The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over.

Via the Peter Principle, Gavin reached his level of incompetence when he stopped writing code and started mingling with TPTB in smoke filled back rooms at the CIA, Pentagon, A16's SandHillRoad HQ, etc.

He's old and busted.  Blockstream is the new hotness.  Upward and outward!

[Klestin]

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

XT is open source.  How could they possibly have "complete control of Bitcoin"?  Fork the code, do what you like.  Get consensus and your fork is the new client. 

If they get consensus, the CONSENSUS has the control.  As it always does.

[meono]

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

XT is open source.  How could they possibly have "complete control of Bitcoin"?  Fork the code, do what you like.  Get consensus and your fork is the new client. 

If they get consensus, the CONSENSUS has the control.  As it always does.

You dont need consensus for forking a wallet client. So really this " control of the bitcoin network" is just a bullshit someone spit out because they're lack of rational argument.

[knight22]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

Not at all. Mike and Gavin just showed how trivial it is to just fork the code and throw it in the wild if one does not agree with the actual implementation. If Mike and Gavin did it, than anybody can even if XT succeeds.

[meono]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

Not at all. Mike and Gavin just showed how trivial it is to just fork the code and throw it in the wild if one does not agree with the actual implementation. If Mike and Gavin did it, than anybody can even if XT succeeds.

Yup .. Im gonna fork XT with no block size limit at all, instead it will penalize miner centralization. Let economic incentic do the governing. Satoshi never wanted to have block size limit. It was a quick fix to spam attacks. However spam attack isnt a problem anymore.

[jwinterm]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

It's already done:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

[Peter R]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

It's already done:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

[tvbcof]

Yup .. Im gonna fork XT with no block size limit at all, instead it will penalize miner centralization. Let economic incentic do the governing. Satoshi never wanted to have block size limit. It was a quick fix to spam attacks. However spam attack isnt a problem anymore.

Pffft!  Yes, of course you are.  I think I hear you mom calling out that dinner is ready.  You can hack it out when you get back to your bedroom.

[jwinterm]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

[jonald_fyookball]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

[Peter R]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

[VeritasSapere]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option.

[jonald_fyookball]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option.

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.

[VeritasSapere]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option.

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.

It would be better if it was a developer or ideally a group of developers, since it would gather more support that way. But you are right anyone can just copy it and rename it. lol

[Carlton Banks]

ROFLMAO @ bitcoin101

you guys clearly have not read 1984, and so the irony is so much more delicious. I thoroughly approve of the new nickname for XT, room 101 is the name for a fictional torture chamber. Nice.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministries_of_Nineteen_Eighty-Four

You should all go to bitcoin101 and stay there.

[Peter R]

ROFLMAO @ bitcoin101

you guys clearly have not read 1984, and so the irony is so much more delicious. I entirely approve of the new nickname for XT

Imagine a future where we have all sorts of competing implementations with purposely-deceptive names:

1. "Bitcoin Core"  [implies that it's the core of Bitcoin]

2. "Standard Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's that standard version]

3. "Real Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's the "real" bitcoin]

4. "Super Fun Time Bitcoin" [just for the lolz]

[Zarathustra]

...

The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label.  We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well.  People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team.  I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.

Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something...

Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it.

Who will do this?

Haha, I love it! Bitcoin₁₀₁.

Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101.

I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option.

It doesn't need to be a developer.  Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it.  We're just copying it and renaming it.

Here it's named Satoshi + BIP101:0.11.0/

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Satoshi%20+%20BIP101:0.11.0/

[Carlton Banks]

ROFLMAO @ bitcoin101

you guys clearly have not read 1984, and so the irony is so much more delicious. I entirely approve of the new nickname for XT

Imagine a future where we have all sorts of competing implementations with purposely-deceptive names:

Imagining deliberately deceptive things is your forte Peter, I would expect nothing less.

Now respect what I told you, do not solicit my discussion again

[Peter R]

ROFLMAO @ bitcoin101

you guys clearly have not read 1984, and so the irony is so much more delicious. I entirely approve of the new nickname for XT

Imagine a future where we have all sorts of competing implementations with purposely-deceptive names:

1. "Bitcoin Core"  [implies that it's the core of Bitcoin]

2. "Standard Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's that standard version]

3. "Real Bitcoin"  [to imply that it's the "real" bitcoin]

4. "Super Fun Time Bitcoin" [just for the lolz]

Imagining deliberately deceptive things is your forte Peter, I would expect nothing less.

Now respect what I told you, do not solicit my discussion again

This is a public forum.  I was using your comment about nicknames as a launching point for the idea that we could see multiple versions of Bitcoin with names chosen to make them sound "official."

Feel free to put me on ignore if you prefer. 

[Carlton Banks]

Unless you can provide honest arguments (which of course cannot win a debate that respects reality as well as the wishes of it's participants), then you're simply burning the reputation of your account. But then again Peter, you have been pretty quiet since I called you out first of all.

Stop talking to me you appalling specimen