The tide is turning: Which one is the alt coin now?

[Zarathustra]

[–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 84 Punkte 10 Stunden zuvor

Considering this represents the economic majority (I think?), I think /u/theymos may now need to reconsider treatment of XT as an altcoin. :/


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cued13h
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9qdj/25_of_hashing_power_is_now_publicly_backing_bip100/cuerd29


I'm not saying that the battle is won
But on Saturday night all those kids in the sun
Wrested technology's sword from the hand of the
War Lords
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9mEc-PEDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFWCAYPWFbs

[1715658060]

1715658060

[1715658060]

1715658060

[1715658060]

1715658060

[1715658060]

1715658060

[Zarathustra]

BIP100 back in the game?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9qdj/25_of_hashing_power_is_now_publicly_backing_bip100/

[The00Dustin]

There is no altcoin until there are two supported and surviving chains, which is economically unfeasible.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

[Carlton Banks]

There is no altcoin until there are two supported and surviving chains, which is economically unfeasible.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

It's true.

Zara, you won't get your altcoin unless people (users & miners alike) actually want it, so until then, stop slandering XT   It's just an alternative client, like you guys say.

alt-client, anyone?

[Lauda]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  
Update:
turvarya: this is not a appeal to authority. I never stated that because of their positions they are probably correct (in anything that they say). I'm just not expecting normal people like theymos and luke to spread FUD (considering the behavioral patterns of members that actually do this). Stop twisting the debate back into attacks and nonsense.
Update 2: No, you're not going to drag me into this again.

[tadakaluri]

Bitcoin Core is always the Original. Any modifications need to be done to Bitcoin Core only.  Yes, Bitcoin XT is just like other Altcoin, when it comes with a fork.

[Zarathustra]

There is no altcoin until there are two supported and surviving chains, which is economically unfeasible.  Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yes, if only the mods and some trolls here would understand it!

[Zarathustra]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important. The core devs (small blockers; blockstreamers) are forced to act now (vulgo: to raise the limit), if they want to stay in the game.

[cryptodevil]

I'm not saying that the battle is won
But on Saturday night all those kids in the sun
Wrested technology's sword from the hand of the
War Lords
Oh, oh, oh, the tide is turning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S9mEc-PEDs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFWCAYPWFbs

Nice use of Radio KAOS citation!

[turvarya]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.   

...

• Appeal to authority anyone?

...

[ashour]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

[ashour]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

[ashour]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.

[turvarya]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.

Funny, that someone who spreads the blacklisting lie, which can be proven very easily, now demands valid proof for something that is not that easily proven.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?

[jonald_fyookball]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.

They don't just work for them, they are among the founders.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.

[Possum577]

XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.

Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!

[Sourgummies]

Its no wonder people are confused,even some of the fudsters are posting opposing views to themselves!

We need a Fud community watch and start lighting people up in trust on either side that spread misinformation.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.

Funny, that someone who spreads the blacklisting lie, which can be proven very easily, now demands valid proof for something that is not that easily proven.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?

I did not spread a lie, at least, no knowingly. I and DooMad already ended a peaceful conversation yesterday. There was no lie!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12228109#msg12228109

They don't just work for them, they are among the founders.
Obviously they will do what's in the best interest of their business.
I'm sure they think their plan is good for both Bitcoin and their
business, but not everyone agrees, to say the least.

Agreed.

Just to say again, sidechain needs bigger blocks for its existence.

[Muhammed Zakir]

XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.

Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!

XT is alt when it hardforks as it does not has consensus and XT topics are allowed in this forum but topics discussing only about XT are moved into Altcoin board.

[turvarya]

The people will decide if bitcoin core or bitcoin XT will be the alt coin. But in my opinion bitcoin XT will be the future of bitcoin, bigger blocks allow innovation within the bitcoin space.

Bigger blocks with questionable codes? Bitcoin Core will soon support >1 MB maximum block size. A good solution is not yet found but at least, it will be increased temporarily.

Edit: I prefer BIP 100. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

Most people support bigger blocks, and the major one who doesn't is BlockStream which controls 3 of the 5 bitcoin core developers.

Blockstream does not control them, they are just working in Blockstream.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161611.msg12239944#msg12239944

BlockStream is controlling them, here various sources that confirm it https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?

They might not "control" them in the sense of blackmailing them but they  control them financially.

These are speculations, not valid proofs. I am asking for valid proofs.

Funny, that someone who spreads the blacklisting lie, which can be proven very easily, now demands valid proof for something that is not that easily proven.
But maybe, that is just because you are another hypocrite?

I did not spread a lie, at least, no knowingly. I and DooMad already ended a peaceful conversation yesterday. There was no lie!

Nice to see, that you came to reason, still, next time check your facts. The whole blacklisting thing was torn apart shortly before it started and there are still people, who believe it. It is ridiculous how many people spend their time, trying to get the facts right, just because some individual started a stupid thread and copied some code, he doesn't understand.

XT is not an alt coin...it's just a new system. I don't know why Theymos or anyone else considers this an alt coin. It sounds like a passive aggressive attempt to minimize conversation about XT on the main Bitcoin forum but the bitcoin that uses core will be the same bitcoin that uses XT. From the perspective of the coin or the currency, it's the same.

Also Sprach Zarathustra, great name, really great name!

XT is alt when it hardforks as it does not has consensus and XT topics are allowed in this forum but topics discussing only about XT are moved into Altcoin board.

Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs. Maybe someone who has been in the space longer than me, could show us, if Satoshi ever spoke about another definition of consensus than POW.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.

Nope.

Maybe someone who has been in the space longer than me, could show us, if Satoshi ever spoke about another definition of consensus than POW.

Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person".

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

[Sourgummies]

The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.

[dothebeats]

-snip
Although, we don't know whether this is real Satoshi or not, this is an interesting post. Maybe, "Satoshi Nakamoto" is an "idea" rather than a "person".
-snip-

This is quite interesting. If the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" is just an idea, then who really created bitcoin in the first place? To have written such a code like this, I'm sure the person is well-educated in terms of programming, cryptography, politics, economy and society. I mean, bitcoin's concept is perfectly created.

The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.

Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.

[Muhammed Zakir]

The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.

-snip-
Agreed. The 'Satoshi' in this instance couldn't even provide a PGP key to verify that it is indeed him.

I guess Satoshi never signed using PGP key. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/32829545/

3. While the email is not signed, and there are a number of PGP keys listed
on key servers for him (to vary addresses), he didnt sign any emails with
any PGP keys.

[brg444]

The problem with that post by Satoshi is it can not be verified. So for that reason I consider it to be outside the debate. Not a XT fan but I think its not helping things to use it in the discussion.

That's the whole point.

Trust ideas, not men.

[unamis76]

This is not the "majority"... The majority is seen by the number of blocks mined supporting certain BIP. As for reconsideration if XT is an altcoin or not... I also agree it should be reconsidered.

[nutildah]

XT is the altcoin.

Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?

Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.

Gavin and Mike are obviously now more driven by profit than the desire to see bitcoin succeed. If they wanted bitcoin to succeed, they would have kept negotiations going with BITCOIN instead of breaking off the pack to produce just another altcoin.

You think merchants, vendors and anybody else who actually uses bitcoin as a currency (which is what gives it value) want to change their infrastructure to make it BitcoinXT compatible? I assure you, they do not. They already went through pains to integrate DOGE, BLK and DASH into their systems, now they have to integrate XT, too? Its too much and the scene is obviously becoming unglued.

Gavin is just unnecessarily introducing confusion and chaos into an already very chaotic and uncertain industry. When you see that he is backed by a dozen or so CEOs who think BitcoinXT = greater profitability for their own pockets, the reasoning becomes apparent: Gavin is only in it for the money.

BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.

[Klestin]

XT is the altcoin.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?

Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
[SNIP]
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.

You seem quite confused.  XT is a client, not a coin.  All transactions are compatible with Core and XT.  We are a long way away from a fork due to block size cap change, and IF and when that occurs, Core and XT will very likely be on the same page in regards to the change.

The only change in XT that is related to the fork is the block size cap increase - an issue that seems to be fairly well resolved now.  The increase is going to happen, whether it takes the form of BIP 100 or BIP 101 (or another form).

The other changes in XT have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential fork.  Once again, XT is a client, not a coin.

There are several proposals to increase the block size cap. The choice of XT vs Core is being confused with the choice of BIP 100 vs BIP 101 vs other options.  Don't be confused.

[Carlton Banks]

alt client 

[Habeler876]

imho, if the community continues to behave like this, separating and arguing which one is alt and which is not, they are both on the way to become sh*tcoins that noone wants.
Also, pushing the notion of alt client has no logic in it; if it's alt client, what is its coin other than alt coin?! Makes no sence to me..

[nutildah]

XT is the altcoin.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?

Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
[SNIP]
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.

You seem quite confused.  XT is a client, not a coin.  All transactions are compatible with Core and XT.  We are a long way away from a fork due to block size cap change, and IF and when that occurs, Core and XT will very likely be on the same page in regards to the change.

The only change in XT that is related to the fork is the block size cap increase - an issue that seems to be fairly well resolved now.  The increase is going to happen, whether it takes the form of BIP 100 or BIP 101 (or another form).

The other changes in XT have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential fork.  Once again, XT is a client, not a coin.

There are several proposals to increase the block size cap. The choice of XT vs Core is being confused with the choice of BIP 100 vs BIP 101 vs other options.  Don't be confused.

Um, you just made things way more confusing, thanks! Why the new name, then? What's with OP's post and title then? He and everybody else (except you, obviously) who commented on it must be _completely_ confused.

OK I get it, so XT won't be an altcoin until the fork happens. OK fair enough. And when that happens, there will still be BTC and a bunch of altcoins. Nice political manuvering though, A for effort.

[nutildah]

imho, if the community continues to behave like this, separating and arguing which one is alt and which is not, they are both on the way to become sh*tcoins that noone wants.
Also, pushing the notion of alt client has no logic in it; if it's alt client, what is its coin other than alt coin?! Makes no sence to me..

IMHO Bitcoin doesn't need to prove anything. It has proven itself; it will not become a "shitcoin that no one wants" any time in the near future.

We just had some pretty notable breakthroughs in terms of cryptocurrency adaptations, and now Mike & Gavin want to tear up the script and start over on Page 1. They are shooting all of us in the foot. The worst part is that they are using the bitcoin name. Most other alts were courteous enough to come up with their own name. Its obvious Mike & Gavin are just trying to ride on bitcoin's coat tails, which is sad, because it demonstrates their greed has no bounds.

