The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin

[BitProdigy]

it's so easy to be against something, especially something with a label like "XT," and especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.

It's got a label which suggests it's fundamentally different that Bitcoin! Only Gavin and Hearn are pushing it! The rest of the developers are against it! I'm against it too! It smells fishy! There must be some nefarious intention behind it!

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

This is so dangerous to bitcoin that it requires VERY GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION which I have seen not a single shred of. All I have seen is attacks on gavin's character, attacks on hearn's character, appeals to fear, ridiculous speculations that the CIA and the NSA are behind XT based on pure fabricated fear mongering, what I have not seen is a single LOGICAL ARGUMENT that is in the least convincing which suggests that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

Many if not all of the core developers have financial incentive to maintain lower block sizes because they are invested in alternative solutions such as BlockStream. Yes the lack of consensus of the core developers suggests malpractice and misplaced priorities but we cannot just assume that the malpractice and misplaced priorities are behind XT because it is the "change" it is the "new addition" it is the "new proposal" so it must be bad! No, perhaps it is good! and perhaps those developers who oppose it do so for reasons of underlying malpractice and misplaced priorities. Perhaps they are more invested in the success of BlockStream than they are in the success of Bitcoin! These things must be considered!

What I am saying is that this split is very dangerous, and those who are perpetuating it by threatening to SPLIT BITCOIN IN HALF after 75% agrees that XT is the best solution have some explaining to do! We need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not appeals to fear, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and other fallacies. Bring out the evidence, bring out the facts, and lay out an argument dammit! You are threatening to destroy bitcoin without good reason otherwise!

[Trenbolon]

Arguments:

1 - XT exposes users unless the users re-compiles or set the configurations very precisely. Even taking all measures there is a lot of code besides the block size change.
2 - XT plays a major role against descentralization and that is opposite to the entire idea of bitcoin.

If you don't have descentralization and anonymous users, why even calling it bitcoin?
It is a completely different coin based on very little parts of bitcoin.

Sorry eventual bad english, it is not my main language.

[Sourgummies]

You ask for reason but slag those that see differently. We already have a ton of threads on this subject, creating more is a optics game.
Im not decided but lean towards caution.

[coinableS]

This is very interesting, people on the same team are fighting against each other. Divide and conquer is what is happening.

There is radical speculation on both sides, from Gavin has an evil plan, to the core devs want to keep the blocksize low so they can profit from blockstream. In reality the issue is that Gavin, Mike and several others developers have one vision for bitcoin, and the other developers have another vision. That's it, it's a difference of opinion. The biggest difference I see is that the XT fork is an unprovoked pre-emptive strike as they call it in the military world. XT fired the first shots so to speak, so that alone causes a lot of opposition to it.

Instead of this split and pick-a-side crap that is happening, everyone needs to return to the table and work out a compromise for the good of bitcoin.
If we can't reach a consensus together than what is to prevent other developers from starting their own fork? Then we have 3 versions of bitcoin, 4 versions, 5 versions? Where does it stop and who gets to decide which is an altcoin and which is an upgraded bitcoin?

[bassclef]

...especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.

This doesn't bother you at all? It bothers me.

This is not a problem with a binary outcome. The most logical thing to do is nothing until we explore some grey area. In the meantime XT will flounder amid the uncertainty.

[BitProdigy]

Arguments:

1 - XT exposes users unless the users re-compiles or set the configurations very precisely. Even taking all measures there is a lot of code besides the block size change.
2 - XT plays a major role against descentralization and that is opposite to the entire idea of bitcoin.

If you don't have descentralization and anonymous users, why even calling it bitcoin?
It is a completely different coin based on very little parts of bitcoin.

Sorry eventual bad english, it is not my main language.

1. how does XT expose users? Is it not still the pseudonymous public addresses on the block chain? Have I missed something?

2. This is an assertion not an argument. In what way does it "play a major role in decentralization"?

You don't agree with Bitcoin Jesus?:

"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver

[BitProdigy]

...especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.

This doesn't bother you at all? It bothers me.

This is not a problem with a binary outcome. The most logical thing to do is nothing until we explore some grey area. In the meantime XT will flounder amid the uncertainty.

it would only bother me if I knew the reasons why they oppose it. I have found no good arguments besides their incentive to keep the block size limit so profits can be made by using Blockstream and other similar solutions. Gavin and Hearn do not stand to make any profit with XT. Unless I come across a reasonable argument which suggests that XT should be opposed, the fact that BlockStream developers oppose XT does not bother me.

[coinableS]

You don't agree with Bitcoin Jesus?:

"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

[LiteCoinGuy]

You don't agree with Bitcoin Jesus?:

"I think it should be clear to everyone that bigger blocks will likely mean more full nodes around the world, and therefore more decentralization, not less. This will make bitcoin even more difficult to control, censor, or be stopped by anyone, including governments." - Roger Ver

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

that could be true. i would prefer core with a good, solid solution before 2016. for now: XT.

[BitProdigy]

Bigger blocks can also be achieved with core, if/when there is consensus to do so. I see too many posts where people are mixing the core vs XT debate with the blocksize debate.

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!

