Core v XT ::: A Potential Compromise?

[keepdoing]

My suggestion is that a New Consensus plan be adopted community-wide.  The XT patch/version is already rolled out.  Regardless of all the noise, I get the feeling everyone ultimately realizes that it will most likely in the end prevail - OR it will get so bad that Bitcoin is ripped in half.  Everybody is at risk to lose here.  The purists may just flat out lose in the end, or a dual fork may result which could effectively kill the Core Chain anyway.  And the Powers that be / XT fans also risk losing because this is leaving a VERY sour taste in a lot of mouths and many may forever turn away, or worse yet take an eternal adversarial position, AND the possibility for a Mass Societal blackmark to appear that could really hinder blockchain acceptance if the masses see this as a "Big Bank/NSA/Govt Maneuver".  A compromise is needed.

Question: So what is the MAIN issue?  Answer: the unecessary IP/Blacklist code WHICH HAS NOTING TO DO with the block size.

Why not develop a new campaign/consensus to issue a Patch to the Patch?  REMOVE the unwanted code, or at the least temporarily remove it and reopen that specific part of the debate under Open Consensus rules?   Then I say let the Community fully embrace the Block size increase and XT - CONDITIONAL on removal of the controversial non-block-size related code?? 

Maybe we start moving the discussion in this direction.  Ignoring this more reasonable request becomes more difficult to Mike and Gavin as it strips out the most powerful part of their argument - that of block size.

Any thoughts on how to start moving the discussion in this direction, and how to put any pressure behind it?

Peace, -d

[manselr]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

[keepdoing]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

[madjules007]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

[keepdoing]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

OK, so if Gavin and Mike agreed to issue a patch to XT that did indeed Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue - then I am curious - how many people would continue to object to XT?   Or could the vast majority of the community then accept and begin to upgrade to XT (a patched version with non-block-size code removed)?

And these other issues be opened up for consensus discussion / tweeking?  IS that a solution acceptable to the community?  Because it seems that damage is being done to bitcoin in a rapidly escalating fashion, any with wisdom need to step up and start promoting a solution.  (That does not preclude some 2nd line defense strategies to keep negotiating pressure on - but that should be 2nd line).

Peace, - d

[madjules007]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

OK, so if Gavin and Mike agreed to issue a patch to XT that did indeed Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue - then I am curious - how many people would continue to object to XT?   Or could the vast majority of the community then accept and begin to upgrade to XT (a patched version with non-block-size code removed)?

And these other issues be opened up for consensus discussion / tweeking?  IS that a solution acceptable to the community?  Because it seems that damage is being done to bitcoin in a rapidly escalating fashion, any with wisdom need to step up and start promoting a solution.  (That does not preclude some 2nd line defense strategies to keep negotiating pressure on - but that should be 2nd line).

Peace, - d

Yes, I fully support increasing the block size. I would support a stripped down version of XT that addressed this. Unfortunately, that won't happen. Gavin has basically staked his career in this field on XT by polarizing the community and pushing for his version of the fork so strongly. In the end, I suspect there is more to this than simply addressing the block size.

[Mickeyb]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

OK, so if Gavin and Mike agreed to issue a patch to XT that did indeed Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue - then I am curious - how many people would continue to object to XT?   Or could the vast majority of the community then accept and begin to upgrade to XT (a patched version with non-block-size code removed)?

And these other issues be opened up for consensus discussion / tweeking?  IS that a solution acceptable to the community?  Because it seems that damage is being done to bitcoin in a rapidly escalating fashion, any with wisdom need to step up and start promoting a solution.  (That does not preclude some 2nd line defense strategies to keep negotiating pressure on - but that should be 2nd line).

Peace, - d

Yes, I fully support increasing the block size. I would support a stripped down version of XT that addressed this. Unfortunately, that won't happen. Gavin has basically staked his career in this field on XT by polarizing the community and pushing for his version of the fork so strongly. In the end, I suspect there is more to this than simply addressing the block size.

Yes, I would support just a block size increase, call it however, XT or Core, it makes no difference to me.

But the more I think about all this XT situation, this is what worries me the most. Gavin has staked his all career with this fork. How can he be so sure that it will make it and not fall apart, his XT try. Now, there is no way back for Gavin, he has drawn his move. I mean Gavin has been a very important name in Bitcoin ecosystem ever since Satoshi. It seems to me that Bitcoin will lose in the end a lot, however this ends.

