Bitcoin XT?

[Denker]

not anymore especially after the thread about how they blacklist ip, i don't like this time of control over users, bitcoin should be synonym of freedom

but i'm still in favor on bigger block at least for now as a soft solution, if we cannot find a better one

Yepp same with me. This is really suspicious. I'm defineately pro bigger blocks but not that way XT is trying to do it.
I'm not a coder but something seems to smell really extremely fishy about it.
So I will stay with core for now and hope that the devs will get convinced to increase the blocksize limit at least to 2 or 4MB.

[Envrin]

So I will stay with core for now and hope that the devs will get convinced to increase the blocksize limit at least to 2 or 4MB.

I'm absolutely certain the core devs will devise a consensus based plan to raise the block size when necessary.  Right now, there's no immediate need for it, and not for the forseeable future either.   When that time comes, I'm absolutely certain the core devs will come to a consensus on a sensible approach to tackle the issue.

This BS about Mike and Gavin shoving it down everyone's throats as if we're in end times is ridiculous, to say the least.  Can anyone say "hidden agenda"?

What idiots.  They both just totally destroyed any reputation they had within the bitcoin community.  They gambled, and they lost.  Who's going to listen to them now?

[desired_username]

XT FTW

Bitcoin arrived at a historic moment. If  the blockstream/core cartel wins we can wave goodbye to independent and free bitcoin.

[desired_username]

We've see the price going down caused by Bitcoin XT  

BS. Check what is bitcoin XT and what is BIP101.

[valiz]

XT FTW

Bitcoin arrived at a historic moment. If  the blockstream/core cartel wins we can wave goodbye to independent and free bitcoin.

Haha, you're the ones who are forcibly trying to change the protocol  . I am certain your propaganda has become ineffective by now.

Meanwhile, remove that extra crap code from the XT cancer. Who knows what discrete backdoors you guys are hiding in there. Keep only the max block size increase to keep a shred of credibility.

[alani123]

Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

[desired_username]

Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

That's why 75%+ of hashpower is needed for a trigger.

[desired_username]

XT FTW

Bitcoin arrived at a historic moment. If  the blockstream/core cartel wins we can wave goodbye to independent and free bitcoin.

Haha, you're the ones who are forcibly trying to change the protocol   . I am certain your propaganda has become ineffective by now.

Meanwhile, remove that extra crap code from the XT cancer. Who knows what discrete backdoors you guys are hiding in there. Keep only the max block size increase to keep a shred of credibility.

Forcibly? It depends on the ecosystem to accept the changes.

The code is open source.

Bitcoin should not depend on any single or group of devs or a company.

The propaganda, the lies and other dirty tactics of the Blockstream/Core-dev group is astonishing though.

[Ilove-Obama]

Are you pro Bitcoin XT?

    
No. down with the speculators who want to create their own fork on behalf of Bitcoin

[ChetnotAtkins]

No. I am definitely against this hostile takeover attempt

[desired_username]

forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!

Do you know what does forking even mean?

Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks.

XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible.

[b1007]

forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!

Do you know what does forking even mean?

Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks.

XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible.

So why is everypony selling their bitcoins then if there is nothing to worry about 

[alani123]

Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

That's why 75%+ of hashpower is needed for a trigger.

Not really, 75% of the last 1000 blocks would be needed to be mined with XT to trigger the fork. But NotXT can also be used to mine.

[desired_username]

forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!

Do you know what does forking even mean?

Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks.

XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible.

So why is everypony selling their bitcoins then if there is nothing to worry about 

MSM didn't hesitate to overhype the issue (so as Blockstream, check out adam backs fearmongering comments on reddit) and newbies have been always manipulated easily.
A panic can form a negative feedback loop (people start to sell because they see the exchange rate fall which causes even more fall).

Personally, I will dump only if Core devs maintain status quo on development and do not raise the blocksize limit.

[favdesu]

Scaling blocks are needed in the future, but not from 2 rogue devs through an altcoin. no to XT

[desired_username]

Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

That's why 75%+ of hashpower is needed for a trigger.

Not really, 75% of the last 1000 blocks would be needed to be mined with XT to trigger the fork. But NotXT can also be used to mine.

Mining 75%+ of the blocks requires 75%+ of the hashrate. NotXT is a laughable attack like the censorship on /r/bitcoin.

[desired_username]

Scaling blocks are needed in the future, but not from 2 rogue devs through an altcoin. no to XT

XT is the same network, the same chain and unless BIP101 is triggered the same rules.

XT is not an altcoin.

it's opensource and does not rely on any developers. 

[tupelo]

No

XT is the first real existential threat to Bitcoin.

[desired_username]

No

XT is the first real existential threat to Bitcoin.

BS. Blockstream is.

Check their website...check the comments of Adam Back. It's the perfect example of conflict of interest.

Also, please detail the business model of Blockstream. (hint: they will introduce centralized layers on top of bitcoin, payment hubs and channels).

The fork cannot even activate without the super majority of the network onboard.

[alani123]

Funny how someone created a fake and indistinguishable XT client. It could effectively cause a premature fork.

That's why 75%+ of hashpower is needed for a trigger.

Not really, 75% of the last 1000 blocks would be needed to be mined with XT to trigger the fork. But NotXT can also be used to mine.

Mining 75%+ of the blocks requires 75%+ of the hashrate. NotXT is a laughable attack like the censorship on /r/bitcoin.

Laughable or not, there should have been more thought before deciding to go head on towards a probable bitcoin fork. In my eyes, it's an offensive reminder that bitcoinXT isn't as great and failproof as some want it to appear. Even Adam Back posted in the dev list saying the following:

"The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have to be aborted".

With the current rules set, the fork locks in right after 75% of 1000 blocks are agreeing with BIT 101 and occurs after two weeks (given we're past Jan 2016). This is perfectly exploitable since support for BIP101 can be faked. The fork could end up occurring with a lot less actual support which would be disastrous since from what we know until now, until the last moment fake and real nodes would be indistinguishable.