who care ? with bitcoin XT

[butbatbit]

we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die. what we need do is dont to care to bitcoin XT. 10% is all pro to bitcoin XT and we bitcoin core still 90% so what we need to worry with bitcoin XT

[1714717641]

1714717641

[1714717641]

1714717641

[1714717641]

1714717641

[Blawpaw]

I don't really understand why did they had to design a new currency. This is causing a lot of trouble in the community.

However, only one coin will win I seriously hope is isn't XT...

[Ilove-Obama]

we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die. what we need do is dont to care to bitcoin XT. 10% is all pro to bitcoin XT and we bitcoin core still 90% so what we need to worry with bitcoin XT

    
Forget about XT. because of this, price dropped

[Lauda]

we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die.
-snip-

Then why start another thread about it? Why start it in the wrong section? At least you could have done that right.
Obviously there are a handful of individuals who believe that BIP 101 and XT are the right way forward (no; unsustainable growth). Ignoring problems doesn't usually make them go away.

[eyeknock]

I don't really understand why did they had to design a new currency. This is causing a lot of trouble in the community.

However, only one coin will win I seriously hope is isn't XT...

from my point of view, what scared me is that we didnt reach a concensus, so as you sayd this is not only causing a lot of trouble in the community, we are giving a bad image to all those who still do not know the world of bitcoin.

[unamis76]

I don't really understand why did they had to design a new currency. This is causing a lot of trouble in the community.

However, only one coin will win I seriously hope is isn't XT...

It's questionable to consider XT a new currency. It's exactly the same Bitcoin, but with another set of rules. It's just a proposal for what people think that might improve the network. It uses the same blockchain, the same algo, the same everything we all know from Bitcoin. So I don't think it fits a new currency.

To consider XT a new currency, we would have to consider Bitcoin as a "new Bitcoin" each time a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) was introduced.

[dollarneed]

i just read about bitcoin xt and bitcoin core and the difference both of them, but honestly i'm just wondering, is there any acomplishment about this problem?

[Lauda]

i just read about bitcoin xt and bitcoin core and the difference both of them, but honestly i'm just wondering, is there any acomplishment about this problem?

XT pretty much solved nothing. They are trying to have things their way. The proposal was rejected by Core and thus they decide to program XT into an altcoin. BIP 101 is not sustainable, unless someone thinks that bandwidth and block propagation times can handle 50% yearly increases.
Even if we disregard all of that, there is still no consensus whatsoever. The discussion about various ideas has turned into a discussion about Core vs XT.

[zeroday]

Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.

In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.

[knight22]

Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.

In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.

Nonsense. If XT reaches 50% of hashing power nothing will happen because it requires at least 75% to fork. If That ever happens, expect the old chain to be abandoned quickly due to several factors.

 - Difficulty will stay the same but with a 75% drop in hashrate so blocks will be mined every 40 min.
 - The difficulty readjustment can take up to 6 weeks.
 - There will be huge backlog of transactions.

For these reasons the 25% left won't stay on that chain and a complete consensus will occur and bitcoin will just move forward as it always did. But that is only if the hypothetical 75% hashrate on XT is achieved.

[turvarya]

Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.

In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.

Nonsense. If XT reaches 50% of hashing power nothing will happen because it requires at least 75% to fork. If That ever happen, expect the old chain to be abandoned quickly due to several factors.

 - Difficulty will stay the same but with a 75% drop in hashrate so blocks will be mined every 40 min.
 - The difficulty readjustment can take up to 6 weeks.
 - There will be huge backlog of transactions.

For these reason the 25% left won't stay on that chain and a complete consensus will occur and bitcoin will just move forward as it always did. But that is only if the hypothetical 75% hashrate on XT is achieved.

I also tried to focus on the economical incentive on another thread to keep on the weaker chain. I didn't get an answer(like most of the times)
It seems like a lot of people think, that a successful cryptocurrency will still be mainly influenced by ideological reasons, which is absurd.

[Herbert2020]

Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.

In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.

i agree with the first part of what you said, increasing the block size is mandatory but bitcoin XT doesn't look like the solution.

and the second part is not correct IMO. if bitcoin XT is going to have more percentage of the hashing power it will eventually replace core so the price is going to just take a small hit because of some dumps that already happend and might happen too but i don't see it reaching 0 because of this

[ashour]

Then why make threads about it ? We as a bitcoin community should do a public vote and decide if we are going to fork it or not. If we are going to use bitcoin XT or not. This debate is getting pointless and toxic for the bitcoin community.

