BIP 101 blocks

[adamstgBit]

will you be mining BIP 101 blocks?

I think it important to increase the blocksize limit, satoshi intended it to be raised when the time came, and the time has come. I also think it's important dev come up with ingenious ways to reduce traffic on the main chain, while these "side chains" and "block streams" are being developed we need bigger blocks to accommodate the growing TX vol, even if these alternative TX methods were ready today, I believe we will evently need bigger blocks in anycase. Mining Farms will have no problem downloading 8MB / 10mins, and smaller minner can continue to mine in a pool and be completely unaffected by increase in blocksize. the idea that requiring solo miners to download <8MB blocks will centralize Bitcoin is a ridiculous argument.

weather or not block limit in increased the TX vol will, resulting in the same amount of data needed to be downloaded but also keeping a huge backlog of TX's in a mempool to eventually be placed in an overly stuffed block. slowing confirmation times, while requiring the same bloody bandwidth.

also, heres some stats http://xtnodes.com/

[1714006418]

1714006418

[1714006418]

1714006418

[1714006418]

1714006418

[jonnybravo0311]

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

[knight22]

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.

[Carlton Banks]

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.

Fully correct: a hostile takeover, but driven by market forces. (i.e. the perpetrators of the fork are somewhat successful at spreading misinformation to gain supporters)

Fortunately, reality cannot be altered by misinformation, only the perception of reality can be distorted.

So if XT becomes an established alt alongside Bitcoin (and it won't displace the original, because it cannot serve confidential transactions on the darkmarkets without proper Tor support), then eveyone will soon find out that the economic incentives offered by XT too closely resemble the legacy financial system that we're trying to be rid of.

[p3yot33at3r]

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

This won't be the last attempt either, I foresee a glut of BTC alt clients coming out soon, all claiming to "represent the community" 

I'll stick with the original.

[knight22]

Now Antpool supports XT along with Slush.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314

[jonnybravo0311]

No... AntPool supports larger block size and will support XT if it gains the majority.  So far the ONLY pool to actually submit XT blocks is Slush.  Latest was 370817.  However, Slush is also mining version 3 blocks as well.  Latest was 370859.

[valkir]

Now Antpool supports XT along with Slush.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314

I cant believe this could happen.
Are we really gonna see ip blacklist and software control by 2 dev ?

Sad

[knight22]

Now Antpool supports XT along with Slush.

https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/633288343338381314

I cant believe this could happen.
Are we really gonna see ip blacklist and software control by 2 dev ?

Sad

2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.

[LiteCoinGuy]

maybe the Core Devs will come back to reality and add 4-5 MB blocks with a little increase over time. otherwise the majority will switch as soon as we see 1MB and a rising transaction costs in 2016!

for now, ill support XT.

[adamstgBit]

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.

Fully correct: a hostile takeover, but driven by market forces. (i.e. the perpetrators of the fork are somewhat successful at spreading misinformation to gain supporters)

Fortunately, reality cannot be altered by misinformation, only the perception of reality can be distorted.

So if XT becomes an established alt alongside Bitcoin (and it won't displace the original, because it cannot serve confidential transactions on the darkmarkets without proper Tor support), then eveyone will soon find out that the economic incentives offered by XT too closely resemble the legacy financial system that we're trying to be rid of.

BIP 101 blocks and Tor support are two different things, there will be clients that run with XT style blocks but do not implement the TOR blacklist thing.

i think what you mean to say is: if the dark markets do not increase block size they will soon find themselves waiting days for the confirmations, as block limit is surpassed. If the TX  backlog cannot be cleared because of the 1mb block limit and this backlog just keeps growing and growing, you might find it Extremely difficult to get confirmations and might even get to a point where your TX never confirmed  and you have to resend and hope it makes it into the ever increasing backlog.

I really hate when poeple call XT an alt, it is a fork! forks are good, if bitcoin does not evolve (for lack of a better word) it WILL die, we can't let a handful of nut bags halt bitcoins progress and endanger its functionality in the process.  I think it's fascinating how the blockchain can fork in this manner when there isn't 100% consensus and the change is felt to be vital by most. I look forward to more forks and more debates about these future forks.

also google " hostile takeover ", this fork is very much in the sprite of bitcoin itself,

2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.

and if satoshi was around he would be supporting XT, he said it himself that the block size will need to be increased in the future.

[Carlton Banks]

The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.

Fully correct: a hostile takeover, but driven by market forces. (i.e. the perpetrators of the fork are somewhat successful at spreading misinformation to gain supporters)

Fortunately, reality cannot be altered by misinformation, only the perception of reality can be distorted.

