who care ? with bitcoin XT

[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.

[1714730131]

1714730131

[1714730131]

1714730131

[1714730131]

1714730131

[1714730131]

1714730131

[1714730131]

1714730131

[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.