[LiteCoinGuy]

forget about XT - until the day we reach transaction costs of 0.40 USD...0,70USD...1 USD 

[Lauda]

forget about XT - until the day we reach transaction costs of 0.40 USD...0,70USD...1 USD  

This is not going to happen. Stop spreading propaganda. Hypothetically speaking, even if it does happen, this is why there are established altcoins that you can use.
Off-chain solutions will solve such problems. Besides, for sidechains and the lightning network to properly work, the block size limit has to be raised. Saying that we will be stuck at 1 MB forever is pretty much wrong.

[LiteCoinGuy]

forget about XT - until the day we reach transaction costs of 0.40 USD...0,70USD...1 USD  

This is not going to happen. Stop spreading propaganda. Hypothetically speaking, even if it does happen, this is why there are established altcoins that you can use.
Off-chain solutions will solve such problems. Besides, for sidechains and the lightning network to properly work, the block size limit has to be raised. Saying that we will be stuck at 1 MB forever is pretty much wrong.

never said this but iam still waiting for a solution. i can only see XT at the moment.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

XT is already starting to die I think. They took the graphs off from xtnodes.com to not show the downtrend im sure it's not a coincidence that the graphs disappeared when it started to fall.

[turvarya]

XT is already starting to die I think. They took the graphs off from xtnodes.com to not show the downtrend im sure it's not a coincidence that the graphs disappeared when it started to fall.

xtnodes.com just gets attacked a lot recently.
Seeing that as an indicator, that it already started to fail is absurd.

You still can look at the node-count here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/

[ArticMine]

forget about XT - until the day we reach transaction costs of 0.40 USD...0,70USD...1 USD  

This is not going to happen. Stop spreading propaganda. Hypothetically speaking, even if it does happen, this is why there are established altcoins that you can use.
Off-chain solutions will solve such problems. Besides, for sidechains and the lightning network to properly work, the block size limit has to be raised. Saying that we will be stuck at 1 MB forever is pretty much wrong.

Yes there are alt-coins one can use instead. There are even alt-coins with adaptive blocksize limits such as Monero that avoid what got Bitcoin into this mess in the first place. The point of XT and the bigger blocksize limits is to preserve what is left of the value in the Bitcoin ledger. You are correct that the Lightning Network will need much larger blocksize limits in the neighbourhood of 133 MB according to their paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf; however in order to ensure the investors get their profits the fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have to rise significantly and that can only be accomplished by keeping the blocksize artificially low.

Edit: Bitcoin XT also has a serious flaw namely the 8 GB limit. Gavin is in effect saying that "8GB blocks ought to be enough for anybody". This reminds me of the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote attributed to Bill Gates and the IBM XT computer with 640K of RAM.

[kekek]

Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.

In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.

Well for one the fork actually needs 75% of the last 1000 blocks.

Secondly I wouldn't call it a coup or an attempt to impose their rules. If you consider this potential fork as being a coup or a takeover then I suppose you think voting in new representatives is too. The opinions of the core developers don't matter here, if the majority of people want XT than they should be allowed to "impose" their rules upon the minority.

The main issue is that the core-developers and other big names are being autistic about this whole thing, instead of just letting it go.

[jwinterm]

we don't need to discuss bitcoin XT if we don't care about bitcoin XT of course bitcoin XT will die.
-snip-

Then why start another thread about it? Why start it in the wrong section? At least you could have done that right.
Obviously there are a handful of individuals who believe that BIP 101 and XT are the right way forward (no; unsustainable growth). Ignoring problems doesn't usually make them go away.

A handful of individuals, which just happens to include the CEO's of practically all of the largest Bitcoin companies:
http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

As our community grows, itis essential — now more than ever that we seek strong
consensus to ensure network reliability.We pledge to support BIP101 in our
software and systems by December 2015, and we encourage others to join us.

Stephan Pair - BitPay CEO
Peter Smith - Blockchain.info CEO
Jeremy Allaire - Circle.com CEO
Sean Neville - Circle.com President
Sam Cole - KNC Miner CEO
John McDonnell - Bitnet.io CEO
Wences Casares - Xapo.com CEO
Mike Belshe - Bitgo.com CEO

Not too mention Coinbase, which has expressed support for Gavin Andersen's proposal prior to it being formalized in BIP101.

