What's the plan to recover after XT Takeover ??

[Soros Shorts]

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network.  And that means bigger blocks.

Large blocks are useless if they end up getting orphaned and the potential fees vanish into thin air. Miners will keep adding transactions to their blocks up to the point where their orphan rate becomes unacceptable. This depends amongst other things on the size of the blocks other miners are building.

[onemorexmr]

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

But the block reward is going to diminish and internet connections will continue to improve, making that less relevant as time goes on(which is why we need a schedule or dynamic mechanism for block scaling, not a one time increase such as BIP100).  Not to mention that the majority of the network is doing SPV mining even today with 1MB blocks.

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network.  And that means bigger blocks.

bip100 isnt a one time increase. it doubles every two years.
personally i'd prefer unlimited blocksize, because i think that miners (means pools) are not dumb and can decide whats best.

with the existing mining overlay network which supports headers first block transmit time is not a big issue any more

[knolix]

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

as you seem to know bitcoin quite well i bet you know what "headers first" mean?

It was not my intention to learn so much about how bitcoin works

what do you mean by "headers first" ?

I understand headers are downloaded first when downloading the blockchain
but is "headers first" alo when broadcasting a new found block ??

Best Regards

PS: sorry for stupid questions and for not documenting myself first on these technical aspects

[quakefiend420]

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

But the block reward is going to diminish and internet connections will continue to improve, making that less relevant as time goes on(which is why we need a schedule or dynamic mechanism for block scaling, not a one time increase such as BIP100).  Not to mention that the majority of the network is doing SPV mining even today with 1MB blocks.

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network.  And that means bigger blocks.

bip100 isnt a one time increase. it doubles every two years.
personally i'd prefer unlimited blocksize, because i think that miners (means pools) are not dumb and can decide whats best.

with the existing mining overlay network which supports headers first block transmit time is not a big issue any more

You're correct, I got it mixed up.  BIP102 was what I should have said.  I edited my post.

[quakefiend420]

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

as you seem to know bitcoin quite well i bet you know what "headers first" mean?

It was not my intention to learn so much about how bitcoin works

what do you mean by "headers first" ?

I understand headers are downloaded first when downloading the blockchain
but is "headers first" alo when broadcasting a new found block ??

Best Regards

PS: sorry for stupid questions and for not documenting myself first on these technical aspects

Not to be an ass, but if you don't want to learn how things work why do you feel like you should have an opinion on them?  That's like me saying that I have a solution for the conflict in the middle east but I'm not actually going to learn anything about what's already going on today.

Yes, that's what I referred to as SPV mining.  Miners grab the header and start working on the next block immediately.  Then they download/validate the block in parallel with the mining effort that includes that header.  If it's invalid then they discard and go back to working on the previous one.  Most of the time it's valid and this saves a few valuable seconds, occasionally it could bite you.

[meono]

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

as you seem to know bitcoin quite well i bet you know what "headers first" mean?

It was not my intention to learn so much about how bitcoin works

what do you mean by "headers first" ?

I understand headers are downloaded first when downloading the blockchain
but is "headers first" alo when broadcasting a new found block ??

Best Regards

PS: sorry for stupid questions and for not documenting myself first on these technical aspects

Oh right, you dont know, but you're so set on your decision and even speak up about your "uninformed" opinion.

We can waste all our time arguing with you, or we can just answer questions so you can be informed.

Pick one.

[knolix]

Oh right, you dont know, but you're so set on your decision and even speak up about your "uninformed" opinion.

We can waste all our time arguing with you, or we can just answer questions so you can be informed.

Pick one.

I'm set on my decision to protect my investment

Sorry for being "uninformed" but i did not know that i need to learn so much to protect my investment. Does learning time add to my BTC portofolio ? 

I understand how SPV mining can be a good thing but someone please explain this alert

https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining

Has this situation been resolved ?

[onemorexmr]

Oh right, you dont know, but you're so set on your decision and even speak up about your "uninformed" opinion.

We can waste all our time arguing with you, or we can just answer questions so you can be informed.

Pick one.

I'm set on my decision to protect my investment

Sorry for being "uninformed" but i did not know that i need to learn so much to protect my investment. Does learning time add to my BTC portofolio ? 