So if XT becomes an established alt alongside Bitcoin (and it won't displace the original, because it cannot serve confidential transactions on the darkmarkets without proper Tor support), then eveyone will soon find out that the economic incentives offered by XT too closely resemble the legacy financial system that we're trying to be rid of.

BIP 101 blocks and Tor support are two different things, there will be clients that run with XT style blocks but do not implement the TOR blacklist thing.

i think what you mean to say is: if the dark markets do not increase block size they will soon find themselves waiting days for the confirmations, as block limit is surpassed. If the TX  backlog cannot be cleared because of the 1mb block limit and this backlog just keeps growing and growing, you might find it Extremely difficult to get confirmations and might even get to a point where your TX never confirmed  and you have to resend and hope it makes it into the ever increasing backlog.

No, you're wrong, you've misunderstood the implications. Dark net markets use Tor, and XT breaks Tor compatibility. Either users cannot easily access other XT nodes from behind Tor (becasue of the anti-DOS deprioritising), or their privacy is compromised by the hardcoded list of Tor exit nodes that XT will permit you to connect to (privacy is the point of using Tor in the first instance, remember?).

So to DNM operators, it's not the difference between low volumes (with Core) and higher volumes (with XT), as you suggest. It's the difference between some (with Core) and none (with XT). I broadcast all my transactions over Tor, even when using my phone, even when just buying a packet of chewing gum. I wouldn't have the confidence that this was worth the effort on a network run by the Hearn gang

I really hate when poeple call XT an alt, it is a fork!

After the fork, spend your XT coins on the Core chain. You won't be able to. Because of the fork.

also google " hostile takeover ", this fork is very much in the sprite of bitcoin itself,

2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.

and if satoshi was around he would be supporting XT, he said it himself that the block size will need to be increased in the future.

When did I say we should keep it the same or reduce it? Raising the limit to a fixed limit with an increase schedule is anti-competitive and anti free market. I never would have expected someone like you to want central planning in his coin. Especially not a coin centrally planned by known sympathisers with politicising money systems.

[adamstgBit]

The market won't split in 2. There is an economic incentive for that. Also it's not an hostile takeover, it's a free market choice.

Fully correct: a hostile takeover, but driven by market forces. (i.e. the perpetrators of the fork are somewhat successful at spreading misinformation to gain supporters)

Fortunately, reality cannot be altered by misinformation, only the perception of reality can be distorted.

So if XT becomes an established alt alongside Bitcoin (and it won't displace the original, because it cannot serve confidential transactions on the darkmarkets without proper Tor support), then eveyone will soon find out that the economic incentives offered by XT too closely resemble the legacy financial system that we're trying to be rid of.

BIP 101 blocks and Tor support are two different things, there will be clients that run with XT style blocks but do not implement the TOR blacklist thing.

i think what you mean to say is: if the dark markets do not increase block size they will soon find themselves waiting days for the confirmations, as block limit is surpassed. If the TX  backlog cannot be cleared because of the 1mb block limit and this backlog just keeps growing and growing, you might find it Extremely difficult to get confirmations and might even get to a point where your TX never confirmed  and you have to resend and hope it makes it into the ever increasing backlog.

No, you're wrong, you've misunderstood the implications. Dark net markets use Tor, and XT breaks Tor compatibility. Either users cannot easily access other XT nodes from behind Tor (becasue of the anti-DOS deprioritising), or their privacy is compromised by the hardcoded list of Tor exit nodes that XT will permit you to connect to (privacy is the point of using Tor in the first instance, remember?).

So to DNM operators, it's not the difference between low volumes (with Core) and higher volumes (with XT), as you suggest. It's the difference between some (with Core) and none (with XT). I broadcast all my transactions over Tor, even when using my phone, even when just buying a packet of chewing gum. I wouldn't have the confidence that this was worth the effort on a network run by the Hearn gang

I really hate when poeple call XT an alt, it is a fork!

After the fork, spend your XT coins on the Core chain. You won't be able to. Because of the fork.

also google " hostile takeover ", this fork is very much in the sprite of bitcoin itself,

2 devs are proving that no devs are in control but the free market only. And that’s a good thing.

and if satoshi was around he would be supporting XT, he said it himself that the block size will need to be increased in the future.

When did I say we should keep it the same or reduce it? Raising the limit to a fixed limit with an increase schedule is anti-competitive and anti free market. I never would have expected someone like you to want central planning in his coin. Especially not a coin centrally planned by known sympathisers with politicising money systems.

my support for XT is now dwindling...

I think it would be possible for a node running under TOR to relay a TX to a node that isn't under TOR and running a modified version of XT which has an empty black list of TOR IPs which then relays the TX to all the other regular TX nodes without them ever knowing the TX originated from a client under TOR.