Meanwhile they are fragmenting the market and community, and all they are really creating is a cheap buy-in price for BTC, I'm pretty certain time will tell. So I am not worried about BTC's future, just annoyed at the simplicity of human psychology. Even our "heroes" are bound to its limits.

[ArticMine]

If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.

[Carlton Banks]

 

[nutildah]

If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.

Its not going to continue. Price of BTC is already back up to $222. I highly doubt - though I am no financial advisor - that it will break below $200. Too many people buying in at $200 up to $225.

If both Core and XT became altcoins, what would be the main coin? LTC?

[jonald_fyookball]

XT is the altcoin.
Sorry, what is the market cap of XT again?

Why don't you get back to me after it reaches $1 billion, then we can talk seriously.
[SNIP]
BitcoinXT will fail. If it succeeds, I will stop posting here. Right now it has no track record and no value, so it has a long, long way to go to prove itself.

You seem quite confused.  XT is a client, not a coin.  All transactions are compatible with Core and XT.  We are a long way away from a fork due to block size cap change, and IF and when that occurs, Core and XT will very likely be on the same page in regards to the change.

The only change in XT that is related to the fork is the block size cap increase - an issue that seems to be fairly well resolved now.  The increase is going to happen, whether it takes the form of BIP 100 or BIP 101 (or another form).

The other changes in XT have nothing whatsoever to do with the potential fork.  Once again, XT is a client, not a coin.

There are several proposals to increase the block size cap. The choice of XT vs Core is being confused with the choice of BIP 100 vs BIP 101 vs other options.  Don't be confused.

Um, you just made things way more confusing, thanks! Why the new name, then? What's with OP's post and title then? He and everybody else (except you, obviously) who commented on it must be _completely_ confused.

OK I get it, so XT won't be an altcoin until the fork happens. OK fair enough. And when that happens, there will still be BTC and a bunch of altcoins. Nice political manuvering though, A for effort.

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

[ArticMine]

If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.

Its not going to continue. Price of BTC is already back up to $222. I highly doubt - though I am no financial advisor - that it will break below $200. Too many people buying in at $200 up to $225.

If both Core and XT became altcoins, what would be the main coin? LTC?

If the blocksize debate is resolved and Bitcoin is allowed to scale then confidence will be restored and Bitcoin will likely exceed its previous all time high and continue as the dominant coin. The longer this fight continues the more confidence is eroded and the probalilty of both "Core" and "XT" becoming alt-coins increases. Money is after all fundamentally about confidence.

As for which alt would replace Bitcoin in such a scenario. There are way more opinions on the subject than there are alt-coins. My take is that if the problem in Bitcoin is caused by a fixed blocksize limit baked into the protocol, it would make sense to look at those alt-coins that do not have this problem.

[-Lux-]

shadowcash will be the new bitcoin

[madjules007]

shadowcash will be the new bitcoin

Oh? I thought it was going to be one of the other dozens of cryptos that are supposedly slated to overtake BTC.

Anyway, to the XT/alt question..... I fully support BIP 100 and would love to see a real alternative to XT that addresses the block size issue at the forefront. I prefer a conservative approach that takes into account real transaction volume.....not the transaction volume that XT proponents want to see in the future (whether or not reality measures up).

[kano]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important. The core devs (small blockers; blockstreamers) are forced to act now (vulgo: to raise the limit), if they want to stay in the game.

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

XT is quite specifically counter to BIP100 since the block rules of XT's BIP101 will not allow BIP100.

BIP100 handles block size by sig voting.

BIP101 tells you what the block size must be, based on a random decision using insufficient data.

[ArticMine]

shadowcash will be the new bitcoin

Oh? I thought it was going to be one of the other dozens of cryptos that are supposedly slated to overtake BTC.

Anyway, to the XT/alt question..... I fully support BIP 100 and would love to see a real alternative to XT that addresses the block size issue at the forefront. I prefer a conservative approach that takes into account real transaction volume.....not the transaction volume that XT proponents want to see in the future (whether or not reality measures up).

BIP 100, http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf, has merit in that it does not propose a 8GB hard limit as XT, but still why two hard forks one at 1 MB and one at 32 MB? The key here is to take care of the long term, and the short term will take care of it self.

[jeffthebaker]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important. The core devs (small blockers; blockstreamers) are forced to act now (vulgo: to raise the limit), if they want to stay in the game.

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

XT is quite specifically counter to BIP100 since the block rules of XT's BIP101 will not allow BIP100.

BIP100 handles block size by sig voting.

BIP101 tells you what the block size must be, based on a random decision using insufficient data.

BIP100 allows for blocksize scaling. It is not as extreme than XT, and also still limited, but an increase nonetheless. Those who support XT want larger blocksizes, and that is also what BIP100 changes. For many, I assume it is a compromise, and if people think XT won't gain the support it needs then BIP100 is a good vote to choose.

[kano]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important. The core devs (small blockers; blockstreamers) are forced to act now (vulgo: to raise the limit), if they want to stay in the game.

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

XT is quite specifically counter to BIP100 since the block rules of XT's BIP101 will not allow BIP100.

BIP100 handles block size by sig voting.

BIP101 tells you what the block size must be, based on a random decision using insufficient data.

BIP100 allows for blocksize scaling. It is not as extreme than XT, and also still limited, but an increase nonetheless. Those who support XT want larger blocksizes, and that is also what BIP100 changes. For many, I assume it is a compromise, and if people think XT won't gain the support it needs then BIP100 is a good vote to choose.

