BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[BitProdigy]

A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple. (and this is very dangerous for bitcoin)

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into Blockstream on the false assumption that block sizes would never be raised. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (money making) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining unnecessarily low.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream, and the lack of consensus of the developers is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" who have a financial interest in keeping the blocks low are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not Gavin and Hearn.

A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change well before it becomes an issue to avoid the kinds of consequences that would cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses.

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable.

I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the illusion in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different. Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level.

If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, the arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And this is dangerous for bitcoin!

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin. I think this split is very dangerous, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I am in support of Bitcoin XT. The BlockSize increase is necessary and a good thing for bitcoin! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

[meono]

Finally you've seen the light. I recall you were on the other side. I have been restraining myself to post abaout the BlockStream agenda as I'm sure it will be called conspiracy, fud.

I think its the best for the community to take a step back to look at the big picture here. Each and every one of us need to think about the future of bitcoin. Dont blame on supporting the fork for the short term price crash. It is crucial that bitcoin must overcome this to survive.

OP did a great job to make his decision so can everyone here.

I would like to add that BitcoinXT is only the first client that implement BIP101. Any other clients can also implement BIP101 if that suit other users. All BIP101 blocks will be counted to the 75%.

I have no doubt that someone ( reputable to the community) would fork bitcoin core and add BIP101 to it.

In the end what are we voting and pushing for is a fork that support BIP101.

[meono]

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08259.html

I can sincerely assure you everyone does want to scale bitcoin and shares your long term objective on that

I really wish you were right, and I definitely feel you are one of the more reasonable ones Adam. But the overwhelming impression I get from a few others here is that no, they don't want to scale Bitcoin. They already decided it's a technological dead end. They want to kick end users out in order to "incentivise" (force) the creation of some other alternative, claiming that it's still Bitcoin whilst ignoring basic details ... like the fact that no existing wallets or services would work.

Scaling Bitcoin can only be achieved by letting it grow, and letting people tackle each bottleneck as it arises at the right times. Not by convincing ourselves that success is failure.

Mike and Gavin are absolutely right to force the issue. It may suck, but really it's the only way because Blockstream et al. are intent on their path that LN (a feature that not only does not exist yet, but is years away and has its own centralization problems) is the ONLY scaling solution (besides normal technology advancement). We are now reaping what was sowed with multiple developers from one company dominating core development.

This does not mean that LN does not have its place, but it is not a panacea. LN has utility for instant and microtransactions, and it should derive its fees from THAT utility, NOT artificial scarcity.

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

[Carlton Banks]

That leaves us with Cia guy and blacklist man alone in favor of unilateral changes...

Even despite the broken english, that's more logical than the pro-XT argument.

[Krona Rev]

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin.

I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?

I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

[valiz]

beyond ad hominem attacks and appeals to ignorance and fear, what is the real argument for no block size increase? 1 MB was just an arbitrary number that wasn't in the original code and satoshi implemented with the intent to be changed in the future or entirely removed. Now that arbitrary number could cause potential problems within the next 6 months if it is not changed. What is the argument against changing it really? Why such dogmatism about this arbitrary number? What is so special about 1 MB blocks that people are ripping bitcoin in two to preserve it? I don't understand. Please enlighten me.

It's simple, really. You need to have a blockchain hard fork in order to change this 1MB limit. This means older nodes are incompatible with newer nodes, and this brings a huge risk of chaos if done without consensus (at least 95% of nodes, miners agreeing to change it). 

Btw, many don't forsee any serious problems if the limit is not changed in the near future. This is only what the XT guys say in order to give people a sense of urgency.

[Carlton Banks]

Btw, many don't forsee any serious problems if the limit is not changed in the near future. This is only what the XT guys say in order to give people a sense of urgency.

Yep, the transaction flooding attacks didn't raise the fees a huge amount. If everyone had kept some old unspent coins (at least about 6 months or so), then they could have used those to make any vital bitcoin transactions without long waits or paying the elevated fees (old coins sent with low fees are equivalent to fresh coins sent with high fees when it comes to transaction priority). It barely impacts users really, but it costs the attacker no small amount of money (20 BTC in fees if I remember rightly, lol)

FUD accusations from the XT crowd are steeped in irony in this light; their entire campaign is premised on FUD mongering about something that is not urgent

[Kazimir]

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

I'm all for increasing the block size limit, although I would rather see a somewhat more conservative, modest approach like Pieter Wuille's proposal instead of a sudden 8× increase.

But I'm against Bitcoin XT.

1. There more to Bitcoin XT than just the size increase.
2. The confusion, ambiguity, polarity, fear and discord it creates, is much worse than the entire block size issue whatsoever.