[Viscera]

Dear XTers,

Instead of assuming that you all use the poor logic that is presented in the OP I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't presume to know what all XTers think but I do know that there are some very logical reason to avoid using XT.

Any discussion in favor of the XT protocol avoids talking about 2 things, firstly that it's alleged purpose is not the only thing that's being introduced, and second that Satoshi himself has weighed in on the argument in favor of the "Anti-Xters"

Although the alleged purpose of the change is to allow for bigger block sizes the introduction of IP filtering by default without warning is the antithesis of a trustless protocol because it requires us to trust the list of IP's being filtered is fair and just, ie trust.

Although I would not try to present Satoshi's negativity as a logical argument his reasoning is logical and in light of his historical relevance to the protocol deserves to be heard, not ignored or talked about as an "unhelpful" email has some of the XT religious types have done.

Here is a link to Satoshi's public comments about XT dated August 15 2015

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

This trap was not unexpected though, and our capture and subjugation is, at this stage, optional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E&t=3m3s

[Possum577]

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!

The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.

[BitProdigy]

Dear XTers,

Instead of assuming that you all use the poor logic that is presented in the OP I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't presume to know what all XTers think but I do know that there are some very logical reason to avoid using XT.

Any discussion in favor of the XT protocol avoids talking about 2 things, firstly that it's alleged purpose is not the only thing that's being introduced, and second that Satoshi himself has weighed in on the argument in favor of the "Anti-Xters"

Although the alleged purpose of the change is to allow for bigger block sizes the introduction of IP filtering by default without warning is the antithesis of a trustless protocol because if requires us to trust that the list of IP's being filtered is fair and just, ie trust.

Although I would not try to present Satoshi's negativity as a logical argument his reasoning is logical and in light of his historical relevance to the protocol deserves to be heard, not ignored or talked about as an "unhelpful" email has some of the XT religious types have done.

Here is a link to Satoshi's public comments about XT dated August 15 2015

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

This trap was not unexpected though, and our capture and subjugation is, at this stage, optional

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E&t=3m3s

Unless the message is signed, it is not Satoshi. Or at least, we cannot be sure that it is satoshi and therefore it is open to doubt and cannot be trusted the words of satoshi. Satoshi as spoken in the past and signed the message so we can be sure it is from him. Why did he not do it this time when it is so important? The only conclusion can be that the message was not satoshi but a clever anti-xter who was pretending to be satoshi.

Also, if you do not like XT, then you should working on supporting consensus for increasing the block size on Core. I am all for increasing the block size on core and throwing XT in the garbage. But until there is a better alternative, I support XT as the best current solution. You anti-XTers who do nothing but your spend your energy fighting against XT could be more productive by spending that same energy on finding an BETTER SOLUTION THAN XT, and implementing that solution. All your fighting against XT does nothing. Help us arrive at consensus to increase the block size on Core and you will do more to destroy XT than anything else could I guarantee you that.

[knight22]

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!

The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.

Well they have a vote but definitely not a strong one.

[Sourgummies]

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

What major miners or core developers or wallet exchange firms are against XT? I haven't heard a peep out of anyone!

The only people that are potentially against XT are users...and users don't get a vote in this system.

No users no growth.

[coinableS]

Why is there not consensus to do so NOW? I think the best way to avoid XT is to achieve increased blocks with Core. I would love it if this happens. All I want is increased blocks. XT is just giving us a time limit, which I like too, because I think it must be done before a crisis occurs because the blocks are too small.

Yes bigger blocks sound like an important issue, we should discuss the best way and time to implement such a change.
There's no need to rush into it because some one spammed the blockchain with their "stress test" last month.

Let's increase the block size on Core! Who's with me? No one? Ok then I'm all in with XT!

This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.

[BitProdigy]

This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.

There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.

[coinableS]

This is the "my way or the highway" mentality that many people dislike. Why not work together to agree to a consensus? You can't force people to agree with you.

There has to be a sense of urgency, and that is what XT provides. I'm all for working together to agree to a consensus, but it's been years and now we could see big problems coming up within months if we do not finally do something. If all XT did was force us to finally increase the block size on Core before an actual catastrophe occurred then I will be happy. You can't just wait until your engine locks up to finally change your oil. XT is forcing us to think about changing the oil before the engine locks up. whatever way it happens is fine, all I want is the oil to be changed before the engine locks up. If XT is the only way it is going to happen then I support XT, if it can happen on Core, then I support Core. it just needs to happen and quickly.

Guilty. You're right we need to be thinking ahead and bigger blocks are inevitable for bitcoin to succeed as an online payment mechanism for the future.
Mainly I don't like this split. It's putting bitcoiners against other bitcoiners, when we are all supposed to be on the same team.

[Kprawn]

When you push for bigger block sizes, and even force for it... I have no problem. Most people agree, we need bigger block sizes BUT when you sneak code in to compromise people's

privacy and counter Tor use, and also gear your changes to make it easier for your own APP's to work. {Lighting network} ...Well with that I have a huge problem.

Both Gavin and Mike are brilliant developers, but they sold us out to the US government, by doing these things.   If you cool with that... you betting on the wrong side.  

[slaveforanunnak1]

This is you:

MOOOOOMMMMMMMM  they won't let us take over bitcoin!!! MoooaoaAAAAAAAM