Will you use old Bitcoin if XT wins?

[Beefcake]

Whether or not we need bigger block sizes is a much different matter than if we should use XT controlled by Hearn and incorporating other controversial changes. I cannot see myself ever using XT.

But you realize that the only reason it is just two people, is because the other developers have a conflict of interest right?  They want to keep the block size small so that they can use the side chain tech that they have invested money in to.

[maxcarjuzaa]

If XT wins I'll end my journey with Bitcoins and maybe move to Litecoins or some other altcoins.

really?
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
— Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

 It would be nice to keep the [block chain] files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.
-- Satoshi Nakamoto


Think again

[maxcarjuzaa]

Whether or not we need bigger block sizes is a much different matter than if we should use XT controlled by Hearn and incorporating other controversial changes. I cannot see myself ever using XT.

But you realize that the only reason it is just two people, is because the other developers have a conflict of interest right?  They want to keep the block size small so that they can use the side chain tech that they have invested money in to.

Great, agreed, but if core devs were right and Gavin is the evil guy why don't they increase the block size limit to end the situation?

[maxcarjuzaa]

You people need to realize that the Bitcoin we love, the one in Satoshi´s vision is XT not the artificially limited core that we have now, go ahead search this forum and find what was Satoshi's vision about hard limit and nodes.

[valiz]

Whether or not we need bigger block sizes is a much different matter than if we should use XT controlled by Hearn and incorporating other controversial changes. I cannot see myself ever using XT.

But you realize that the only reason it is just two people, is because the other developers have a conflict of interest right?  They want to keep the block size small so that they can use the side chain tech that they have invested money in to.

Great, agreed, but if core devs were right and Gavin is the evil guy why don't they increase the block size limit to end the situation?

Because it needs a hard fork and that requires consensus. Forcing it will completely destabilize bitcoin.

[valiz]

You people need to realize that the Bitcoin we love, the one in Satoshi´s vision is XT not the artificially limited core that we have now, go ahead search this forum and find what was Satoshi's vision about hard limit and nodes.

That is debatable, but who cares about Satoshi's vision. Why should we care? Why should you listen to him or to anyone? Is he the boss of bitcoin? Wasn't the vision telling that the bitcoin should have no bosses?

[maxcarjuzaa]

if you think that XT will bring mining centralization you are not doing your homework

wake up today 5 pools are in control of 76% of hash rate users are not miners.

Theree is no differnce to miners if blocks are 1, 2 4 or 8 mb,

The miners fee market is not related with capacity,miners can choose what transactions to mine with or without limit,

The limit prevents people from using bitcoin or force centralized transactions coinbase stile

[maxcarjuzaa]

You people need to realize that the Bitcoin we love, the one in Satoshi´s vision is XT not the artificially limited core that we have now, go ahead search this forum and find what was Satoshi's vision about hard limit and nodes.

That is debatable, but who cares about Satoshi's vision. Why should we care? Why should you listen to him or to anyone? Is he the boss of bitcoin? Wasn't the vision telling that the bitcoin should have no bosses?

Old users, the ones that make this thing happend signed up for that vision, and that vision is XT

[valiz]

if you think that XT will bring mining centralization you are not doing your homework

wake up today 5 pools are in control of 76% of hash rate users are not miners.

Theree is no differnce to miners if blocks are 1, 2 4 or 8 mb,

The miners fee market is not related with capacity,miners can choose what transactions to mine with or without limit,

The limit prevents people from using bitcoin or force centralized transactions coinbase stile

I was talking about node centralization. You know that XT doubles the limit every 2 years until it gets to 8 GB. You think there will be more nodes running?

[maxcarjuzaa]

if you think that XT will bring mining centralization you are not doing your homework

wake up today 5 pools are in control of 76% of hash rate users are not miners.

Theree is no differnce to miners if blocks are 1, 2 4 or 8 mb,

The miners fee market is not related with capacity,miners can choose what transactions to mine with or without limit,

The limit prevents people from using bitcoin or force centralized transactions coinbase stile

I was talking about node centralization. You know that XT doubles the limit every 2 years until it gets to 8 GB. You think there will be more nodes running?

We can change that again if we need it. anyway, have you heard abput moore law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Are you going to shutdown your node because blocks are going 8mb? really?

[maxcarjuzaa]

Network capacity – According to Gerry/Gerald Butters,[128][129] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,[130] a formulation that deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butter's law says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months.[131] Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of wavelength-division multiplexing (sometimes called WDM) increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the dot-com bubble. Nielsen's Law says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.[132]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

[newcripto]

I dont know yet what will I really do as it is too early to assume results.Let the guys to reach at some decision and if this happens then too price can go temporarily down but on long term Bitcoin will win anyway because we love it.If XT is good for Bitcoin then why not to accept it.

