The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin

[Carlton Banks]

"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

Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?



Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.

What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.

[jonald_fyookball]

XT isn't the problem.  Blockstream is.

Let's ask the obvious questions:

Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?  
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?

More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money?  How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?

Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit?  Is that a coincidence ?  

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

[adamstgBit]

XT isn't the problem.  Blockstream is.

Let's ask the obvious questions:

Which fork wants to increase blocks so we can grow Bitcoin?  
And which fork wants to stagnate blocksize so we'll be forced
to use their sidechain solution?

More importantly, how will Blockstream the company make
money?  How will the venture capitalists recoup their $21M
investment in Blockstream?

Why is everyone working at Blockstream united in keeping
the 1mb limit?  Is that a coincidence ?  

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

the plot thickens   

[adamstgBit]

"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

Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?



Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.

What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.

I though Core didn't want bigger blocks and wanted to keep it to 1MB forever...

if core increase blocksize ( I couldn't care less how they do it ) XT can go fuck itself.

[kelsey]

"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

Remind me why Roger is still relevant in 2015?



Litecoinguy, we all want bigger blocks. No one is arguing for either smaller blocks or same size blocks. Some people claim that the Core people don't want bigger blocks, but their position is being misrepresented.

What we're arguing about is how to increase it. Not by how much (asking that question is like the old classic: "how long is a piece of string?"). That debate is over already.

I though Core didn't want bigger blocks and wanted to keep it to 1MB forever...

if core increase blocksize ( I couldn't care less how they do it ) XT can go fuck itself.

yes well pro xt want everyone to believe the fight is about blocksize 

[adamstgBit]

i'm switching camps, i am now a Anti-XTers

[blacklizard]

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!

Those Anti-XTers aren't the one hurting bitcoin. It's the ignorance of the core developers that hurt bitcoin more than anything else. How difficult can it be to prepare a hard-fork roadmap for BTC, add BIP 101, create a hard-fork branch on github to give developers a chance to contribute to this badly needed fork so we only need one for the next couple of years. From there schedule the fork and just do it.

If the core developers wouldn't be scared like little kids from doing this hard-fork we wouldn't need no BitcoinXT.

[johnyj]

I do not against raising the blocksize, but I strongly against any kind of decision that is not done through consensus-building, making it a competitive debate instead of cooperative discussion

Consensus Decision Making is what bitcoin needed

www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158988

[blacklizard]

I do not against raising the blocksize, but I strongly against any kind of decision that is not done through consensus-building, making it a competitive debate instead of cooperative discussion

I totally agree but unfortunately those times are gone. Today we live in a world (market) controlled by the so called "bitcoin elite" meeting at secret locations for their round table ala Bilderberg to decide on "the future of bitcoin" and the consensus comes from the market makers, manufacturers and the large mining pools / farms. The days where the "miners" had a say are sadly over.

[zebedee]

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!

Welcome to bitcoin politics.  You're starting to see the truth.  Give it time and full clarity will likely result.

[adamstgBit]

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!

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

[blacklizard]

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!

Welcome to bitcoin politics.  You're starting to see the truth.  Give it time and full clarity will likely result.

It's nothing new really and just like any other industry.. "money grabbing whores" pretty much sums it up. It's kinda disgusting to see how the so called elite is no different to the bankers and industrials we're apparently trying to get away from with our "alternative and decentralized solutions".

[jonald_fyookball]

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!

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

Those in control of core won't do it despite the fact that everyone wants it.  It would ruin their plans for
making lots of money with Blockstream.  The writing is finally on the wall.

[maokoto]

I do not think that the split in two in which one side has 75% and the other 25% is dangerous at all. If the 75% prevails, it is just natural as it has the numbers by its side. If the 25% side prevails, it is just because it would be awesome to prevail in such minority!.

I don't think the third case "they both will be destroyed" would happen. And, if that happens, probably other coin (litecoin?) might take its place.

What I think: Most people will remain waiting, without adopting XT... and will adopt XT progressively if they see a real problem with the blocks and a lack of solutions by Core.

I am more with core, but are also happy that XT is there as an alternative if things are not solved. It is kind of a lifeboat with the potential to become a ship if the actual ship wrecks.

[nicked]

I keep reading a lot of people saying that " if Core would raise block limit, they would say fuck you to XT ". There's the rub. They won't. The question that everyone should be asking is why?  Could it be because more than 2 or 3 of them also work for a company that is counting on lower blocksize as their business model?       I'm just sayin!

[adamstgBit]

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!

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

Those in control of core won't do it despite the fact that everyone wants it.  It would ruin their plans for
making lots of money with Blockstream.  The writing is finally on the wall.

when faced with a fork in the road, take the third path, we're going to need ANOTHER FORK!  

[knight22]

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!

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

No one and that's the point but I doubt a kick the can down the road solution from Core would be enough for most XT proponent to let XT in the dust.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

The anti XTers are biased against Mike Hearn because
Mike Hearn has said many questionable things
in the past, but at this point he is the lesser of two evils.

He is still doing this and moreover, he is doing thins without consensus.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159020.msg12211930#msg12211930

[adamstgBit]

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!

i'm with you man! small increase on Core to remedy the fast approaching problem, buying them plenty of time to implement alternative solutions.

who in their right mind will use XT if Core increases block size?

No one and that's the point but I doubt a kick the can down the road solution from Core would be enough for most XT proponent to let XT in the dust.

i will... i just want a kick the can down the road solution NOW and the blockstream / sidechains ultimate solution next year.

[blacklizard]

I keep reading a lot of people saying that " if Core would raise block limit, they would say fuck you to XT ". There's the rub. They won't. The question that everyone should be asking is why?  Could it be because more than 2 or 3 of them also work for a company that is counting on lower blocksize as their business model?       I'm just sayin!

Well it's true. If the core developers were to add BIP 101 (which they should and they know) then there is no reason to consent to BitcoinXT. Also don't forget that moving to BitcoinXT would put BTC in control of a new group of people since they would have control over the repository, pull requests and so on. Do you want that? I don't. If we go down that route we might as well throw BTC in the bin and pick an altcoin to support instead of BTC. There is no need for "new", "old" works fine the core just needs updating to support BTC's growth which is just part of BTC's evolution.

Bottom line is that the core developers need to stop twisting their finger in their nostrils and just freaking do some work and do it right.