Options for core people who consider core the real bitcoin?

[kelsey]

what are the options? keep core alive no matter the outcome?

[1715444736]

1715444736

[1715444736]

1715444736

[tadakaluri]

We all must need to support Bitcoin Core at this movement.  If anything need to change, it must be implement in Bitcoin Core only. We can't entertain other Groups/Persons to make forks for Bitcoin, which will lead to end of Bitcoin.

[valiz]

Keep core running no matter what!

And keep it updated . Who knows, maybe we need some mempool improvements if "Coinwallet" (cough.. XT cough...) launches a massive spam attack.

[kelsey]

i believe supporters should keep the core going no matter what, if the imposter managers to fake majority node support, keep to the core, keep it functioning.

[Kazimir]

As long as we all just keep using Bitcoin Core, we'll be fine.

As a matter of fact I am installing a new Core node as we speak.

I'm pro increasing the block size (preferably in a moderate fashion, not going from 1 to 8 MB) but a separate client, risking Bitcoin to be split in Core and XT, is VERY BAD.

[everaja]

what are the options? keep core alive no matter the outcome?

There are certainly Two options only as mentioned by You, each have their Own Advantages and Disadvantages.
XT:  1.Wants Block size to be increased to 8 MB.
                         2.Wants users to switch to Centralized node which will be run only by groups of People.
                        
Outcomes: 1.As the the Block size will increase there will be more Transactions per second.
               2. All the powers will remain in hands of few Miners and it thus effect the spirit of Bitcoin , i.e, Decentralization.
              3.. Some Tor related Issues are also there as each scheduled time all IPs will be stored to mark spam transactions and as a result it will affect the anonymity of people for which bitcoin is Famous.

As seen from Present scenario if Some node runners accept Bitcoin XT then it will be fine else there will be Two of them with different Peotocols and there may be situation that a transaction may be confirmed by one of them but it wont appear on the other as other has not accepted that.

In short: Every thing gonna be messy.
                

[spartacusrex]

come on.. no 'spite' please.. that's a mug's game. (You can't just 'KEEP RUNNING CORE' if the network went with XT or vice versa.. Sorry.. That's not how it works.. Unless you want to mine a worthless chain)

there is ONLY EVER ONE SOLUTION TO END WAR.

It's called PEACE..

or 'Kiss and Make Up'

The Core Boys, Mike, Gavin and the rest of them need to sit the F**K down and have some milk and cookies.

The really cool thing is - IT'S NEVER TOO LATE.

[Digit-0]

We all must need to support Bitcoin Core at this movement.  If anything need to change, it must be implement in Bitcoin Core only. We can't entertain other Groups/Persons to make forks for Bitcoin, which will lead to end of Bitcoin.

not only at this movement, if we already have something good, why to change it? if core need changes in future we can change it, so i cant understand why "some" people still want to change things that can be working fine, maybe they have other intentions?

[n2004al]

come on.. no 'spite' please.. that's a mug's game. (You can't just 'KEEP RUNNING CORE' if the network went with XT or vice versa.. Sorry.. That's not how it works.. Unless you want to mine a worthless chain)

there is ONLY EVER ONE SOLUTION TO END WAR.

It's called PEACE..

or 'Kiss and Make Up'

The Core Boys, Mike, Gavin and the rest of them need to sit the F**K down and have some milk and cookies.

The really cool thing is - IT'S NEVER TOO LATE.

Gold words bro! The peace can solve everything and it is the only thing that can bring solutions acceptable for all and at the interest of all. So away the knives, welcome to the wine and go ahead with discussions until the good and overall solution will come.

All the other things must be away from bitcoin.

[Kprawn]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.  The sad thing is, both sides have exellent engineers and developers and we might lose some of these

guys to the competition. {BankCoins / GovCoins} Why can they not just sit around a table, and sort this whole block size debate out, once and for all.  We have two opposing sides with strong arguments and

a lot of self interest and pride getting in the way. Let's just hope sanity will prevail and people would be able to see through all this BS. 

[kelsey]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

[VeritasSapere]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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

[gentlemand]

The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever the majority are using to transact. Apart from an honourable, or deluded, few ideology will be chucked away the moment it looks like they're on the losing side.