[valiz]

I was talking about node centralization. You know that XT doubles the limit every 2 years until it gets to 8 GB. You think there will be more nodes running?

We can change that again if we need it. anyway, have you heard abput moore law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Are you going to shutdown your node because blocks are going 8mb? really?

Yes. Disastrous precedent.

Network capacity – According to Gerry/Gerald Butters,[128][129] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,[130] a formulation that deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butter's law says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months.[131] Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of wavelength-division multiplexing (sometimes called WDM) increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the dot-com bubble. Nielsen's Law says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.[132]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Haha   . Let's see how Moore's law will go after the impending deflationary spiral and possible financial meltdown. There are some limits, you know. We can't see 20 years into the future. What if in 10 years we will struggle to find any working computer?

At least go with Peter Wuille (sipa)'s block size limit increase BIP, which proposes 17.7%/yr increase iirc.

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

[Carlton Banks]

Network capacity – According to Gerry/Gerald Butters,[128][129] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,[130] a formulation that deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butter's law says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months.[131] Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of wavelength-division multiplexing (sometimes called WDM) increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the dot-com bubble. Nielsen's Law says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.[132]

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law

Is that going to help when ISP's are beginning to change the service provision culture in their industry? Unlimited data plans are becoming either prohibitively expensive or unavailable completely. Some ISP's are beginning to charge like the mobile operators do; per MB.

Is it really such a great plan to make predictions about what technology we'll be running the bitcoin network on decades into the future? I would argue that as we approach the steeper part of the curve of technological progress, making accurate predictions will become increasingly more difficult. Perhaps it is worth taking an optimistic view of progress when conducting some aspects of long term planning. But when you're designing something vital, prudence and conservatism is a much more appropriate strategy. Only the absolute basics in life are more vital than monetary systems.

[Mickeyb]

If I keep 20btc in my Trezor before the split, after the split I should have 20btc in the original bitcoin chain and 20btc in the XT chian.

If I keep 20btc in an exchange like Coinbase before the split, after the split I will likely only get 20btc in the XT chian if the exchange choose the XT and I will not likely get 20btc in both chains.

Am I right?

Yes.

Well I then better keep my Trezor very well and safe from today since it seems that I have double amount of coins in there than it shows! Not bad at all!

[Possum577]

Will anyone have a choice?

This question is a bit like some one from France asking "will you still use francs if France adopts the Euro?"

If the network moves to XT, what choice will we have?

[Possum577]

If I keep 20btc in my Trezor before the split, after the split I should have 20btc in the original bitcoin chain and 20btc in the XT chian.

If I keep 20btc in an exchange like Coinbase before the split, after the split I will likely only get 20btc in the XT chian if the exchange choose the XT and I will not likely get 20btc in both chains.

Am I right?

Yes.

Uhhh...No. You're not going to magically double your holdings. It's not going to work that way.

[Carlton Banks]

If I keep 20btc in my Trezor before the split, after the split I should have 20btc in the original bitcoin chain and 20btc in the XT chian.

If I keep 20btc in an exchange like Coinbase before the split, after the split I will likely only get 20btc in the XT chian if the exchange choose the XT and I will not likely get 20btc in both chains.

Am I right?

Yes.

Uhhh...No. You're not going to magically double your holdings. It's not going to work that way.

You don't understand it.

If miners continue on the Core chain after the fork, there will be two identical chains the moment after they split. Hence "fork". You will have coins on both forks. Double the coins. 20 BTC and 20 XT BTC. Not 40 BTC. 20 of each. This is why people call XT an altcoin: it will be a parallel system once the fork take place. You will not be able to send XT coins to the Core chain, or vice versa. They will not interoperate after the fork. They will interoperate before the fork. Hence "fork".

[chek2fire]

I dont think it will win with 3 blocks iin 20 days now. BitcoinXT is a personal disaster for Gavin and Hearn.

[Klestin]

IF XT reaches the 75% supermajority, Core will absolutely, positively adopt BIP 101 (or an alternative which is compatible with > 1MB blocks, such as BIP 102)

You can of course continue to run 1-MB-Cap-Core if you choose.  Bear in mind, though, that this is not the first hard fork.  Users who are running Bitoin Core from 2 years ago are on an alt-chain, just as you will be if you choose to stick with the Core version you have today. (Again, IF XT reaches 75%)