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

[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/