...

[dothebeats]

So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.
Has anybody actually analyzed the code or are we still talking about some comments in BitcoinXT, which are also in Bitcoin Core?

There some who already inspected the code and "may" have found out that there are some codes in there that may be harmful to the end user in case XT is favored by the majority of the bitcoin users. I am not a pro in codes, but upon reading this thread, I don't know what version of bitcoin should I choose: core or XT. I'll remain neutral until this commotion is settled, but as I see it, I doubt it will get resolved sooner.

[1713525323]

1713525323

[1713525323]

1713525323

[Bagatell]

So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.

Have you seen this?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ

Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

[meono]

So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.

Have you seen this?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ

Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Dont take shit out of context,\

....
Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

[turvarya]

So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.

Have you seen this?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ

Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Wow, seriously?
Was there a response from the Core Devs? That seems like a big allegation too me.

So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.
Has anybody actually analyzed the code or are we still talking about some comments in BitcoinXT, which are also in Bitcoin Core?

There some who already inspected the code and "may" have found out that there are some codes in there that may be harmful to the end user in case XT is favored by the majority of the bitcoin users. I am not a pro in codes, but upon reading this thread, I don't know what version of bitcoin should I choose: core or XT. I'll remain neutral until this commotion is settled, but as I see it, I doubt it will get resolved sooner.

Could you maybe point me to it? All I have seen so far, was about comments, variable names, code that is never executed and code that is also in Bitcoin Core.
I don't get, what is so hard, to just show the bad scenario that could happen. Somebody could just describe, which functions calls which and what the result would be in the end and someone like me, who is a programmer, but not that deep into Bitcoin Core/XT, could easily verify it for them self.
Unless it is just not there and people prefer to spread FUD.

[BTCOFFEE]

the TOR PROJECT has clearly stated a NO BACKDOORS policy.

i think this is also a basic fundamental part of bitcoin or should be for it to survive.

/\BTCXT will have widespread support by Wall Street types because of its' enhanced tracking mechanisms.

Two coins is not a bad thing.

;^)

*eZ^$$$

[onemorexmr]

the TOR PROJECT has clearly stated a NO BACKDOORS policy.

i think this is also a basic fundamental part of bitcoin or should be for it to survive.

/\BTCXT will have widespread support by Wall Street types because of its' enhanced tracking mechanisms.

Two coins is not a bad thing.

;^)

*eZ^$$$

lol... where do you see enhanced tracking?
another fudster

[Pursuer]

i hope all these crazy arguments about bitcoin XT and core ends faster because it is starting to hurt bitcoin more than helping it.

I agree, it makes btc look too "fringe" and I think it will alienate new people from thinking about acquiring any btc.  In 6 months from now, if the network can get any stronger/faster/more secure, then it may help, but hopefully by then the damage isn't already done.

in 6 months from now if we are still having the same debate on XT or core then I don't bitcoin can survive it any longer.

[hdbuck]

i hope all these crazy arguments about bitcoin XT and core ends faster because it is starting to hurt bitcoin more than helping it.

I agree, it makes btc look too "fringe" and I think it will alienate new people from thinking about acquiring any btc.  In 6 months from now, if the network can get any stronger/faster/more secure, then it may help, but hopefully by then the damage isn't already done.

in 6 months from now if we are still having the same debate on XT or core then I don't bitcoin can survive it any longer.

Bitcoin is anthropobullshit resistant. It will survive us all.

[tvbcof]

That yes/no image is incorrect.
If core is the longest chain and someone is stupid enough to mine an XT block that core doesn't allow, then all XT nodes will follow the XT block fork.
Thus if core continues to be the longest chain (which it will) then XT clients will not follow the longest chain possibly until later.

That would only 'be useful' if people were ready to double-spend the shit out of inputs to the doomed block.

Someone who cares enough might set up a system which keeps an eye out for XT fork double-spend opportunities and gives those who can capitalize a timely informational saying that their opportunity had arrived.

Previous similar situations (like the BDB fork) resulted in only a few screw-jobs which people were willing to absorb.  If there were many more of these and they were undertaken deliberately, it might creates such a cluster-fuck that Hearn would feel justified in just forking XT (with his 'checkpointing' if necessary) rather than to try to clean up the mess.

To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.  They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation.  I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.  They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation.  I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.

See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one.  On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter.  Which is it?  You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment.

The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network.  The pressure is mounting for scalability.  Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system".  Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?).  You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain.  The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you.  So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions.

Am I close?

[tvbcof]

To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.  They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation.  I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.

See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one.  On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter.  Which is it?  You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment.

The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network.  The pressure is mounting for scalability.  Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system".  Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?).  You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain.  The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you.  So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions.

Am I close?

I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government.  I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.)

I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs.

I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way.  I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get.  I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land.

[turvarya]

To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.  They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation.  I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.

See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one.  On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter.  Which is it?  You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment.

The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network.  The pressure is mounting for scalability.  Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system".  Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?).  You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain.  The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you.  So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions.

Am I close?

I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government.  I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.)

I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs.

I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way.  I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get.  I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land.

Do you also send just one E-Mail a year since you don't want to exploit the nice people, who let you use their E-Mail-Servers?

[DooMAD]

To understand why I would welcome such a thing, one needs to understand that I see a fair amount of utility in having an XT fork which siphoned off a sizable number of 'bitcoiners' who are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system and are mostly MultiBitch-class users who add no value.  They'd stop even being users if their transactions were not deeply subsidized anyway, and the only way that is sustainable is if large corporates took over infrastructure operation.  I say let Hearn have them...their loss would only strengthen Bitcoin.

