This Is How To Kill XT…

[tadakaluri]

Pieter Wuille, one of Core developer thinks Andresen's 8MB block size is much too progressive. Based on research by Blockstream colleague Rusty Russell, Pieter Wuille believes average internet connection speed will not be able to keep up with Andresen’s proposal. Pieter Wuille has, therefore, proposed to increase the block size limit by 17.7 percent per year starting in 2017, which he formalized in BIP103.

But most of the Bitcoin Community want to make any changes can made to Bitcoin Core only. Forks from other than Core may made Bitcoin into an Alt Coin.

[1715165187]

1715165187

[1715165187]

1715165187

[1715165187]

1715165187

[knight22]

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

[VirosaGITS]

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Oh? Whats this then?;
configure.ac   Introduce the beginnings of anti-DoS resource scheduling.   17 days ago

[RGBKey]

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

You make a good point, but at this point I feel like there's already too many large companies making their own hardware, and not many other people are able to mine at all.

[Viscera]

OMG another bunch of Dictators telling the minority we are not important.

Bitcoin is NOT a Democrazy, Get over it losers. That's why I like it.

If 5% of Bitcoiners are able to keep Bitcoin the way it is and tell the 95% to jump off a cliff, I for one will be rejoicing that the Dictator types who keep crowing about "Consensus" have finally had there asses handed to them.

I hope they all keep banging their heads against this brick wall long enough for the minority to find a way to cut all their heads off.

They should go and crawl back their "Government" and cry... "MOOOOOOOOMMMMMM, the minority won't let us take over Bitcoin... MooooooOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!"

[smoothie]

Has any of the core developers recently addressed a possible compromise (besides Jeff) to the block size limit issue?

If so please link me to those quotes/posts of them.

[iCEBREAKER]

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size.  Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility.

GLWT.  You gonna get rekt son.   

Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow.  And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted.   

[BitProdigy]

You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size.  Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility.

GLWT.  You gonna get rekt son.   

Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow.  And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted.   

Your signature calls to "protect bitcoin until real technical consensus is formed about the block size." that is exactly what I am calling for. I am not dictating to Core what the ideal block size should be, I am just saying the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already. If you don't want XT, somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size. Get them moving. I literally do not care what the size is, just DO IT!!

Otherwise I am in support of XT. I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff.. I project a large and sudden influx of new bitcoin users arriving unexpectedly in our near future. Core that sits on there hands and does nothing to prepare is more dangerous than anything you project onto XT.

[iCEBREAKER]

the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already  

They have made moves, in the form of BIPs 100-104 and Lightning/Sidechains/Treechains.  Project Apollo was not built in a day.  We need to listen to the engineer and researcher Dilberts and Wallys, not the pointy-haired/headed bosses.  Or this might happen again.

somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size  

Core dev dudes have no power to force Bitcoin's multi-year, multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic majority to do anything.  Especially not a contentious (ie potentially disastrous) hard fork (ie catastrophic consensus failure).

I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff  

Ah yes, the contemporary classic 'Zomg, Bitcoin WILL LITERALLY DIEEE if it does not immediately conform to my preferences' conceit.  

Please, fuck off back to /r/bitcoin_unsensored, or /v/bitcoinxt, or whatever vapid social media site you prefer.

[Kprawn]

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

We can talk about it in 100 years okay? Honestly bitcoin wont survive if it can't get more than 3 tx per second lonnng before then. Its true its not an immediate need. The stress test we had recently just prove we will need it. Not now, indeed. But soonTM.

These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin.

The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that?

We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done.  

[iCEBREAKER]

These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin.

The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that?

We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done.  

Relax, the stress tests backfired, showing Bitcoin will indeed work the way it was designed to (ie under full load, with no actual congestion).

All it took was a few more sprinklings of crypto-magic in the forms of RBF, smart-wallets, less dumb pools/mines, etc.   

[Zarathustra]

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Great! Won't be easy to counter for the conspiracy fudsters, censors and alikes. What shall they whine about now?

[Carlton Banks]

the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

Yeah, those hostile actors are, um, already in charge of Bitcoin development  

[BitProdigy]

They have made moves, in the form of BIPs 100-104 and Lightning/Sidechains/Treechains.  Project Apollo was not built in a day.  We need to listen to the engineer and researcher Dilberts and Wallys, not the pointy-haired/headed bosses.  Or this might happen again.


Core dev dudes have no power to force Bitcoin's multi-year, multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic majority to do anything.  Especially not a contentious (ie potentially disastrous) hard fork (ie catastrophic consensus failure).

Ah yes, the contemporary classic 'Zomg, Bitcoin WILL LITERALLY DIEEE if it does not immediately conform to my preferences' conceit.  

XT is the default now and you have to deal with that. Just wait around and do nothing, do not support an increase in the block size on core, spend all your time and energy bashing XT, then watch when the day comes when we get 2 million new users in a week as the network panics into a 75% majority voting for XT, also known as THE ONLY REALISTIC WAY TO INCREASE THE BLOCK SIZE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE!!!

A vote for no block size increase on Core is a vote for Bitcoin XT.

Please, fuck off back to /r/bitcoin_unsensored, or /v/bitcoinxt, or whatever vapid social media site you prefer.

This forum is the vapid social media site I come from and prefer thank you.

[iCEBREAKER]

XT is the default now

Not according to https://github.com/bitcoin it isn't.

Yawn...nap time.  Wake me up when laanwj authors an XT master!   

[BitProdigy]

Not according to https://github.com/bitcoin it isn't.

Yawn...nap time.  Wake me up when laanwj authors an XT master!   

Good luck to you sir, I wish you the best with all of that. May the consensus be with you. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Not according to https://github.com/bitcoin it isn't.

Yawn...nap time.  Wake me up when laanwj authors an XT master!   

Good luck to you sir, I wish you the best with all of that. May the consensus be with you. 

Bitcoin's multi-billion dollar/multi-year consensus has always been with me.

You don't need to waste wishes pleading for status quo to exist.

I notice you don't dispute the fact there is zero propensity for lannwj to author an XT master.  Why is that?   

[BitProdigy]

I notice you don't dispute the fact there is zero propensity for lannwj to author an XT master.  Why is that?   

Because I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Amph]

the point is always want, convince the other to have their consensus on what you want, and i'm not entirely sure tat anyone want to jump on the (MB train

[iCEBREAKER]

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

I was trying to get a grab of xtnodes.com to post before nobody_cares.gif.  But, sadly, it's down.  Again.  

You know your shit is getting nuked from space when CloudFail can't protect you.