[newb4now]

my biggest concern is the blacklisting and not the blocksize. why is there not more discussion on that?

[irfan01]

bitcoin prices now again decreased, if XT has a higher value than the old bitcoin maybe I'll care 

[turvarya]

my biggest concern is the blacklisting and not the blocksize. why is there not more discussion on that?

because it is bullshit.
Just read the whole thread, that claimed that there are blacklists ... (and not just the headline and take a look at the OP and just think "Oh, that looks like research, it must be true" without really reading it)

[Lauda]

never said this but iam still waiting for a solution. i can only see XT at the moment.

I did not imply that you said this, I was talking more about the general debate (since a lot of people mention it).

Yes there are alt-coins one can use instead. There are even alt-coins with adaptive blocksize limits such as Monero that avoid what got Bitcoin into this mess in the first place. The point of XT and the bigger blocksize limits is to preserve what is left of the value in the Bitcoin ledger. You are correct that the Lightning Network will need much larger blocksize limits in the neighbourhood of 133 MB according to their paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf; however in order to ensure the investors get their profits the fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have to rise significantly and that can only be accomplished by keeping the blocksize artificially low.

As many have demonstrated in the past, Bitcoin does not scale well on its own. I mean we could make the blocks eventually 100GB big, but that will only cause problems in addition to being inefficient. This is why a combination of everything is needed.

Edit: Bitcoin XT also has a serious flaw namely the 8 GB limit. Gavin is in effect saying that "8GB blocks ought to be enough for anybody". This reminds me of the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote attributed to Bill Gates and the IBM XT computer with 640K of RAM.

I agree.

A handful of individuals, which just happens to include the CEO's of practically all of the largest Bitcoin companies:
http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
-snip-

I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt:

• My post was made before that was made public
• Appeal to authority anyone?

Update:

I'm not appealing to authority, just placing your quote about a "handful" of individuals in the context of reality. I'm in favor of larger blocks, and I think BIP101 is the best proposal at the moment. I would prefer a solution that can scale as needed, as alluded to by ArticMine, but since that doesn't seem forthcoming, I'm all in favor of BIP101.

BIP100 is less risky and there is already about ~25% support for it. The more efficient solutions need more time to be developed and tested.

[turvarya]

never said this but iam still waiting for a solution. i can only see XT at the moment.

I did not imply that you said this, I was talking more about the general debate (since a lot of people mention it).

Yes there are alt-coins one can use instead. There are even alt-coins with adaptive blocksize limits such as Monero that avoid what got Bitcoin into this mess in the first place. The point of XT and the bigger blocksize limits is to preserve what is left of the value in the Bitcoin ledger. You are correct that the Lightning Network will need much larger blocksize limits in the neighbourhood of 133 MB according to their paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf; however in order to ensure the investors get their profits the fees on the Bitcoin blockchain have to rise significantly and that can only be accomplished by keeping the blocksize artificially low.

As many have demonstrated in the past, Bitcoin does not scale well on its own. I mean we could make the blocks eventually 100GB big, but that will only cause problems in addition to being inefficient. This is why a combination of everything is needed.

Edit: Bitcoin XT also has a serious flaw namely the 8 GB limit. Gavin is in effect saying that "8GB blocks ought to be enough for anybody". This reminds me of the famous "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote attributed to Bill Gates and the IBM XT computer with 640K of RAM.

I agree.

A handful of individuals, which just happens to include the CEO's of practically all of the largest Bitcoin companies:
http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
-snip-

I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt:

• My post was made before that was made public

• Appeal to authority anyone?

Do you mean the appeal to the authority of the Core Devs?
That is one of this stupid arguments, you could throw at both sides of the discussion and is there fore pretty much pointless.
(The same thing, you did with, "but there are pro-XT-trolls")
And again, I have to tell you, that your view is biased.

[jwinterm]

-snip-
I'm going to say two things as a response to the undermining attempt:

• My post was made before that was made public
• Appeal to authority anyone?

I'm not appealing to authority, just placing your quote about a "handful" of individuals in the context of reality. I'm in favor of larger blocks, and I think BIP101 is the best proposal at the moment. I would prefer a solution that can scale as needed, as alluded to by ArticMine, but since that doesn't seem forthcoming, I'm all in favor of BIP101.