Bitcoin XT?

[ummina]

Monday, August 10, 2015 opened at $265.89, kicking the week off continuing the pattern that emerged late last week. Throughout the entire day, the Bitcoin price floated in the mid-to-low $260s, hitting a daily low of $261.60 at 9 AM.

Tuesday continued the mid $260s trend in the morning hours, but the market attempted a comeback in the early evening. At 5 PM, the Bitcoin price jumped to $268.82; the price hit a peak of 271.5 at 7 PM. The upward push had no momentum, though, and the price began slowly declining again at 8 PM, setting the trend for Wednesday.

Meanwhile, in the altcoin market, ShapeShift announced that it had added Ether — the crypto-token for the highly popular Ethereum, a blockchain-based protocol for smart contracts. This announcement apparently sparked huge excitement amongst Ethereum supporters and altcoin speculators, as the price of Ether skyrocketed, at one point appreciating 100%.

August 12 began at $270.11. However, the day opened on a steady decline, as the market slowly liquidated the brief gains achieved in the previous day. At 9 AM, after falling back down to $266, the Bitcoin price began rising again, although the increase would be very short-lived. The increase peaked at $270.41 at 6 PM, after which it fell back to the mid $260s. Wednesday ended on the decline, closing at $265.51.

lightning-slideIn the news on August 12, HashPlex released its open source Lightning Hub, a functionality that will contribute to the highly anticipated Lightning Network. Many people are excited about this off chain network, because it can increase Bitcoin’s speed and scalability. A small group of people even cite the Lightning Network as an alternative to increasing the block size, despite the fact that the Network is not yet functional.

Bernard Rihn, CEO and Founder of HashPlex, described the Lightning Hub:

“A full Lightning Hub is not necessarily feature-heavy. Clients decide to lock-up so many Bitcoins in a payment channel with their hub. If the hub disappears or acts maliciously, they can get their money back. Then they send and receive money. Unlike on the blockchain or with credit-card networks, these payments are confirmed immediately with no chance of chargebacks or double-spends, and they require very low fees.”

Thursday, August 13 kicked off at $265.51, a return to the mid $260s trend that was broken by the brief rally on the 11th. Price activity was flat for most of the day; the Bitcoin price fell to the low $260s in the early morning, but returned to $265 by noon. At 10 PM, there was a sharp drop, in which the price fell back to the low $260s, hitting a trough of $262 at 11 PM, and rising to $262.88 to end the day.

The 14th began at $262.88, but quickly climbed back to the mid $260s. After returning to this range, the Bitcoin price remained sideways for the rest of the day. Part of the stability could have been brought on by big news from Visa, which has began researching the blockchain in anticipation of a possible integration. However, the 14th saw some negative news as well; LocalBitcoins announced that it would be ending its services in New York due to BitLicense, making the popular P2P Bitcoin exchange the latest casualty in Benjamin Lawsky’s war on digital currency.

Rajat Taneja, Executive Vice-President of Technology at Visa, explained the intentions behind the company’s blockchain research:

“For now, the focus of this technology innovation centre will be on Visa Checkout and mVisa, but for certain, India will soon have teams that will jointly work with our two research labs in US and Singapore in studying the many aspects of blockchain disrupting technologies.”

Friday the 14th ended on a quiet note, with the Bitcoin price hovering at $265.77.

August 15 opened at $265.77, and didn’t change much for the first half of the day. However, starting at 1 PM, the Bitcoin price entered a relatively significant decline that would set the tone for the rest of the week. After hitting $261 at 7 PM, the markets calmed down and hovered between $261 and $260 for the rest of the night. At 3 AM Sunday morning, however, the price sharply dropped once again to $256 — even hitting an hourly low of $255. The Bitcoin price spent the rest of August 16 hovering between $259 and $254, eventually closing out the week at $256.96.

Bitcoin XT Drama

Bitcoin Mining ProfitabilityA likely source for this further decline in the Bitcoin price is the community drama over the looming Bitcoin XT fork. As a solution to the incessant block size debate, Gavin Andresen has released an alternative version of Bitcoin Core, called “Bitcoin XT,”  that has a larger block size, which is set to automatically increase periodically. The release of Bitcoin XT sparked yet another debate, as the major mining pools now must decide if it will use XT or continue using the regular Bitcoin Core. Community leaders have turned to censorship in order to suppress opinions regarding XT; Theymos has forbidden any XT-related topics on the Bitcoin subreddit and BitcoinTalk, the two largest Bitcoin community hubs.

This drama will likely have an affect on the Bitcoin price as it unfolds. The deliberation between the mining pools regarding whether or not to adopt XT may end up giving speculators anxiety, causing some turbulence in the Bitcoin price. Additionally, depending on which version of Bitcoin gains consensus, disillusioned Bitcoiners — unsatisfied with whichever version is chosen — may chose to leave the community and cash out their coins. If this happens on a large enough scale, there would definitely be some downward pressure on the price. Nevertheless, the Bitcoin XT drama is sure to create some interesting market action in the coming days.

