The numbers: Bitcoin Xt or Bitcoin Core

[Spendulus]

I'm keeping this really simple on purpose, because the community has essentially a binary decision at hand.   Yes a lot of factors weigh in on the choice but at the bottom, it's the Red Pill or the Blue Pill.

GO!

[knight22]

If you really want to vote do it with a node.

[21coin]

BTW poll is actually not the way to go here, people can create multiple accounts just to shift the votes, even a noob can do it. Instead you should follow up on the major discussions and decide for yourself, one man makes a diff. .BTW if I had to choose I would go with Core.

[Spendulus]

BTW poll is actually not the way to go here, people can create multiple accounts just to shift the votes, even a noob can do it. Instead you should follow up on the major discussions and decide for yourself, one man makes a diff. .BTW if I had to choose I would go with Core.

It's crude, imperfect, yes.  And it questions crude and imperfect alternatives to "problems."

[unamis76]

The question here is more "which BIP do you support?". What if a BIP proposing bigger blocks gets accepted and included in Core? It wouldn't make sense to support XT (unless you like/use the other changes it has, but that's a different story)

[zeroday]

+1 for Core.

Block size must be increased in Core version after reaching consensus among the community.

XT fork is bad solution for this problem. It also includes unannounced anti-Tor patch which makes it really outrageous.

[knight22]

+1 for Core.

Block size must be increased in Core version after reaching consensus among the community.

XT fork is bad solution for this problem. It also includes unannounced anti-Tor patch which makes it really outraging.

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

[meono]

how many polls do we need? i mean serious? each poll on here with handful of votes mean shit.

[zeroday]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

[knight22]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same way as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

If the free market is willing to make that compromise then who are you to try to impeded it?
Also, that concern is over blown https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hkkav/blacklist_in_bitcoinxt_is_a_big_no/ 

[ticoti]

I think that bitcoin core should adopt the solutions of bitcoin xt,that is the appropiate solution

[meono]

I think that bitcoin core should adopt the solutions of bitcoin xt,that is the appropiate solution

LOL.... Noooooooooo


They wont do that because they will look bad......admitting that they were just stubborn to agree with Gavin's proposal.

[turvarya]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.
You are repeating something a member of this forum said, who often showed that he:
1. doesn't understand fundamentals of Bitcoin
2. believes in stupid conspiracy theories

I really wonder, if people don't feel stupid about using every dumb argument they can find.
There are valid concerns about XT, but this for sure is not one.

[VeritasSapere]

+1 for Core.

Block size must be increased in Core version after reaching consensus among the community.

XT fork is bad solution for this problem. It also includes unannounced anti-Tor patch which makes it really outraging.

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

I would also prefer to see these changes implemented in Core. However that does not seem to be possible since some of the other core developers will not compromise and do not want to increase the block size limit at all. Therefore if we decide to stay with Core we will have one megabyte blocks forever.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

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

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

I think that bitcoin core should adopt the solutions of bitcoin xt,that is the appropiate solution

LOL.... Noooooooooo


They wont do that because they will look bad......admitting that they were just stubborn to agree with Gavin's proposal.

The idea of raising the blocksize sounds good, what doesnt sound good is the fact they are including a lot of stuff in XT that they arent talking about. The idea of "checkpoints" that Gavin talked about (google it) sounds like an evil agenda alone.

[TinEye]

If you really want to vote do it with a node.

not all votes, through consensus will be genuine as usual, many will vote what the majority will want to follow, perhaps is true that there is no real decentralization and real 100% consensus, we are always forced to do one thign or another, in my case i would remain with core

[zeroday]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.

If you really want to vote do it with a node.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Bitcoin Core with bigger blocks...or XT

[turvarya]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.

If you really want to vote do it with a node.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.

How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.

[zeroday]

It's not a bad solution. It's actually a good solution to give a choice to the free market wills.

So, spamming network with hundreds of XT nodes on distributed cloud-servers is free market will?
The same as supporting free speech with blocking Tor IPs ?

What is wrong with distributed cloud-servers? Large parts of the internet economy is running on them.

If you really want to vote do it with a node.

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong if a single person adds a few hundreds "votes" with rented cloud-servers
I may only suggest you renting a decent botnet to add 10K more votes.

How many of the Bitcoin Core Nodes are on rented cloud-servers?
Are this "votes" also invalid in your opinion?

I never heard somebody complaining about somebody running more than one full node.

Core nodes don't vote, they just work and serve.
But some mates started talking about "voting" with nodes, which is just absurd. Are they pretending that machines have the right to vote for things that can affect people ?

These cloud nodes only create illusion that XT is gaining popularity. There are 14% of these nodes, but XT's real hashing power is less than 0.1%