See, I can never tell where you small-blockians actually stand on this one.  On the one hand some of you argue that even if the miners agree to the fork, it's only a "valid" fork if the "economic majority" agree, but then one of you goes and argues that SPV users (who will become an increasing majority over time) are a drain on the system and don't matter.  Which is it?  You sound like iCEBREAKER with his "peasants" comment.

The problem you have, is that Bitcoin has always been marketed as a a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the businesses who have invested in this permissionless global payments network (oddly enough) quite like the idea of having a permissionless global payment network.  Most of the users who signed up to the idea of a global permissionless payment network also want to have a global permissionless payment network.  The pressure is mounting for scalability.  Then you come along expecting to be able to tell them they can't use the blockchain for a global permissionless payment network because they "are deeply ignorant about the principles of the system".  Except you can't tell them they can't use it, because it's permissionless (did I mention that part?).  You can't physically stop them from using the blockchain.  The great unwashed are coming to clutter up your blockchain with their pesky cups of coffee and that prospect terrifies you.  So your only hope to protect your own personal vested interests is to try and price them out into third party payment channels by artificially limiting the number of transactions.

Am I close?

I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government.  I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.)

I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs.

I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way.  I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get.  I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land.

So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs".  As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  

It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain".  My message is "make me".  Oh wait, you can't.

[tvbcof]

So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs".  As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  

It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain".  My message is "make me".  Oh wait, you can't.

If I can contribute to the preservation of the robustness of Bitcoin and get you to pay a fair rate for using it as a system with these properties, I perfectly happy to have you stick around.

If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs".  As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  

It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain".  My message is "make me".  Oh wait, you can't.

If I can contribute to the preservation of the robustness of Bitcoin and get you to pay a fair rate for using it as a system with these properties, I perfectly happy to have you stick around.

If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment.

Well, I will say one thing for Blockstreamers, you certainly have the common touch. Good for you. 

[BTCOFFEE]

>>>

If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment.

^primates for free coins? lol

https://wadeawalker.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/euler-pic10-caveman.png?w=400&h=322

[DooMAD]

So in the space of a single post, it's gone from "MultiBitch-class users who add no value" who you'd happily see on a chain that you ideally want to see dead or dying, to finding "robust solutions which are tuned to their needs".  As usual, you're nothing if not consistent.  

It certainly sounds far more pleasant when you phrase it that way, but the overall message I'm still hearing from you is "GTFO my chain".  My message is "make me".  Oh wait, you can't.

If I can contribute to the preservation of the robustness of Bitcoin and get you to pay a fair rate for using it as a system with these properties, I perfectly happy to have you stick around.

If you are part of the 'Free Shit Nation' who demands some sort of entitlement on the basis of your having primate features, I'm happy to see you led away because you are one of the biggest problems Bitcoin has at the moment.

Who's getting free shit?  MultiBit users?  From what I've seen of it, I got the distinct impression the developers of MultiBit don't allow users to send transactions without a fee.  Has this changed in newer versions?  People using other clients can send transactions without a fee, perhaps your vitriol is misplaced?  

[tvbcof]

I absolutely want the 'peasants' to have good solutions which isolate them from abuse by the established financial sector and their hired gun enforcers in the government.  I'm a peasant myself after all and only hold some BTC by happenstance (and because I've been studying the mainstream financial scam for years.)

I see distributed autonomous sidechains as the best way to both protect Bitcoin from subversion of various types AND to provide the peasants with robust solutions which are tuned to their needs.

I am completely practicing what I preach here by the way.  I use Bitcoin for only high value transactions which I've not done for over a year, and I pay currently 0.01 BTC as a fee since that was worth it for the service I get.  I am greatly looking forward to using various sidechains for various purposes in real-world-land.

Do you also send just one E-Mail a year since you don't want to exploit the nice people, who let you use their E-Mail-Servers?

The e-mail thing brings up a really good point about why I feel as I do.

To answer your question, no.  After the 20,000 spams/day and I capitulated and just switched my MX over to Google.  Now they spy on everything anyone writes to me, what mailing lists I'm signed up for, etc.  They aggregate it with data they have about my searches, drive contents, etc, then sell this aggregated data to the highest bidder.  And it is a very strong bet that they hand it over to the government at least when they ask and probably when they do not.

I feel so strongly about keeping Bitcoin out of the clutches of the likes of Google because adding financial data to the mix gives them that much more power and me that much less privacy.

This more than anything is why I am so focused on keeping the blockchain small and widely distributed.  Using it as the foundatin of a subordinate chains ecosystem is the only practical way I can see for this to happen.

Yes, I'm sure that Google would run a sidechain if/when that ecosystem is developed, and yes, I'm sure I would use it for much or most of my activity.  But not all.  It would be at _my_ digression.  I would use other sidechains for other purposes when they are more suitable for the task at hand, and some sidechains would be purposely designed to be a black-hole to those who are nosy about my business and want to monetize my being.

[Nybbas01]

Hey, if it confuses people, it'll work.

[bitboy11]

It has become quite obvious to me that Bitcoin Core developers have an agenda to keep the block size small and support Blockstream. The bitcoin core members who support this likely have a lot of BTC and can afford to pay an exorbitant miner's fee to have their transactions acknowledged on the ledger while "bit-peasants" will be forced to do their transactions off-chain with the help of a Bitcoin Bank a.k.a. Blockstream which includes their KYC bullshit!

These "banks" will then start controlling the Bitcoin network and then, at their discretion, will begin to blacklist "undesirable" people from using the network. What happens when these "banks" start requesting that you file your bitcoin tax form? Or that non-US users are being limited or are not being accepted at this time? LOL...just check PayPal or Coinbase to get an idea.

In my opinion, Bitcoin XT is the future of Bitcoin!