I'd love to see where you got that "many" information from ...

I don't see it in any of my discussion logs starting the addition of /BIP100/ to the sig.

The BIP100 choice is a choice to go against XT+BIP101 but allow future block size increases.
BIP100 is not a vote for the XT alt-coin trying to hijack bitcoin through misinformation.

XT is not just a vote for bigger blocks, it is a vote for more that clearly a lot of people have no idea about.

[nutildah]

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

I normally don't follow dev politics, thanks for the wrap up.

I for one am all for keeping blocks limited at 1 mb. If this is simply impractical, raise to 2 mb. If you raise much more, the blockchain will be more unwieldy than it already is, and you are limiting the usability of bitcoin to people with expensive PCs. You are cutting out a global audience by raising the technological requirements one must have to operate a client.

I've said it before, feel free to disagree: the whole point behind bitcoin was to disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic Forces That be, and put power back in the hands of the average person. The average person, as it turns out, is quite poor, even moreso than just 7 years ago. I've watched first-hand the movement away from this idealism and the focus shift to greed. Now BTC is regarded as "a toy of the 1%."

While transaction fees may decrease with XT (I personally doubt it), having the bandwidth, time and hard drive space to download a 100+ GB blockchain is an unachievable luxury for many. I don't care what your storage is on your computer. What do you think the average hard drive size is globally? Please, be honest and realistic in your guess.

So, what's it all about? The opportunity for some spoiled nerds to make even more money or the opportunity to change global finance for the better on a worldwide level?

[madjules007]

While transaction fees may decrease with XT (I personally doubt it), having to have the bandwidth, time and hard drive space to download a 100+ GB blockchain is an unachievable luxury for many. I don't care what your storage is on your computer. What do you think the average hard drive size is globally? Please, be honest and realistic in your guess.

I sympathize with what you're saying. I think a lot of people are taking the approach that average, casual users like you and I won't be able to run full nodes. Just like casual users without immense capital can't profitably mine when our competition is highly capitalized. I'm a bit ambivalent; this seems unsatisfactory, but is it a truth? I don't know. Many take the position that if bitcoin is to achieve increasing (and exponential) adoption, then these are simply realities that are built in.

[Klestin]

Um, you just made things way more confusing, thanks! Why the new name, then? What's with OP's post and title then? He and everybody else (except you, obviously) who commented on it must be _completely_ confused.

The problem is not that some forum members are confused. The problem is that some of those members who are confused are making posts that propagate their misconceptions, masquerading as facts.  You have joined this group and are actively making the problem worse.

If you can point to a single thing in my post that is factually incorrect, please do so.

[ArticMine]

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

I normally don't follow dev politics, thanks for the wrap up.

I for one am all for keeping blocks limited at 1 mb. If this is simply impractical, raise to 2 mb. If you raise much more, the blockchain will be more unwieldy than it already is, and you are limiting the usability of bitcoin to people with expensive PCs. You are cutting out a global audience by raising the technological requirements one must have to operate a client.

I've said it before, feel free to disagree: the whole point behind bitcoin was to disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic Forces That be, and put power back in the hands of the average person. The average person, as it turns out, is quite poor, even moreso than just 7 years ago. I've watched first-hand the movement away from this idealism and the focus shift to greed. Now BTC is regarded as "a toy of the 1%."

While transaction fees may decrease with XT (I personally doubt it), having the bandwidth, time and hard drive space to download a 100+ GB blockchain is an unachievable luxury for many. I don't care what your storage is on your computer. What do you think the average hard drive size is globally? Please, be honest and realistic in your guess.

So, what's it all about? The opportunity for some spoiled nerds to make even more money or the opportunity to change global finance for the better on a worldwide level?

The problem with your argument is that there are way to many "average people" in the world for even an infinitesimal fraction of them to be able to use Bitcoin with the kind of blocksize limits you are supporting. What exactly is the point of being able to download the blockchain if one cannot use Bitcoin? As for "hard drives" here is an example from 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg Capacity about 4 GB and only the most powerful and wealthy superpower of the day could afford it.

Edit: In any case if Bitcoin in what ever form does not do what is really needed to "disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic forces" somebody else will.

[Klestin]

BIP100 allows for blocksize scaling. It is not as extreme than XT, and also still limited, but an increase nonetheless. Those who support XT want larger blocksizes, and that is also what BIP100 changes. For many, I assume it is a compromise, and if people think XT won't gain the support it needs then BIP100 is a good vote to choose.

The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

[ArticMine]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

Yes. This is a very valid point.

[kano]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD.

 - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102?
 - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit.
 - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon.
 - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence?
 - XT just made this situation worse.

-snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
 -snip-

[mookid]

This XT and block size debate is so inaccessible for people without the knowledge, the average joe already has a hard time understanding the bitcoin protocol, and now suddenly there are technological, moral, and economic issues that those problems raises... that's why it's so easy for forum admins and reddit mods to mold peoples opinion on this subject.

[Lauda]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.  

Yes. This is a very valid point.

No, it is not a very valid point. Could you please point me out to the implementation (i.e. code) of BIP100 to verify the flaw? Right, there is none. The flaw is only on the paper that is being worked on, not to mention the intensive testing that the code is going to go through.Jeff is hopefully going to answer it here.
It is also possible that someone just misinterpreted this part:

Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

He needs to elaborate on what he means with "most common floor (minimum)".

