This Is How To Kill XT…

[BitProdigy]

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.

[VirosaGITS]

Well, conspiracy aside. Gradually increasing the block size limit on demand/need of bitcoin core would certainly keep the sheep mass from adopting XT without understanding that it comes with code commits not related to the block size limit.

[jonald_fyookball]

OP is 100% right.  We just need someone to create a bigger block fork of core ...cough cough Garzik cough cough.  and there you go.

[Sourgummies]

Another XT thread. Why keep this up?
The more a few people push this the more its going to smell.
Block size is no reason to support XT. The more a salesman pushes the more reason to walk away.

[GPUmonitor]

Increase the BlockSize on Core.
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.

There is no difference for the XT or core being increased blocksize! The debate is to focu on the increase of blocksize.

XT has gained the consensus from the majority! What is the point of finding counter arguments to be against the public?

[BitProdigy]

There is no difference for the XT or core being increased blocksize! The debate is to focu on the increase of blocksize.

XT has gained the consensus from the majority! What is the point of finding counter arguments to be against the public?

XT has not gained consensus from the majority, Xt has maybe 14%.

XT is not just a block size increase but is also an implementation of other features, this is why I would prefer a block size increase on Core. I want the block size increase, I do not want Hearn's added features, and I want consensus.

I believe we have probably 90% consensus for a block size increase on Core, the problem is that much of the opposition 10% is the Core developers themselves. (I hear they think BlockStream will do well...)

[VirosaGITS]

Increase the BlockSize on Core.
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.

There is no difference for the XT or core being increased blocksize! The debate is to focu on the increase of blocksize.

XT has gained the consensus from the majority! What is the point of finding counter arguments to be against the public?

What consensus? You mean the 400 nodes running less than 1% of the total hashrate? XT is a sham, people don't actually support it

[jonald_fyookball]

Another XT thread. Why keep this up?

-snip-
Block size is no reason to support XT.

OP doesn't support XT.  I guess you didn't read it carefully.
that's why more discussion is good.

[ralle14]

maybe op really hates on xt lol
they increase block size for the future
want to see where this is going

[VirosaGITS]

maybe op really hates on xt lol
they increase block size for the future
want to see where this is going

If XT didnt include other unrelated code and simply implemented the block size, i wouldn't really have as much problem with it as i have now.
Care to read this up? https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

[RGBKey]

We don't need or want XT, but we need the block size increase. Adopt BIP 101, but not XT.

[Sourgummies]

Another XT thread. Why keep this up?

-snip-
Block size is no reason to support XT.

OP doesn't support XT.  I guess you didn't read it carefully.
that's why more discussion is good.

Read his other threads and come back and tell me that.

[VirosaGITS]

Another XT thread. Why keep this up?

-snip-
Block size is no reason to support XT.

OP doesn't support XT.  I guess you didn't read it carefully.
that's why more discussion is good.

Read his other threads and come back and tell me that.

Well i went over it and it seem he's bashing anti-XT FUDer/sheep's way of being against XT without any logical evidence. That doesn't make him Pro-XT. But i can't say i went through pages of the thing. ^_^"

[Sourgummies]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158066.msg12215618#msg12215618

Wanted to be on this list if I recall correctly.On my cell, otherwise I would have linked properly.

[balu2]

If you guys have problems with bitcoin you should go for an altcoin ... wait, you do that already.
No, seriously. Instead of bitching create a new genesisblock and fork off. Could be done immediately. There are even coins launched with bigger blocks already. Go buy them.

[Liquid71]

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.

The part I put in bold is absolutely asinine. How do you have sidechains if Bitcoin fails 

It's not a conspiracy, didn't core devs propose BIP 101 as a temporary solution? 

[Delek]

I support this and NOT XT.

[Sourgummies]

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.

[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.

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.

[BitProdigy]

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.

All we need is as Andreas Antonopoulos said, "one Bitcoin documentary to run on national television in China" to get a huge spike in new users. Think about what would happen if another country like Greece or Cyprus has banks shutting down again. Think about if the us dollar collapses.

Any event like this requires larger block sizes than we currently have unless you want to see a backlog of transactions, transactions that aren't making into the block chain, 8+ hour transactions times, huge fees, etc. If we do not prepare now for such an event, we are doing HARM to Bitcoin. Therefore, your strong disagreement with a block size increase is a direct threat against bitcoin's success.