[Dissonance]

We all must need to support Bitcoin Core at this movement.  If anything need to change, it must be implement in Bitcoin Core only. We can't entertain other Groups/Persons to make forks for Bitcoin, which will lead to end of Bitcoin.

I don't necessarily suppport XT but how does a fork mean the end of bitcoin.  Bitcoin is designed to fork, especially in situations where the miner community decides that a better option has come along.  This whole  nonsense that bitcoin will end if it forks is just fear mongering. If bitcoin needs the core development team to survive the bitcoin is in BIG trouble.

[kelsey]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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

BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin.


"The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code then he'll fully control.

[kelsey]

The 'real' Bitcoin is whatever the majority are using to transact. Apart from an honourable, or deluded, few ideology will be chucked away the moment it looks like they're on the losing side.

bitcoincore won't be the losing side.

but yeah being blackmailed with fear ones coins may become worthless is the incentive xt is pushing.

[VeritasSapere]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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

BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin.

"The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code the he'll fully control.

I will ask you directly, do you think that Bitcoin should never hardfork? If you truly believe that I would love to hear a rebuttal of my arguments from you. Specificity in response to why you think that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the Core development team in check should never be used?

[manselr]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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

I encourage you to read this article on why we shouldn't work:
http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

And I wonder where did satoshi said that he agreed with everything that Bitcoin XT does? Because I don't reckon reading anything about double spends, check points, tor blacklists and so on?

[kelsey]

Unfortunately only one of the two forks will win in the end, and the rest will have to follow the winning fork.

certainly you can keep both forks going. if people decide to keep the cores fork, even if XT gained the most nodes, they certainly could (although one or both would tank in price, and both would tank in value).

keep the true bitcoin core going, even if XT the alt, gains traction and majority it'll be shortlived like all previous competing alts.

If the fork happens I believe Core is the altcoin because XT is continuing the original vision of Satoshi. I think the Core developers should create an alt coin and that way they do not need to force their vision on everyone else, that way Bitcoin can stay true to the original vision of Satoshi. Furthermore if you believe that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, it 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. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used".

If you really want to continuing using Core after the fork you can, that is part of the beauty of volunteerism. I suspect Core would become like an altcoin where people that really want to use third parties instead of transacting on the blockchain directly can do that. I just do not want to be "forced" to use third parties over Bitcoin, I would stop using Bitcoin entirely if that was the case and move to another cryptocurrency.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly. Instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is important to remember that the Pools are most often different entities then the miners themselves. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do urge everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. 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

BitcoinXt will always be the altcoin.

"The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

don't be so deluded he's attempting to kill bitcoin so his alt prevails, the code the he'll fully control.

I will ask you directly, do you think that Bitcoin should never hardfork? If you truly believe that I would love to hear a rebuttal of my arguments from you. Specificity in response to why you think that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep the Core development team in check should never be used?

its been hardforked in the past and i'm sure there'll be hardforks needed in the future. but the hardfork mike hearn is trying to pull off has little to do with keeping the development team in check.


now please realise, to this point i've tolerated your post as i don't wish to simply delete opposing points of view (i welcome them)
however there is 101 million bitcoincore vs bitcoinxt threads already on this forum and i didn't start this to be another (u can debate me that elsewhere preferrably in an xt thread in the alt section).

this thread is about option for people who want to stay with the bitcoincore no matter what, ignoring the altcoin bitcoinxt. it can continue if it has support no matter the outcome.

[Holliday]

If there is a fork, make high fee transactions on the Core chain (a high fee will entice miners to mine on the Core chain). You could also make it clear you are willing to trade things of value for Core coins. Try to purchase more Core coins.

If there is enough demand, some miners will continue to mine on the Core chain. (Some will do it simply because, like you, they do not want XT.)

Taint your coins on the XT chain with some inputs that only exist on the XT chain (XTaint), by sending your coins plus the XTaint to another address you control. (You can now spend XT coins without worrying about your Core coins.)

Sell your XT coins.

Buy Core coins with the proceeds from that sale.