[Tstar]

NO nothing is turning ..if you think that any coin can replace the bitcoin then NO NO NO ,it is not going to happen
and plus i dont see a big difference in price of litecoin as it is halving event today ?

[Zarathustra]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians/blockers. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.500
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iest2/watch_out_the_issue_is_not_core_vs_xt_it_is_small/

[turvarya]

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD.

 - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102?
 - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit.
 - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon.
 - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence?
 - XT just made this situation worse.

-snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
 -snip-

Could you please stop throwing this stupid fake mail around? Only a retard would think, that it came from Satoshi.

Everybody can fork Bitcoin, but it doesn't matter since nobody is forced to use their fork.
All Gavin did, was after years of debating the whole topic, finally providing code in a client, people can install.

What does finding consensus mean? It means persuading people about your idea. So, he couldn't persuade the other core devs and now a lot of people think it should have ended there? If that is true, than the definition of consensus is consensus of the core devs. You already answered that:

-snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.

Nope.

So, when consensus doesn't mean, consensus of the core devs, what should have been the next step of Gavin? I'd really love to see your scenario.

[kano]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

[Zarathustra]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

[kano]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

[Zarathustra]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

He will not only prefer it, he will support it, and so will the majority of his followers.

[kano]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

He will not only prefer it, he will support it, and so will the majority of his followers.

That has nothing to do with BIP100

Edit: BIP100 starts at 1MB - that is the BIP.
It can grow if the required consensus in the BIP is met for growth, but it starts at 1MB and will stay 1MB after the 'time' passes when XT fails to reach consensus.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.

Let me summarize for you:

Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.

Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks.  Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him.  Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.

True story.

This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD.

 - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102?
 - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit.
 - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon.
 - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence?
 - XT just made this situation worse.

-snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
 -snip-

Could you please stop throwing this stupid fake mail around? Only a retard would think, that it came from Satoshi.

Its not "who" posted it, I am telling about "what" is posted. We can not tell it is a fake nor can we tell it is legit.

Everybody can fork Bitcoin, but it doesn't matter since nobody is forced to use their fork.
All Gavin did, was after years of debating the whole topic, finally providing code in a client, people can install.

No. What they did was actually wrong! No good solutions were found and they just implement a solution they found without any actual theory.

What does finding consensus mean? It means persuading people about your idea. So, he couldn't persuade the other core devs and now a lot of people think it should have ended there? If that is true, than the definition of consensus is consensus of the core devs. You already answered that:

-snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.

Nope.

So, when consensus doesn't mean, consensus of the core devs, what should have been the next step of Gavin? I'd really love to see your scenario.

Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?

[Lauda]

That has nothing to do with BIP100

Edit: BIP100 starts at 1MB - that is the BIP.
It can grow if the required consensus in the BIP is met for growth, but it starts at 1MB and will stay 1MB after the 'time' passes when XT fails to reach consensus.

Just ignore that guy and focus on the more important stuff. There is less than 2% support for XT (or BIP 101) from what miners are concerned. It's good to see that your pool is supporting BIP100.
If BIP100 gets support from either Bitfury or China it is quite likely that others will come on board as well.

XT support in the last week 0.57% .

[Zarathustra]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

He will not only prefer it, he will support it, and so will the majority of his followers.

That has nothing to do with BIP100

Edit: BIP100 starts at 1MB - that is the BIP.
It can grow if the required consensus in the BIP is met for growth, but it starts at 1MB and will stay 1MB after the 'time' passes when XT fails to reach consensus.

Protocol changes proposed:

1. Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
2. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
3. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
4. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
5. Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
6. Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

[sergio]

Bitcoin core will always be the Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT is the alt coin.

One of the most important rules for Bitcoin is called consensus, it is critical for its survival, if consensus is raped you have the situation you have now, a huge drop in price due to lack of trust, and the lack of trust is because a coup takes place.

we have 2 possible cases:
case 1:
If bitcoin xt were to reach 75% which I doubt but it could happen, then there will be 2 chains, bitcoin core and bitcoin xt.

that 25 % will most likely keep running bitcoin core based on principle, and most likely on the long run bitcoin core will gain ground, and also do not forget the double spends, bitcoin core will be able to double spend on bitcoin xt.

Also if bitcoin xt broke the rules of consensus once, and took a dictatorial approach for pushing bitcoin xt what guarantee do you have that in the near future other rules are not compromised like the 21million limit, or make bitcoins expire, or create some sort of inflation that does not exist now, anything is possible ones rules start being broken.

The not so bad thing, is that they programmed that for at 75%, that has helped bitcoin from having a complete collapse in price.

case 2:
bitcoin xt fails, and there is only bitcoin core.
This is the best scenario, since there is only one chain, the coup fails, and consensus wins, bitcoin stops dropping in price, there are no double spends since it is only one chain.
Bitcoin XT will become another paypal, of the equivalent of a Bank, that is not good, that is the main reason bitcoin came into existence in the first place.


I am not against larger blocks, but I am against insanity, with 8 MB blocks doubling per year, to reach a limit of 8GB per block, that will certainly without a doubt centralize bitcoin xt, only huge data centers will afford to run a bitcoin node, all independent miners will be out of business, bitcoin xt is doom to fail in the long run due to centralization.

