This Is How To Kill XT…

[Carlton Banks]

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.

[Velkro]

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!

Agree, increase it because people want it. We must increase it.

[Carlton Banks]

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!

Agree, increase it because people want it. We must increase it.

Yep. It's obvious an increase is needed.

When it becomes too large, that will be obvious too. Perhaps it's a good idea to pick a solution that allows for that possibility also?

[basil00]

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

Yep.  This and this are both consensus critical and have nothing to do with BIP101 or big blocks, and yet are included in the "big-blocks-only" XT branch for some reason.  I am not aware of any proper review of these patches (there is no official BIP AFAIK).

In other words, "big-blocks-only" XT is not "big blocks only".  Instead it's BIP101+"resource-counting-hardfork" which both trigger using the same 75% voting method.

Instead, see https://github.com/mikehearn/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks here for a "pure" BIP101 implementation (does not include the above mentioned patches).  However, this version will be consensus-incompatible with the "big-blocks-only" XT branch because it includes BIP101 but not the "resource-counting-hardfork".  It could be a mess if one a sizable number of miners/nodes upgrade to one but not the other.

[ajareselde]

I agree with op, core dev's need to pull their sh*t togeather. If they did their job in the first place, we wouldn't have xt debate at all.
Even if this xt is falling apart, there will be something similar within few months, no doubt about it.

[n2004al]

If there only the money invested that make disagreement about the XT this is not serious. For bitcoin are invested much much more millions. If for the best of the coin the important developers and people behind it think only for this things poor us and poor bitcoin technology. They must be substituted and replaced with open mind people which think about the future of this wonderful technology and not about the money.

[Carlton Banks]

If for the best of the coin the important developers and people behind it think only for this things poor us and poor bitcoin technology. They must be substituted and replaced with open mind people which think about the future of this wonderful technology and not about the money.

The technology is money.

Remind me why it is we should separate the technology from it's purpose? Be careful when opening your mind, your brain might fall out....

[Mickeyb]

To be honest, I don't even know what to think anymore about all of this debate. I have heard so many opinions, so many theories, so many FUD, and so many disinformations that my head spins at the moment and whenever I go to read through another thread.

It might be possible, that the best way to survive all this is to go and hide into the cave and just wait that everything ends. I mean, this is really getting ridiculous!

[keepdoing]

Good topic.  At the end of the day - Core Supporters resort to BS excuses for why they aren't addressing an obvious compromise solution that would most likely kill XT.  You'd get bigger block size, and Gavin/Mike would be left with no arguments except for focusing solely on the IP Tracking / Blacklist aspects of XT.  Since that would be a weak political position - XT would most likely never reach 75%.  Continuing to do nothing pretty much guarantees a succesful XT Fork.

[Carlton Banks]

Core Supporters resort to BS excuses for why they aren't addressing an obvious compromise solution that would most likely kill XT.

Wrong. I'm promoting dynamic blocksizes as much as this stream of pro-XT effluent will allow, but it's not possible to work it into every reply and still appear a credible debater.

(note that many or most pro-XT'ers don't seem to understand that logic, they've been happy to completely subvert discourse in order to work their non-pertinent messages into it)

[Emerge]

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

[onemorexmr]

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

there is already a patched xt version which only uses bigger blocks.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
that are three different things.

(imho i dont think any of the changes is shady; but everybody can use whatever they want. and miners (=pools) seems to run custom code anyway.)

[hdbuck]

Lol fuck you.

This is xt agenda of increasing blocksize and it wont happen.

There is no proofs, no data, no tests, no financial incentive, and no ´mass adoption' to support immédiate blocksize increase.

There is simply no problem.

Just you ignorant fudsters.

You Mad Bro? Go altcoin.

Good riddance.

[Stargazer]

XT will die anyway. I don't believe the majority will choose them because why should they? If its developers really have some CIA connections we'd be shooting ourselves in the knee.

[jonald_fyookball]

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

what do you mean?  hard fork is necessary for any max blocksize change.

[Carlton Banks]

My only fear is that Bitcoin is torn apart by the very people who work to make it better..
I'm for core, as Hearn and Gavin seem a bit shady, and all we really need is just the block size increase.

Why a hard fork when there is only 1 problem???

what do you mean?  hard fork is necessary for any max blocksize change.

It's also necessary to any changes relating to the blocksize; including a minimum size, unlimited size, market determined sizes etc.

I'm sure jonald didn't mean to confuse the issue by implying that increasing the size to a fixed limit is the only option, isn't that right jonald?

[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.

[Alley]

Maybe if this September stress test is for real it will force the core devs to make a change and not think about their bank account size with blockstream.

[onemorexmr]

Too many FUDs in this forum about Bitcoin XT, but i'm sure increasing blocksize on core is better than use XT
Too many secret inside Bitcoin XT that we don't know

how would you increase blocksize?
which secrets do you mean?
...just read github and you know it.. very secret

[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.