XT Fork is necessary , IMO

[dodgecharger]

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

[SimpleIn]

The quickest solution is if the community could start expressing the real consensus which is: "go home, Gavin and Mike"

If the nodes and miners don't start jumping on board, that is exactly what will happen regardless how loudly one can make his argument.

It is necessary to bring the argument that they jumped.

[jonald_fyookball]

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

There are few that disagree with your statement.  However, letting 2 ______ hijack Bitcoin because their own egos have grown to be too large for a community project is not the answer.  Don't let yourself be brainwashed into supporting what is clearly not the correct path forward for Bitcoin.  Gavin & Mike have already shamefully shown that they can be bought and will place their egos ahead of the project.  If XT succeeds, you can kiss the block limit goodbye, as well as any privacy protection offered by Bitcoin.  It will simply become digital fiat where those in power will make and break the rules to appease whoever is cutting them a check.  Be smarter.  Don't let them use this block size debate to hijack Bitcoin.

Gavin and Mike can be bought?  Perhaps.  But the rest of the core devs already have been bought for $21M in venture capital via Blockstream.  If those guys weren't stonewalling the blocksize increase, XT wouldn't even exist right now.

[KurtB]

As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.

That seems so much smarter than a brute increase of block size. At least it would increase the speed and the volume.
Ethereum has 12s block time.
- Yet, I would not support either at this point.

Satoshi chose the 10 minute block interval as another careful, conservative limit. Sergio is an incredibly accomplished computer scientist, he would not suggest this change if he wasn't confident that Satoshi's concerns can be mitigated.

I'm not sure how much this helps though; it's two broad issues rolled into one, so it has the potential to just create a whole new set of arguments. However, if 95% of people agreed to do this tomorrow, and the technical aspects were convincing to me, I'd get on board.

It is "a whole new set of arguments" indeed. A categorical "no" to every hard fork is probably the best answer to invite more creativity. I like to see Bitcoin as the core of the 'onion' protected by a host of other solutions that can also serve for experiments.

[KurtB]

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

This is the fallacy at the core of this dilemma. As you can't point to one single distributed ledger that was suddenly abandon because it wouldn't grow indefinite your argument has no base.

- Maybe you want to revisit this post in 5 years time and apologize.

[hdbuck]

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.

[jwinterm]

Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies.

There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

This is what I'm planning to run.

[jonald_fyookball]

Maybe if you use larger, redder text people will strap on their tinfoil hats and indulge in your conspiracy fantasies.

There's code available that will implement BIP101 without the rest of the XT patches, btw:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

This is what I'm planning to run.

sweet!  This is what we want!

[Jacobit]

We need bigger blocks since that's the only way to let bitcoin survive. 1MB blocks will hinder adoption and will make bitcoin obsolete over time.

There are few that disagree with your statement.  However, letting 2 ______ hijack Bitcoin because their own egos have grown to be too large for a community project is not the answer.  Don't let yourself be brainwashed into supporting what is clearly not the correct path forward for Bitcoin.  Gavin & Mike have already shamefully shown that they can be bought and will place their egos ahead of the project.  If XT succeeds, you can kiss the block limit goodbye, as well as any privacy protection offered by Bitcoin.  It will simply become digital fiat where those in power will make and break the rules to appease whoever is cutting them a check.  Be smarter.  Don't let them use this block size debate to hijack Bitcoin.

Gavin and Mike can be bought?  Perhaps.  But the rest of the core devs already have been bought for $21M in venture capital via Blockstream.  If those guys weren't stonewalling the blocksize increase, XT wouldn't even exist right now.

100% agree with this view.