The truth about the block size issue

[Lauda]

No because there is no consensus possible at the Bitcoin Core Side.

Core = 1 MB
XT = 8 MB

make your choice.

you dont have to do something actually. you will keep your BTC one way or the other.

Core = Soft limit ->max 32MB (over time) or 2 MB (fixed, for now).
Read BIP 100 and 102. The only issue is that they have not officially stated:"We are implementing XXX by XXX". That's the only problem.

[pedrog]

While having a high-capacity set of full nodes increases the on-blockchain transaction rate, the requirement of full nodes to be high capacity has a centralizing effect.

It was meant to be like that from the beginning...

[desired_username]

I support blocksize increasing idea, but not in a form of fork such as XT, which besides block size has some shady unannounced privacy affecting features such as Tor blacklisting.

IMO, everything must be done inside Core client.

A fork is needed either way.

It's not TOR blacklisting but it's against ddos through TOR.

It's not even unannounced https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20

Bitcoin XT is an implementation based on Bitcoin Core. They are pretty much identical. It's open source and not a closed club like blockstream.

[Luqman]

-snip-

I meant I dont know anything since I'm begginner in Bitcoin..

[LiteCoinGuy]

No because there is no consensus possible at the Bitcoin Core Side.

Core = 1 MB
XT = 8 MB

make your choice.

you dont have to do something actually. you will keep your BTC one way or the other.

Core = Soft limit ->max 32MB (over time) or 2 MB (fixed, for now).
Read BIP 100 and 102. The only issue is that they have not officially stated:"We are implementing XXX by XXX". That's the only problem.

maybe they should talk about their plan and inform the userbase. 
meanwhile 13,5% nodes are in XT:

[hdbuck]

fuck you oliver. go crawl back in that pityful foundation you waited so long to get a seat at.

and kiss fuck hearn and the crappy lighthouse business you are doing together.
lol yet another sketchy fundraising website.
and hearn ripped you off how much again to 'finance' this shit?


ps: trying to erase your racist BS too uh..

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/25/belgian-racist-uses-spurious-copyright-c

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=olivier+janssens

[aakashsangwan]

I also like the increase in size of blocks idea and it is also good if we are aiming at mass adaption.
But Bitcoin XT is totally violating the principles of bitcoin core because it logs ip addresses and also we are not sure what Gavin is hiding behind his code.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I also like the increase in size of blocks idea and it is also good if we are aiming at mass adaption.
But Bitcoin XT is totally violating the principles of bitcoin core because it logs ip addresses and also we are not sure what Gavin is hiding behind his code.

nothing because it is open source.

shitty code? switch to bitcoin XYZ.

[knight22]

I also like the increase in size of blocks idea and it is also good if we are aiming at mass adaption.
But Bitcoin XT is totally violating the principles of bitcoin core because it logs ip addresses and also we are not sure what Gavin is hiding behind his code.

Here ya go

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/