I understand how SPV mining can be a good thing but someone please explain this alert

https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining

Has this situation been resolved ?

imho as an investor just make sure you own the private keys for your coins and see what happens.
in case of a fork you have btc and xt coins: whichever chain wins will be bitcoin afterwards.

you dont protect your investment by joining btct and add to this political and community dividing debate (i only joined that debate because i saw so much fud against XT; imho relaxing and waiting is the best strategy here).

[Klestin]

Are You Kidding Me?

Why someone would pay higher transaction fee if the supply (block size) it's larger then the demand (active transactions)

You mean exactly the way it is now, and exactly the way it has always been?  We've never had the transactions eligible for inclusion in a block be artificially limited by the block size cap.  Keeping the stopgap 1 MB limit will change this so that very soon we WILL begin running into this block.

[slaveforanunnak1]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

[quakefiend420]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

[slaveforanunnak1]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

I'm holding on to my bitcoin core node and i will always run the true core and mine on it!
is that better?

[meono]

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.
• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.
• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is not OK.
• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is OK.

Thus, one is advised to run BitcoinXT.

[slaveforanunnak1]

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

WHAAAT ? comical. You can't back that blanket statement up and you know it

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

sure. You're an alt-coiner.

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is not OK.

HOW? When these ass-clowns FHF (Force-Hard-Fork) I'm keeping my coins on my paper wallet, Run QT, go to Winchester for a pint, and watch XT blow over while true coin value sky-rockets after all these schmucks run back after they get Black/white listed by Gavin and company (peace be up on their name)

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is OK.

Correct.
[/list]

[LiteCoinGuy]

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.


there is no attach OP, just an option.

[quakefiend420]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

I'm holding on to my bitcoin core node and i will always run the true core and mine on it!
is that better?

You still sound like a zealot.

Why don't you back your arguments with logic and reasoning instead of sounding like it's a religious decision?

[quakefiend420]

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

WHAAAT ? comical. You can't back that blanket statement up and you know it

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

sure. You're an alt-coiner.

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is not OK.

HOW? When these ass-clowns FHF (Force-Hard-Fork) I'm keeping my coins on my paper wallet, Run QT, go to Winchester for a pint, and watch XT blow over while true coin value sky-rockets after all these schmucks run back after they get Black/white listed by Gavin and company (peace be up on their name)

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is OK.

Correct.
[/list]

True coin value?  You sound like a religious nutbag too.

Can we not have a rational discussion about this?

[slaveforanunnak1]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

I'm holding on to my bitcoin core node and i will always run the true core and mine on it!
is that better?

You still sound like a zealot.

Why don't you back your arguments with logic and reasoning instead of sounding like it's a religious decision?

Apparently you can't fucking read. I've giving you clear logic! I opened a fucking thread about it. Try reading it.

[quakefiend420]

HODL on to core! HOOOOOOOODL

Very constructive.  Thanks for your input.

I'm holding on to my bitcoin core node and i will always run the true core and mine on it!
is that better?

You still sound like a zealot.

Why don't you back your arguments with logic and reasoning instead of sounding like it's a religious decision?

Apparently you can't fucking read. I've giving you clear logic! I opened a fucking thread about it. Try reading it.

I did read it.  75% of the network IS consensus.  Your very statement is fallacious.

[slaveforanunnak1]

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

WHAAAT ? comical. You can't back that blanket statement up and you know it

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinXT, then one is OK.

sure. You're an alt-coiner.

• If Bitcoin forks, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is not OK.

HOW? When these ass-clowns FHF (Force-Hard-Fork) I'm keeping my coins on my paper wallet, Run QT, go to Winchester for a pint, and watch XT blow over while true coin value sky-rockets after all these schmucks run back after they get Black/white listed by Gavin and company (peace be up on their name)

• If Bitcoin does not fork, and one is running BitcoinQT, then one is OK.

Correct.
[/list]

True coin value?  You sound like a religious nutbag too.

Can we not have a rational discussion about this?

Fine! Not ture coin... how about... OC! Original Coin.

I will not run XT. I've explained why and what I think will happen in other threads, but I guess can't copy and paste it here. Some guys are getting butt-hurt that i'm doing that.