Basic rules for bitcoin to succeed:
consensus is a must, under no circumstances is a coup to be acceptable.
decentralization is a must, under no circumstances is centralization acceptable.
anyone should be free (freedom) to pay anyone without restrictions.
 

if we all want bitcoin to succeed we must stand together for bitcoin core.

only 2 developers are pushing for bitcoin xt, all the rest are supporting bitcoin core, that alone should tell you something.

do not get me wrong many of the bitcoin core developers do support large blocks, but are studying the best method since it is critical that a change like that be done under consensus without destroying the principals behind bitcoin.

other things the bitcoin xt does are impose censorship, there is a list of banned ips, and a list of tor exist nodes, something that does not exist on bitcoin core.
with bitcoin xt if you use tor you become a second class citizen, that should not be acceptable by anyone.

Lets all unite for bitcoin core, do not get fooled by the bitcoin xt propaganda, bitcoin core is not against large blocks, bitcoin core stands for the principals that Satoshi stands for.

Support the revolucion support bitcoin core, not the anti revolution behind bitcoin xt.

Many might argue the price is not important, I will disagree, bitcoin represents store of value, and the value can go down or up due to market reasons, but  pushing a fork and raping consensus are not market reasons, it is sabotage, for all this reasons and the onces about lets all stay behind the core and keep a single chain, otherwise we will end up with 2 chains and there will be double spends.

most of the original bitcoiners the ones the value the financial freedom that bitcoin provide will most likely stay with bitcoin core even if bitcoin xt takes over due to principals, that split will cause a tremendous damage to bitcoin. Money is about trust, and once trust is broken it all goes downhill.

I can assure everyone something Bitcoin core will not go away, so if you guys want a single chain support the original bitcoin, the revolutionary bitcoin, not the alt coin, not the anti revolutionary bitoin xt.

there is nothing wrong if bitcoin xt started its own block chain independently like other alt coins, instead of trying to sabotage the bitcoin core block chain.

  

[kano]

No, BIP100 is directly against both BIP101 and XT.

No, it is primarily against the small blockians. The 1MBers will be forked away by BIP100 and/or BIP101.
JStolfi explained it very well:

No, because BIP100 starts at 1MB and can stay at 1MB.
BIP101 starts higher so BIP100 would not accept BIP101 blocks.

Garzik himself said he will prefer BIP101 against the 1MB 'solution' of the small blockers.

I said I'd prefer pepsimax to coffee.
So what?

He will not only prefer it, he will support it, and so will the majority of his followers.

That has nothing to do with BIP100

Edit: BIP100 starts at 1MB - that is the BIP.
It can grow if the required consensus in the BIP is met for growth, but it starts at 1MB and will stay 1MB after the 'time' passes when XT fails to reach consensus.

Protocol changes proposed:

1. Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
2. Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
3. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
4. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
5. Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
6. Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

Well I'm reading the BIP itself and it doesn't say that, unless you have a verified update?
jgarzik stated on his twitter account ...
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800
... that the draft BIP100 v0.8.1 in June, was:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

BIP100 says:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

Which isn't what you posted.

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

[turvarya]

...

Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?

The whole thing started long before Gavin joined XT. I don't really want to go into the whole history of this debate, since it started before I even joined Bitcoin.
But I think, we can easily agree on, that there was no alternative plan to raise the limit in 2016.

But that wasn't even my question:
My question was: If consensus doesn't mean consensus of the core devs, what should be the action, if core devs don't listen to you? You can look at it as a theoretical question, so we don't waste time on trying to recap what happened before.

[phys-]

we have 2 possible cases:

case 1:
If bitcoin xt were to reach 75% which I doubt but it could happen, then there will be 2 chains, bitcoin core and bitcoin xt.

case 2:
bitcoin xt fails, and there is only bitcoin core.

When will either of these cases happen?
Is there a timeline?

[jonald_fyookball]

misinformation

1. XT is an alt client, not an alt coin.
2. There isn't a single person who would buy a separate coin called XT.
3. No the core developers do not generally support bigger blocks.  it's been discussed
for three years already. 

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  
Update:
turvarya: this is not a appeal to authority. I never stated that because of their positions they are probably correct (in anything that they say). I'm just not expecting normal people like theymos and luke to spread FUD (considering the behavioral patterns of members that actually do this). Stop twisting the debate back into attacks and nonsense.

This. It seems a lot of noobs are confusing BIP101 for XT. XT is dead at this point, no one wants to support an altcoin, and in any case, "no increase" is still the most voted option as seen on the circular graphic that encompasses all mining pools hashing power (cant find the pic)

[jonald_fyookball]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  
Update:
turvarya: this is not a appeal to authority. I never stated that because of their positions they are probably correct (in anything that they say). I'm just not expecting normal people like theymos and luke to spread FUD (considering the behavioral patterns of members that actually do this). Stop twisting the debate back into attacks and nonsense.

This. It seems a lot of noobs are confusing BIP101 for XT. XT is dead at this point, no one wants to support an altcoin, and in any case, "no increase" is still the most voted option as seen on the circular graphic that encompasses all mining pools hashing power (cant find the pic)

True.  However, "no increase" is shrinking.  Bitfury just started voting for Bip 100.

Bigger blocks are inevitable.

