core or xt ?

[600watt]

since almost all the threads are discussing this question, which of the two options would you prefer ?

ok, this is not representative, but it may give us an idea where this forum is leaning to.

feel free to discuss, but please keep it friendly.

edit: not self moderated...

[OmegaStarScream]

I'am personally with increasing the blocksize but seems like Core don't have that (for now) , on the other hand BitcoinXT seems  it's basically threating Bitcoin and considered as Altcoin for people , In case it happens and we switch to BitcoinXT , Iam more then sure then thousands of people will lose their coins because they don't know how all this works .
Our opinions dosen't matter that much anyway , since miners are the one who are going to decide . (more then 75% hashing power)

TLDR; i don´t give a fuck as long as bitcoin survives

[techgeek]

If anything most people are already on the core.. so those who didnt migrate will be forced to do so I`m assuming?

However many people who stick with the core will reflect on which way we go. I think most people arent aware of the whole "xt" situation and some are so its varied.

I personally am just waiting to move xt if effects the transaction times using the core cause theres not much of a choice then.

[d5000]

I'm pretty neutral - let the most popular client win - but I think the community should calm down a bit. Both sides should move on to a compromise.

I recommend the XT people to publish a version without the IP blacklist mechanism (or with the mechanism disabled by default), as this seems to be the most controversial change.

[everaja]

I think Bitcoin XT is already been Implemented and all you have to do now is to choose The Core Or XT protocol.
I Personally will go with XT as it is sure to happen and slowly all will Follow it , mark my words , if this does not happen then the Network will Have Two Protocols and both will use their different Algorithms to Verify a Transaction and a Particular situation may also occur when one protocol verifies Transaction "x" but another rejects it , in that case the receiver Must make a decesion to which Protocol he should consider now.

[curiosity81]

As an opportunistic German, I follow the majority

[600watt]

As an opportunistic German, I follow the majority

i will include this option, thx.

[btcjoin14]

is too early to decide, I will choose the winner
The change process is long, involves alot of discussions about risks, benefits, etc..., sometimes the developpers disagree. That is the case for the blocksize.

[Aswan]

Core... simply core...

[maokoto]

I do not mind, provided that Bitcoin survives.

However, I am not prone to make changes to anything if they are not needed. I think XT has released too early. Perhaps when the problem becomes urgent, many people will adopt it if there is no better solution.

[dukeneptun]

I prefer Bitcoin Core but with bigger block size limit, like 2 MB. Then 4 MB when needed, probably 3-4 years later.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[croTek4]

I prefer Bitcoin Core but with bigger block size limit, like 2 MB. Then 4 MB when needed, probably 3-4 years later.

so instead of 1 fork, you want to fork it multiple times in a few years?

[dukeneptun]

I prefer Bitcoin Core but with bigger block size limit, like 2 MB. Then 4 MB when needed, probably 3-4 years later.

so instead of 1 fork, you want to fork it multiple times in a few years?

It happened before, didn't it? It's better to change to 2 MB than straight 8 MB. That would be open for spam attacks. 8 MB is clearly not needed for short term.

[helmax]

this FUCKING STUPID  this war wht for choose

only you lost your money usd in bitcoin


if choose XT we have future for increase value BITCOIN

wht part this childs dont understand!

[amaclin]

There are at least two additional choices:
i) Both XT and Core in different datadirs
ii) I prefer fiat currency

[doc12]

Why not implement a dynamic block size like Monero for example, which is calculated from x previous blocks  

And a minimum fee to prevend spam attacks and dust transactions.




With adaptive blocksize we could always achive a high block fillrate and give an incentive to pay a transaction fee, if the adaptive timeframe would be 1 day for example (calculated form a moving average over the last 144 blocks). This would always make the blockchain space scarce for a given timeframe. If you want a fast transaction, you have to pay a higher fee.  

IMO this is a very good soultion, to establish a fee system and allow more tps when the network grows with time.

What do you think ?

[dothebeats]

I prefer core with bigger block size depending on the future adoption growth (2mb onward is enough for the next 3-5 years, I think). I want XT's concept, but I don't like how they introduce it to the masses.

[hodedowe]

this FUCKING STUPID  this war wht for choose

only you lost your money usd in bitcoin


if choose XT we have future for increase value BITCOIN

wht part this childs dont understand!

This is a false assumption fueled by panic.
You can't allow for more cheap transactions, blacklisting of addresses, and then say your currency is going to be of more value.

As for the 1mb limit, let the limit be touched more often than once in a blue moon and the limit will likely be raised in Core, just as other fixes have been implemented as they have popped up. Devs handle problems when they arrise, not when people get wormy.

Personally I think the whole "reindex for 3 days every time you lose power" problem is much more pressing than the 1mb limit.

[knight22]

BIP101 or else. No matter if it is XT or Core. Let solve the scalability once and for all.