Are you siding with Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Core? Let us know in the comments below!

Images courtesy of Wikipedia, “The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin” (documentary)

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Bitcoinist.net.

Originally posted on: Bitcoinist Weekly News Re-Hash: Visa Tackles the Blockchain, Bitcoin XT, and More

more here http://insidebitcoins.com/news/bitcoinist-weekly-news-re-hash-visa-tackles-the-blockchain-bitcoin-xt-and-more/34397

[TibanneCat]

If there is a fork:

You will want to own pre-fork coins so that you can own coins on both sides of the fork.

Waiting to buy coins till after the fork is not in your best interest.

People will (eventually) realize this.

People wanting pre-fork coins should cause buying pressure (eventually).

So keep your current coins and/or buy on these large uncertainty dips. 

People in the know will want pre-fork coins so there may be a big rush to buy if it looks like a fork is actually going to happen.

Don't get so emotional about this.

Most likely scenario:  much blather and to-do about nothing, which has been and is the standard operational procedure of the Bitcoin community for as long as I can remember.

[LiteCoinGuy]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

[DannyHamilton]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

This poll has nothing to do with bigger blocks.  It is about Bitcoin XT.

Bitcoin XT includes more than just bigger blocks.  It has additional features (such as relaying double spend transactions if the original transaction is not confirmed yet).

It also has a very specific set of triggering crieteria that some may find insufficient. Perhaps you feel that 85% of the last 1000 blocks would be better? Perhaps you feel that 95% of the past 2016 blocks at the time of the difficulty change would be better? Perhaps you feel that 60% of nodes would be better?  Perhaps you feel that January 2016 is to soon, or not soon enough?

The question is, are you for or against Bitcoin XT exactly as it exists right now?

[hdbuck]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

you dont, because you dont mean anything.

go buy some litecoins, they have bigger blocks..

[LiteCoinGuy]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

you dont, because you dont mean anything.

go buy some litecoins, they have bigger blocks..

actually, no.

[hdbuck]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

you dont, because you dont mean anything.

go buy some litecoins, they have bigger blocks..

actually, no.

well then fork litecoin while you are at it.

[LiteCoinGuy]

pro bigger blocks. now how should i vote?

you dont, because you dont mean anything.

go buy some litecoins, they have bigger blocks..

actually, no.

well then fork litecoin while you are at it.

Bitcoin will not die, and Litecoin will not die. Maybe we will reach 75% and then XT is the new version.

but i would like to have Core with bigger blocks but that seems to be impossible  

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

We won't know how much of that 75% is real and how much is spoofed until XT's malicious trigger is (prematurely) activated.

[alani123]

Very well put DannyHamilton, as always. People who are pro bigger blocks should also consider that bitcoinXT is not just about that, but rather an envision of a few developers of what he sees as a better bitcoin, network and/or bitcoin client. There are downsides and unaudited code still on the loose.

Furthermore, they should also consider the reason behind bigger blocks. Some think that a small blocksize is halting adoption. Even if that's the case, how and why is Gavin Andresen's bitcoinXT addressing this issue properly? Wouldn't a less invasive (and ideally in consensus with the other devs as well) attempt to address the block size issue be better for the bitcoin ecosystem as a whole? From what we're seeing right now, Gavin's project has not only caused a schism but also spread a lot of uncertainty.

[Mikestang]

Very well put DannyHamilton, as always. People who are pro bigger blocks should also consider that bitcoinXT is not just about that, but rather an envision of a few developers of what he sees as a better bitcoin, network and/or bitcoin client. There are downsides and unaudited code still on the loose.

One of my biggest gripes with XT, besides it's attempt at a hostile take-over of the blockchain, is that decision are ultimately made by only two people, and one of them can override the other.  That's not what bitcoin is all about, and I hope XT fails miserably.  The problems it aims to address will be patched by core in due time.  Keep the original strong.

[knight22]

I don't understand why poeple keep saying XT is an hostile take over. It's a free market based choice.

[kostya.ash]

I don't understand why poeple keep saying XT is an hostile take over. It's a free market based choice.

because the impact on the bitcoind price, so many people are angry

[zeraTunerse]

The new version, which calls itself Bitcoin XT, would increase the block size to 8 megabytes, which would allow up to 24 transactions to be processed every second. That is still a fraction of the 20,000 or so that VISA can process, but would increase every year, so that bitcoin could continue to grow.

Those who oppose Bitcoin XT say the bigger block size jeopardizes the vision of a decentralized payments system that bitcoin is built on, as the extra computer memory needed would shut out many of the thousands of individual “nodes” that currently power the network.

I also had many doubts and your comment cleared them.
Just wanna know if XT is implemented then what will happen of individual nodes will they be still  part of bitcoin network.
someone Told that if XT is implemented then all your coins in wallet(Currently) will be Lost, is that true?