[turvarya]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  
Update:
turvarya: this is not a appeal to authority. I never stated that because of their positions they are probably correct (in anything that they say). I'm just not expecting normal people like theymos and luke to spread FUD (considering the behavioral patterns of members that actually do this). Stop twisting the debate back into attacks and nonsense.

Please to me the favor and don't reply with an edit. I just saw your edit because someone else quoted you.

It's funny that you see a quote of your self as "attacks and nonsense".  Either we restrain from using  a person as an argument or we don't. What is it? There is a lot of controversy about Theymos and Luke in the Bitcoin world, even if you don't want to see it.

[BillyBobZorton]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is spreading FUD, less bitcoin already be an altcoin due to previous forks.

Yeah obviously people like, e.g. theymos and luke are spreading FUD.  
Update:
turvarya: this is not a appeal to authority. I never stated that because of their positions they are probably correct (in anything that they say). I'm just not expecting normal people like theymos and luke to spread FUD (considering the behavioral patterns of members that actually do this). Stop twisting the debate back into attacks and nonsense.

This. It seems a lot of noobs are confusing BIP101 for XT. XT is dead at this point, no one wants to support an altcoin, and in any case, "no increase" is still the most voted option as seen on the circular graphic that encompasses all mining pools hashing power (cant find the pic)

True.  However, "no increase" is shrinking.  Bitfury just started voting for Bip 100.

Bigger blocks are inevitable.

Yes they are, but it doesn't make much difference if they are increased now or in a year, we are still halfway through the total network usage. Bitcoin is still a tiny niche. So im all for a small increment in the blocksize as long as we can keep running full nodes and not some centralized entity which is were Bitcoin XT/incrementing 8MB every 2 year whatever BIP that is, would drive us.

[foodstamps]

I have tried to stay on the side and ignore this issue, but it is getting ridiculous. Every other thread is about this. Team Jacob and Team Edward need to come to a compromise. Meet somewhere in the middle and stop having a pissing contest.

[tvbcof]

misinformation

1. XT is an alt client, not an alt coin.
2. There isn't a single person who would buy a separate coin called XT.
3. No the core developers do not generally support bigger blocks.  it's been discussed
for three years already. 

You are accusing someone of mis-information then spouting three giant ones?  Awesome.

1.  A 'coin' is synonymous with a 'protocol'.  XT is absolutely and 'alt' unless the current incompatible protocol is fully abandoned.  The chances of that happening are effectively zero.

2.  I despise everything about XT from the creators on down.  I would 'buy' separate XT coins in certain conditions.  The biggest one is that if I could use it in a Google Wallet and get discounts on merchandise which they sponsor.  Of course I'd use a real crypto-currency for important stuff.

3.  Every person I can think of and I myself have some serious questions about the current transaction rate and have stated so.  We simply want to change this critical aspect of the system based on real-world data once a workable scaling solution is in place and tested.  Some of the more promising possibilities are highly technical but are moving forward at a good rate of speed.  At present there is no need whatsoever to panic over the block size.  It is more and more clear that all of the scare stories about overload were puffed-up psyops nonsense and probably well coordinated.  Even if congestion problems do occur, that is a good thing since they need to be worked on no matter what the block size and there is little incentive to do this when there are no signs of problems.

You are right though...the fear-mongering about block size has been going on for at least three years now.

[jonald_fyookball]

misinformation

1. XT is an alt client, not an alt coin.
2. There isn't a single person who would buy a separate coin called XT.
3. No the core developers do not generally support bigger blocks.  it's been discussed
for three years already. 

You are accusing someone of mis-information then spouting three giant ones?  Awesome.

1.  A 'coin' is synonymous with a 'protocol'.  XT is absolutely and 'alt' unless the current incompatible protocol is fully abandoned.  The chances of that happening are effectively zero.

2.  I despise everything about XT from the creators on down.  I would 'buy' separate XT coins in certain conditions.  The biggest one is that if I could use it in a Google Wallet and get discounts on merchandise which they sponsor.  Of course I'd use a real crypto-currency for important stuff.

3.  Every person I can think of and I myself have some serious questions about the current transaction rate and have stated so.  We simply want to change this critical aspect of the system based on real-world data once a workable scaling solution is in place and tested.  Some of the more promising possibilities are highly technical but are moving forward at a good rate of speed.  At present there is no need whatsoever to panic over the block size.  It is more and more clear that all of the scare stories about overload were puffed-up psyops nonsense and probably well coordinated.  Even if congestion problems do occur, that is a good thing since they need to be worked on no matter what the block size and there is little incentive to do this when there are no signs of problems.

You are right though...the fear-mongering about block size has been going on for at least three years now.

XT only activates Bigger blocks if 75% of the mining agrees, correct?  So then it wouldn't be incompatible.  Not sure why youre spinning this.

[Carlton Banks]

XT's epitaph:

"First you reason with them,
Then they fight you,
Then they laugh at you
Then they ign.......  .. . . ."

[uxgpf]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

You got it backwards. BIP 101 is the proposal for a fork. Thus if a person supports BIP 101, then he/she supports a fork.
Bitcoin XT is simply one client that implements this proposal, there can be any number of these with different features as long as they are compatible with BIP 101.

I'd like to see more fork proposals written into software. Choice is good and let the best BIP win.

[edit, not directed to LaudaM, just a general observation]
So far I think most of the discussion on BCT has been attacks against person, spreading FUD or cheering for ones own team. Seems like people with least knowledge hold the strongest opinions. Let's just discuss technical merits of different proposals?

