problem is Gavin and Hearn are trying to pass a lot of shit in between the code with the excuse of the so called doomsday if we don't raise the blocksize limit about now.

And just to go on the record for the sheep.... we agree with the above highlight.  We don't WANT the blacklisting / IP tracking etc.  But we will have our bitcoin.  And if the Very Powerful wolves don't get some of what they want - then they will do away with our bitcoin and create something even more controlling - maybe even limiting our access to various functions (research the itbit setup for example).  So we are not naive enough to not realize that Mike & Gavin are embedding $#IT that isn't good for us - but realize that part of the reason they are doing it is because they are under immense pressure to compromise with the wolf lobby.  So our ultimate desire is that they (and all the voices that influence this) do give a good fight / negotiation into limiting the bad stuff - but we do still want our bitcoin - and in the end - the great scheme of things is that in this Age, which is not yet at an end, the finances are ultimately run by the Wolves.  Soon as everyone accepts and understands that and simply treats it like realistically for what it is - with intelligent positioning/negotiation/manipulation to minimize the damage, but still achieve the goal - then the quicker this moves along and back to business.

Peace, -d

This is a pussy mindset. 0% compromise with the powers that be. We want a free and independent Bitcoin, fight till the end for it, no ifs. Anything else is a big failure and satoshi will be crying in anonymity (im asuming he isn't going to come back ever again in a legitimate way using his PGP key this point).

That's the attitude!  You go and charge that line of spears with your naked self   LOL

[medUSA]

If the XT fork was the same as Core but with a higher blocksize then there would be no controversy, the main problem is Gavin and Hearn are trying to pass a lot of shit in between the code with the excuse of the so called doomsday if we don't raise the blocksize limit about now.

The controversy is not caused by XT. It's too many Core Devs are in the BlockStream pact. They refuse to accept any raise of blocksize. That is the core of the problem (pun intended).

And just to go on the record for the sheep.... we agree with the above highlight.  We don't WANT the blacklisting / IP tracking etc.  But we will have our bitcoin.

Unless you have a farm of beefy miners,  it's not your choice (or mine) to make. Sheeps, us users, have to follow the mainchain. The best we can do is keep our coins distributed on the pre-fork chain.

[Lauda]

The controversy is not caused by XT.
-snip-

So running a dangerous and risky fork attempt is the right way to go? Implementing controversial and buggy patches is what we should be doing?

It's too many Core Devs are in the BlockStream pact. They refuse to accept any raise of blocksize. That is the core of the problem (pun intended).

This is wrong again. Some of them do not like the idea of raising it. The others just can't reach consensus as to when to raise it and how much to raise it. XT supporters needs to stop spreading this as it is not right.

[medUSA]

The controversy is not caused by XT.
-snip-

So running a dangerous and risky fork attempt is the right way to go? Implementing controversial and buggy patches is what we should be doing?

"Cause and effect" is the what I am saying. XT is the "effect" of the disagreement.
Your dislike for XT (dangerous or risky) does not change the fact that this controversy is not caused by XT.

It's too many Core Devs are in the BlockStream pact. They refuse to accept any raise of blocksize. That is the core of the problem (pun intended).

This is wrong again. Some of them do not like the idea of raising it. The others just can't reach consensus as to when to raise it and how much to raise it. XT supporters needs to stop spreading this as it is not right.

Please read what I wrote and read what you wrote. They mean the same thing. "Too many" means not everyone, similar to "some" and those "do not like the idea of raising (the limit)" are "refusing to accept any raise of blocksize (limit)". What is incorrect about my statement?

Read my previous posts if you will. I am not the "supporter" you seem to believe I am. My idea of a good resolution to this controversy is obviously Core raising the limit. They aren't moving along as fast as they should. I see no end to this and there is a need to voice out, "tell" them what we users want.