BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[Friki Verax]

-snip-
Solution A - Size Increases
Solution B - Side-chains

True Solution
- Will be determined as we approach the true date of settlement in 2016.

Side-chains are far fro "solutions". It needs more development to call it as a solution.

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

Are you spamming? Its not a problem to oppose XT but don't spread FUD or disinformation. If you have valid proofs, post it.

[Alley]

Posting large red letters in every thread doesn't help your cause.  You just seem like a troll.

[gentlemand]

Just checked the r/bitcoinxt sub and was very surprised to see over 10,000 subscribers. I'm sure plenty are fake as you like but that's more than I was expecting.

[VeritasSapere]

I understand it helps to vent when someone feel frustrated, that is entirely appropriate. I do it, and have lost patience with people already.

I still don't think it's a good idea to totally let rip though. I think the XT people have been more frustrated overall, most of their arguments drop like flies.

If our arguments do drop like flies like you say they do, then why don’t you attempt to rebuttal one of my arguments directly? Since I have not seen you attempt to do this yet. I am a reasonable person so if I am wrong I would like to know if that is the case, so please enlighten me if you can.

[Carlton Banks]

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

[Possum577]

Bring your anti xt news here
http://Https://Reddit.com/r/noxt

I don't think this is anti XT news, this is a weak attempt to introduce a third option, "Blockstream"? to the debate.

Why hasn't ANYONE been talking about Blockstream on this forum, at the same frequency as XT over the last few weeks? This is the first I'm reading of it and while I don't read everything, I scan this main forum daily...I would have seen it...

Looking forward to your reply, thanks.

[VeritasSapere]

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

I do not demand any thing. Its just that you come onto this thread claiming that our arguments drop like flies without even attempting a rebuttal or pointing out how I or anyone else for that matter is wrong in their argumentation. When there has been sophisticated argumentation on this thread on both sides. Just saying that our arguments fail instead of actually trying to prove us wrong is not a particularly convincing argument, it is actually not a real argument at all. You are just giving people the false impression that the arguments coming from the XT camp are weak without actually proving that your self. Surely you don’t expect this type of dialogue to be convincing for intelligent people?

[Carlton Banks]

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

I do not demand any thing. Its just that you come onto this thread claiming that our arguments drop like flies without even attempting a rebuttal or pointing out how I or anyone else for that matter is wrong in their argumentation.

I don't know about that, I have been engaging quite a few people and it always directly concerns their argument. Again, I am sorry that I haven't spoken with you yet, but there is alot going on.

[OgNasty]

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

[VeritasSapere]

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

I do not demand any thing. Its just that you come onto this thread claiming that our arguments drop like flies without even attempting a rebuttal or pointing out how I or anyone else for that matter is wrong in their argumentation.

I don't know about that, I have been engaging quite a few people and it always directly concerns their argument. Again, I am sorry that I haven't spoken with you yet, but there is alot going on.

Fair enough, its cool, you seem like a reasonable enough person. At least you are not attacking me and calling me a shill lol. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable. Check out this argument I made if you would like, it is still ongoing, since I am still preparing my response, which i will post later this evening. Since Krona Rev has made some excellent points in terms of defining the conditions for success.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12215043#msg12215043

[Slark]

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

Bitcon should not be related to any main company, to avoid being called corporate coin. It will squander everything bitcoin stands for if that ever happen.
It seems that it was planned because I never heard of BlockStream before and now they are here to the rescue Core... interesting.

[VeritasSapere]

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork 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". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that 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.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

[OgNasty]

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork 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". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that 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.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

You do realize that Bitcoin will continue running without BlockStream or XT right?  You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin.  I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on.  I mean, supporting XT for solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.  If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options.  If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself.  BlockStream and XT are both bad options.  Don't support either one.

[Carlton Banks]

At least you are not attacking me and calling me a shill lol. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable.

The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis.

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin.

But it will be after the fork. Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th.

To think that we should never hard fork 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". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that 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.

I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion.

This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository. If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP 101 to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I predict that a group composed of Greg Maxwell, Mark Friedenbach, Luke Dashjr, Pieter Wuille etc would be the people forking the client. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances.

The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

[mallard]

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

[VeritasSapere]

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork 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". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that 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.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

You do realize that Bitcoin will continue running without BlockStream or XT right?  You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin.  I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on.  I mean, supporting XT which is a disgrace to what Bitcoin stands for, under the guise of solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.  If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options.  If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself.  BlockStream and XT are both shitty options with extreme benefits for their creators at the cost of the community.  Don't support either one.

"Don't support either one.". The only way to do this is to not support Bitcoin at all in terms of running a full node or mining. Since not using XT or a patched version of Core is the same thing as a vote for Core. I would like to point out that there is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features should be irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

"XT which is a disgrace to what Bitcoin stands for". Why is it a disgrace for what Bitcoin stands for?

I can admit that I do have a financial involvement in either Core or XT, since I am invested in Bitcoin and I want it to succeed. I suppose it is also true that I believe we should take action now to save Bitcoin, since I do not want the network to become overloaded in case we do have a spike in adoption possibly after some global event.

[VeritasSapere]

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

We can have bigger blocks with XT, just run a patched version of Core with BIP101.

[desired_username]

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization...

Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it.

I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core).

[hdbuck]

Why not bigger blocks without XT? 

As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization...

Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it.

I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core).

4 dev is better than 2.

besides you'll never run anything. noob.

might as well sell the few satoshi you have you retard little scumbag.

gtfo of bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

At least you are not attacking me and calling me a shill lol. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable.

The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis.

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin.

But it will be after the fork. Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th.

To think that we should never hard fork 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". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that 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.

I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion.

This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository. If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP 101 to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I predict that a group composed of Greg Maxwell, Mark Friedenbach, Luke Dashjr, Pieter Wuille etc would be the people forking the client. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances.

The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

Would you agre that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

"I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion." I am glad that you agree that hard forking away from a core development team in this way is not intrinsically wrong.

"This could so easily have been the other way around." I agree entirely

"The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant." This I find interesting, why do you think that this threat is malignant? Since I have not found reason to believe this considering that the change would still require 75% consensus, and you can just run a patched version of Core with BIP101 or XT without the other features. I am very interested in specifically why you think it is malignant?

"Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented." I can absolutely agree with that, and actually if a third alternative came into being which would represent a compromise between these two positions I would personally adopt that instead. The way I see it though is that if these are the only two options we have now I will choose the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.