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

[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.......  .. . . ."