[Zarathustra]

Btw, many don't forsee any serious problems if the limit is not changed in the near future. This is only what the XT guys say in order to give people a sense of urgency.

Yep, the transaction flooding attacks didn't raise the fees a huge amount. If everyone had kept some old unspent coins (at least about 6 months or so), then they could have used those to make any vital bitcoin transactions without long waits or paying the elevated fees (old coins sent with low fees are equivalent to fresh coins sent with high fees when it comes to transaction priority). It barely impacts users really, but it costs the attacker no small amount of money (20 BTC in fees if I remember rightly, lol)

FUD accusations from the XT crowd are steeped in irony in this light; their entire campaign is premised on FUD mongering about something that is not urgent

Spring 12 to spring 13 (Halving between) brought a 10 fold increase of txs. Therefore, it is urgent to be ready for a repetition of that. XT is ready - core is not.

[Carlton Banks]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

[Zarathustra]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

[Carlton Banks]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

Why aren't you saying that then, instead of offering me again something you know I will reject? You could say "I see where you're coming from, I know what you'd like, Blockstream!". But instead you try telling me that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again? And XT is the only thing "ready"? It won't be ready for anything if it doesn't get popular support.

[valiz]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

You should read Krona Rev's post again.

We should run even The Devil's Bitcoin node if it sticks to the consensus (and doesn't have privacy leaks). 

[Zarathustra]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

Why aren't you saying that then, instead of offering me again something you know I will reject? You could say "I see where you're coming from, I know what you'd like, Blockstream!". But instead you try telling me that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again? And XT is the only thing "ready"? It won't be ready for anything if it doesn't get popular support.

I don't offer you anything, and I'm not "telling you that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again". I'm telling you that if next halving will send transactions surging again, then XT is ready already; core is not. They have to do something, if they want to be ready. But it seems that they don't want. The blockstream devs want to see the txs on their private chain. At least that's the impression of the 8MB block-proponents.

[Carlton Banks]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

Why aren't you saying that then, instead of offering me again something you know I will reject? You could say "I see where you're coming from, I know what you'd like, Blockstream!". But instead you try telling me that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again? And XT is the only thing "ready"? It won't be ready for anything if it doesn't get popular support.

I don't offer you anything, and I'm not "telling you that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again". I'm telling you that if next halving will send transactions surging again, then XT is ready already; core is not. They have to do something, if they want to be ready. But it seems that they don't want. The blockstream devs want to see the txs on their private chain. At least that's the impression of the 8MB block-proponents.

Can you think of any other inevitable events that could (or not...) precipitate increased transactions rates? Perhaps something that directly increases the demand for Bitcoin transactions? if you chose one such example, then you could actually make a good argument based around predictable sudden increases in tx rate. Why am I having to help you construct your argument for you, tell me?

[S4VV4S]

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin.

I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?

I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

This is the most intelligent (and logical) response I have seen in a while.
And I am guessing that the OP will follow the typical route: Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

[hodedowe]

Carlton, you can't argue with these fanatics. Interestingly, I thought I read a post where you were pro-xt a few days ago. I may be mistaken.

At any rate, the choices are never "Blockstream or XT". The BTC network, even during testing, has a fee and age setup to handle more important transactions. There is zero chance that we'll have a problem in the next 10 years unless the entire US and China decides to ditch the USD/Yuan and go to Bitcoin and then the chance is only slightly higher than being hit by lightning because miners are mining ALL THE TIME. Fees will rise for important transactions, less important or free tx's will take a little longer. That's the way it is now. The only change is that fees will rise for immediate transactions.

The End.

[Zarathustra]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

Why aren't you saying that then, instead of offering me again something you know I will reject? You could say "I see where you're coming from, I know what you'd like, Blockstream!". But instead you try telling me that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again? And XT is the only thing "ready"? It won't be ready for anything if it doesn't get popular support.

I don't offer you anything, and I'm not "telling you that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again". I'm telling you that if next halving will send transactions surging again, then XT is ready already; core is not. They have to do something, if they want to be ready. But it seems that they don't want. The blockstream devs want to see the txs on their private chain. At least that's the impression of the 8MB block-proponents.

Can you think of any other inevitable events that could (or not...) precipitate increased transactions rates? Perhaps something that directly increases the demand for Bitcoin transactions? if you chose one such example, then you could actually make a good argument based around predictable sudden increases in tx rate. Why am I having to help you construct your argument for you, tell me?

I don't need your 'help', thanks.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't need your 'help', thanks.

The record tells a different story.

[Zarathustra]

XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

You should read Krona Rev's post again.

Yes, he's one of the many who believed that a collective of the millions might be a community. I knew that this will never be the reality. Consensus exists only in communities (Dunbar's number). Large collectives are ruled by the majority.