[madjules007]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

OK, so if Gavin and Mike agreed to issue a patch to XT that did indeed Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue - then I am curious - how many people would continue to object to XT?   Or could the vast majority of the community then accept and begin to upgrade to XT (a patched version with non-block-size code removed)?

And these other issues be opened up for consensus discussion / tweeking?  IS that a solution acceptable to the community?  Because it seems that damage is being done to bitcoin in a rapidly escalating fashion, any with wisdom need to step up and start promoting a solution.  (That does not preclude some 2nd line defense strategies to keep negotiating pressure on - but that should be 2nd line).

Peace, - d

Yes, I fully support increasing the block size. I would support a stripped down version of XT that addressed this. Unfortunately, that won't happen. Gavin has basically staked his career in this field on XT by polarizing the community and pushing for his version of the fork so strongly. In the end, I suspect there is more to this than simply addressing the block size.

Yes, I would support just a block size increase, call it however, XT or Core, it makes no difference to me.

But the more I think about all this XT situation, this is what worries me the most. Gavin has staked his all career with this fork. How can he be so sure that it will make it and not fall apart, his XT try. Now, there is no way back for Gavin, he has drawn his move. I mean Gavin has been a very important name in Bitcoin ecosystem ever since Satoshi. It seems to me that Bitcoin will lose in the end a lot, however this ends.

Forks are healthy. They are a necessary part of bitcoin's evolution. I don't think this necessarily has to end badly. But what's best for bitcoin IMO is to resolve this. That means move forward with a Core fork that addresses block size adequately, or force XT to strip down its code. The latter won't happen, though. So the solution...... support Core and push for the block size increase.

[Mickeyb]

The hate is coming from all the "bonuses" that Gavincoin and Hearncoin are introducing beside the blocksize increase. I don't see the core devs NOT wanting to increase the blocksize, they want it eventually raised too, the main hate for them is coming from non blocksize related "features".

List them - bullet style.  What EXACTLY are the Code Specific "features" (non blocksize related) that would need to be removed in order for you to accept a form of XT?  Anyone is welcome to jump in.

Even easier -- the debate is/was about block size. Not addressing a slew of other perceived problems and pushing solutions to them under the pretense that block size needs to increase. A fork-magnitude issue should be taken on its own -- code analyzed on its own. Not pushed as some sort of shiny new package with all new features. Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue IMO.

OK, so if Gavin and Mike agreed to issue a patch to XT that did indeed Remove all code not specifically addressing the block size issue - then I am curious - how many people would continue to object to XT?   Or could the vast majority of the community then accept and begin to upgrade to XT (a patched version with non-block-size code removed)?

And these other issues be opened up for consensus discussion / tweeking?  IS that a solution acceptable to the community?  Because it seems that damage is being done to bitcoin in a rapidly escalating fashion, any with wisdom need to step up and start promoting a solution.  (That does not preclude some 2nd line defense strategies to keep negotiating pressure on - but that should be 2nd line).

Peace, - d

Yes, I fully support increasing the block size. I would support a stripped down version of XT that addressed this. Unfortunately, that won't happen. Gavin has basically staked his career in this field on XT by polarizing the community and pushing for his version of the fork so strongly. In the end, I suspect there is more to this than simply addressing the block size.

Yes, I would support just a block size increase, call it however, XT or Core, it makes no difference to me.

But the more I think about all this XT situation, this is what worries me the most. Gavin has staked his all career with this fork. How can he be so sure that it will make it and not fall apart, his XT try. Now, there is no way back for Gavin, he has drawn his move. I mean Gavin has been a very important name in Bitcoin ecosystem ever since Satoshi. It seems to me that Bitcoin will lose in the end a lot, however this ends.

Forks are healthy. They are a necessary part of bitcoin's evolution. I don't think this necessarily has to end badly. But what's best for bitcoin IMO is to resolve this. That means move forward with a Core fork that addresses block size adequately, or force XT to strip down its code. The latter won't happen, though. So the solution...... support Core and push for the block size increase.

I was never against the forks, moreover I think Bitcoin needs more of them, it needs more improvement because in my opinion, it is too conservative.

There is so many great things that this technology still can provide to the people all over the world, it would be really bad just to stop innovation and concentrate on only what we have so far.