[ArticMine]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.  

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

I have, and I see your point. The veto (actually 10%)  only applies from the change from a 1 MB hard fork to a 1 MB soft fork and not the the voting mechanism for changing  the soft fork limit. There does remain a second hard fork at 32 MB presumably subject to a 10% veto.

[Klestin]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.  

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

I have.  Perhaps you can explain something about the following:

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap.  That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover).  Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all?  Why not use the median vote?

[ArticMine]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.  

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

I have.  Perhaps you can explain something about the following:

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap.  That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover).  Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all?  Why not use the median vote?

Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 

[Muhammed Zakir]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

I have.  Perhaps you can explain something about the following:

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap.  That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover).  Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all?  Why not use the median vote?

Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 

32 MB limit gives us more than enough time to find a better solution. It is not at all a serious issue.

[brg444]

...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum. 

Yes. This is a very valid point.

Please read the BIP at least once.

I have.  Perhaps you can explain something about the following:

"Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen."

What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap.  That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover).  Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all?  Why not use the median vote?

Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 

32 MB limit gives us more than enough time to find a better solution. It is not at all a serious issue.

We might never need more than 32 MB.

[Muhammed Zakir]

...

Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?

The whole thing started long before Gavin joined XT. I don't really want to go into the whole history of this debate, since it started before I even joined Bitcoin.
But I think, we can easily agree on, that there was no alternative plan to raise the limit in 2016.

True but he went one trying enforcing BIP 101.

But that wasn't even my question:
My question was: If consensus doesn't mean consensus of the core devs, what should be the action, if core devs don't listen to you? You can look at it as a theoretical question, so we don't waste time on trying to recap what happened before.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161315.msg12243511#msg12243511

[turvarya]

...

Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?

The whole thing started long before Gavin joined XT. I don't really want to go into the whole history of this debate, since it started before I even joined Bitcoin.
But I think, we can easily agree on, that there was no alternative plan to raise the limit in 2016.

True but he went one trying enforcing BIP 101.

But that wasn't even my question:
My question was: If consensus doesn't mean consensus of the core devs, what should be the action, if core devs don't listen to you? You can look at it as a theoretical question, so we don't waste time on trying to recap what happened before.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161315.msg12243511#msg12243511

That doesn't answer my question. theymos says, that even one Bitcoin Core committer can veto a fork. So, that means you need the consensus of all Bitcoin Core committers, which is what you specifically said is not what consensus means.

[meono]

Nothing is turning. Please stop spreading false information. Do you know what a BIP is? Bitcoin improvement proposal? If person X supports a BIP, that does not mean that they support fork Y just because it has implemented it.
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

You got it backwards. BIP 101 is the proposal for a fork. Thus if a person supports BIP 101, then he/she supports a fork.
Bitcoin XT is simply one client that implements this proposal, there can be any number of these with different features as long as they are compatible with BIP 101.

I'd like to see more fork proposals written into software. Choice is good and let the best BIP win.

[edit, not directed to LaudaM, just a general observation]
So far I think most of the discussion on BCT has been attacks against person, spreading FUD or cheering for ones own team. Seems like people with least knowledge hold the strongest opinions. Let's just discuss technical merits of different proposals?

Shocking that a newbie can grasp this concept yet many hero members cant...... They tend to try speak the loudest tho.

This is why i stop saying " how stupid can you be?" As they take it as a challenge.

[Zarathustra]

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

[–]jgarzikJeff Garzik - Bitcoin Expert 192 Punkte vor 2 Tagen*

- Prefer my own proposals, unsurprisingly.
- If not accepted, BIP 101 is preferred over (a) no change or (b) too-slow change, e.g. 2M in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cudzcji

[kano]

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

[–]jgarzikJeff Garzik - Bitcoin Expert 192 Punkte vor 2 Tagen*

- Prefer my own proposals, unsurprisingly.
- If not accepted, BIP 101 is preferred over (a) no change or (b) too-slow change, e.g. 2M in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cudzcji

Again, a 2MB BIP100 would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

I'm not sure why I have to repeat that fact.

However, unrelated to that statement, no one has even supplied a source for a new BIP100 version with 2MB, so either way, it's still a 1MB BIP100, and either way, 1MB or 2MB, BIP100 will not support BIP101

[Zarathustra]

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

[–]jgarzikJeff Garzik - Bitcoin Expert 192 Punkte vor 2 Tagen*

- Prefer my own proposals, unsurprisingly.
- If not accepted, BIP 101 is preferred over (a) no change or (b) too-slow change, e.g. 2M in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cudzcji

Again, a 2MB BIP100 would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

I'm not sure why I have to repeat that fact.

I dont know why you repeat yourself. Nobody said that BIP100 will support BIP101.

[Zarathustra]

P.S. 2MB would not affect the fact that BIP100 will not support BIP101

[–]jgarzikJeff Garzik - Bitcoin Expert 192 Punkte vor 2 Tagen*

- Prefer my own proposals, unsurprisingly.
- If not accepted, BIP 101 is preferred over (a) no change or (b) too-slow change, e.g. 2M in 2021.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i7mtz/8_major_players_support_bip_101/cudzcji

The Tide is Turning:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3x58yo/the_tide_is_turning_rbtc_is_slowly_dethroning/