I think most can agree we NEED to increase block size at least a little, the market is demanding bigger blocks, sooner or later the 1MB limit will be causing huge problems, if XT solves this problem and the free market adopts it willingly this is not "anti-competitive" quite the opposite.

If bitcoinCore would implement a tiny increase in blocksize say 2MB  this would solve the immediate problem, buy them enough time to implement alternative solutions, and they would find it VERY easy to gain support. I for one am only considering XT because it solves the immediate problem. Give me a less drastic alternative and ill go for it.  To say 1MB limit is "just fine" and we'll eventually have tech to reduce the TX/pre on the mainchain makes me want to cry man, they won't even acknowledge there's a problem... how can I support CORE when blocks start to be 1.5MB back to back aculating 1MB of backlog every 20mins!!??

[Carlton Banks]

I think it would be possible for a node running under TOR to relay a TX to a node that isn't under TOR and running a modified version of XT which has an empty black list of TOR IPs which then relays the TX to all the other regular TX nodes without them ever knowing the TX originated from a client under TOR.

RIght, the blacklist thing isn't true, it's sort of like counter-counter-FUD.

It's not a list of Tor nodes that get "banned" from Tor. When you're on Tor, you're using the Tor network. To get on, you need one node to send data into the network, and a different node that sends the data you wanted back to you. The former is called an "entry node", and the latter is called an "exit node". The XT patch to Tor has a list of the exit nodes that can be used with XT. Because of how it was coded up, you cannot connect to any other exit nodes except those on the list.

This is a threat to privacy, but it doesn't stop you using Tor with XT. There's not much point using Tor if the exit nodes are hand picked by the developers, that's not the role they should be playing.

[p3yot33at3r]

Having TOR nodes hard coded into the XT client is a stupid idea & defeats the object of using TOR completely. Who chose the relay nodes? Why? What happens if they are compromised (if they're not already)?

Sounds dodgy as hell if you ask me.

[Carlton Banks]

Having TOR nodes hard coded into the XT client is a stupid idea & defeats the object of using TOR completely. Who chose the relay nodes? Why? What happens if they are compromised (if they're not already)?

Sounds dodgy as hell if you ask me.

Well I kept his name out of it, because he's getting a lot of bashing when Gavin is equally responsible for this mess, however: it was Mike Hearn that wrote that code.

He wrote notes in the commit that says the hardcoding is a temporary measure, he wants to load the list of exit nodes in using files instead. Not only is that also a bad idea (most are unlikely to choose against the default list, or even be aware that's a choice to be made). And in addition, I'll believe it when I see it.

[bassclef]

Having TOR nodes hard coded into the XT client is a stupid idea & defeats the object of using TOR completely. Who chose the relay nodes? Why? What happens if they are compromised (if they're not already)?

Sounds dodgy as hell if you ask me.

Well I kept his name out of it, because he's getting a lot of bashing when Gavin is equally responsible for this mess, however: it was Mike Hearn that wrote that code.

He wrote notes in the commit that says the hardcoding is a temporary measure, he wants to load the list of exit nodes in using files instead. Not only is that also a bad idea (most are unlikely to choose against the default list, or even be aware that's a choice to be made). And in addition, I'll believe it when I see it.

Thanks for the info about this. I think this aspect of XT deserves more debate as it is an issue that is not well understood.

Hand-picked exit nodes? Shady as hell.

[luthermarcus]

There is only a handful of devs behind XT. I for one like to see any kind of development and progression but i also want transparency and full details about the changes that are readily attainable. Otherwise it is a security issue in itself. Since XT relies on Core itself I was willing to try it but I wasn't aware of some of the issue mentioned here.It also changes certain default settings but you have to search what exactly. Since this is just starting off I'm hoping they are going to add more details on their site but they should have right off the bat to gain more trust. I started to think something was shady as well but it was more gut feeling that's why I'm trying to figure out more about it. With the support it currently has it's going to be dominate so Core devs are going to have to step it up and adapt maybe that is the point to pressure early adoption. Such a small group and the media hype without exact details seems suspicious.

[Jake36]

Looking at ALL the stories of "TO BIG TO FAIL BANKS" checking out the Blockchain for use, kind of makes you wounder who is really going to benefit from 20MB blocks and who will use every trick in the book to control the chain (like having hand picked tor exit nods and blocking the rest).

2 or 3MB should be good for now, with increases as needed. Maybe in 10-15 years, 20MB may be needed, who knows?

[TheGreatWhatsIt]

I really have just one question.

Will my 6 TH in mining hardware sill work if the community switches?

My mining hardware investment has paid for itself, but it seems like the Bitcoin I'd prefer to use to replace my rigs, if I had to, would be worthless.