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

The Gavinistas don't seem to understand NotXT can also be used to mine NotXT blocks.

They're going to be so buttburned when they figure it out.   

1 XT/NotXT block down, 749 to go.

If we get to 75% XT/NotXT blocks, Gavin Baratheon the FailKing will be rekt like it's Winterfell.
 

[knight22]

The new version, which calls itself Bitcoin XT, would increase the block size to 8 megabytes, which would allow up to 24 transactions to be processed every second. That is still a fraction of the 20,000 or so that VISA can process, but would increase every year, so that bitcoin could continue to grow.

Those who oppose Bitcoin XT say the bigger block size jeopardizes the vision of a decentralized payments system that bitcoin is built on, as the extra computer memory needed would shut out many of the thousands of individual “nodes” that currently power the network.

I also had many doubts and your comment cleared them.
Just wanna know if XT is implemented then what will happen of individual nodes will they be still  part of bitcoin network. Individual nodes will simply move to big specialized servers over time. Just like the internet already works and is considered decentralized.
someone Told that if XT is implemented then all your coins in wallet(Currently) will be Lost, is that true? Nope. Pure FUD.

[notbatman]

XT appears to be a hard-fork like XPY from the main chain of the Bitcoin Protocol. XT needs to remain consistent with the current protocol IMO. The fact is, it does remain consistent but it tries to reach consensus and thus become inconsistent. The current protocol appears to scale with anticipated network growth to 8MB if I'm not correct.

[Cryddit]

I also had many doubts and your comment cleared them.
Just wanna know if XT is implemented then what will happen of individual nodes will they be still  part of bitcoin network.
someone Told that if XT is implemented then all your coins in wallet(Currently) will be Lost, is that true?

No, that is a lie.  The people who want XT to fail are lying a lot, trying to sabotage the consensus mechanism, etc.  It means they already know that if they are honest they will quickly lose.

XT has been implemented.  Anything that "will happen if XT is implemented" has already happened.

At some point in the future (but not before Jan 2016) the bitcoin protocol may change as a result of XT being adopted by a majority.  If that happens it will not affect the ownership of the coins in your wallet.

What may happen is that some people who have failed or refused to update their software to a client that speaks the new protocol, may reject blocks mined according to that protocol after the changeover date, ultimately forming their own block chain based on the old protocol.  After that, an increasing number of transactions (all transactions involving coins created after the fork) would be valid only in one of the two block chains; the one based on the new rules, or the one based on the old rules.  If you are paid in a transaction that is valid only on one of these two block chains, you may have the coins on that block chain but not on the other.  But this will not affect any coins currently in your wallet; a transaction spending them will be valid according to either version of the rules.

It also won't affect your wealth w/r/t anyone who is using the same set of protocol rules as you; If the transaction where you got coins is confirmed on the block chain that you and someone else both use for a subsequent transaction, a new transaction spending them will also be valid on that same block chain.

[zeraTunerse]

I also had many doubts and your comment cleared them.
Just wanna know if XT is implemented then what will happen of individual nodes will they be still  part of bitcoin network.
someone Told that if XT is implemented then all your coins in wallet(Currently) will be Lost, is that true?

No, that is a lie.  The people who want XT to fail are lying a lot, trying to sabotage the consensus mechanism, etc.  It means they already know that if they are honest they will quickly lose.

XT has been implemented.  Anything that "will happen if XT is implemented" has already happened.

At some point in the future (but not before Jan 2016) the bitcoin protocol may change as a result of XT being adopted by a majority.  If that happens it will not affect the ownership of the coins in your wallet.

What may happen is that some people who have failed or refused to update their software to a client that speaks the new protocol, may reject blocks mined according to that protocol after the changeover date, ultimately forming their own block chain based on the old protocol.  After that, an increasing number of transactions (all transactions involving coins created after the fork) would be valid only in one of the two block chains; the one based on the new rules, or the one based on the old rules.  If you are paid in a transaction that is valid only on one of these two block chains, you may have the coins on that block chain but not on the other.  But this will not affect any coins currently in your wallet; a transaction spending them will be valid according to either version of the rules.

It also won't affect your wealth w/r/t anyone who is using the same set of protocol rules as you; If the transaction where you got coins is confirmed on the block chain that you and someone else both use for a subsequent transaction, a new transaction spending them will also be valid on that same block chain.

One more question , if you don't mind!
I read somewhere that Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting , if such things will happen then it is against the spirit of Bitcoin as we mostly use bitcoins to be anonymous.
Is it true?

[cbeast]

One more question , if you don't mind!
I read somewhere that Bitcoin XT has code which downloads your IP address to facilitate blacklisting , if such things will happen then it is against the spirit of Bitcoin as we mostly use bitcoins to be anonymous.
Is it true?

What you read is inaccurate. Bitcoincore uses hardcoded seednodes and 'showmyIP'. So perhaps Bitcoincore goes against the spirit of Bitcoin?