Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[Zarathustra]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

Yes.
The main purpose of BIP101 is the gratifying fact that core is now forced to decide between presenting a solution to raise the limit, or to be forked off the game.
It's that simple.

[1714322751]

1714322751

[1714322751]

1714322751

[1714322751]

1714322751

[1714322751]

1714322751

[manselr]

Guys, it's almost 2016, no one cares about XT. Also, Gmaxwell is doing solid progress with the sidechains, it's comming soon.. LN will follow after. I think we still have margin. And make no mistake I still want bigger blocks, but not on a fixed increase based on a fairy tale (no one knows if 8 mb increases every 8 years make sense because we can't predict the future).

[spazzdla]

Guys, it's almost 2016, no one cares about XT. Also, Gmaxwell is doing solid progress with the sidechains, it's comming soon.. LN will follow after. I think we still have margin. And make no mistake I still want bigger blocks, but not on a fixed increase based on a fairy tale (no one knows if 8 mb increases every 8 years make sense because we can't predict the future).

Perhaps we should just move it to 8 and hold.  Perhaps 8 is all we need when side chains come into play.

Perhaps 8 and doubling every FIVE years so it's unquestionable if tech moves faster than the doubling.



I like 8MB and holding.

[Carlton Banks]

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

[spazzdla]

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

Not a massive jump, not a baby step.  Some large miners have agreed they would move to 8MB if needed. 

Although it's more of kicking the can down the road, it's a solid kick which hopefully gives devs enough time to come up with ways to avoid need all transactions on the blockchain.

I am not 100% commited to 8MB, I can change opinions on this matter.

[Carlton Banks]

Solid reasoning spazzdla! In other words, it's a slightly arbitrary decision to some extent, although I'm sure some kind of useful, if not definitive, metrics could be tested to add some context.

And to be honest, I kind of prefer this argument to any of the technical ones, but maybe I'm just a bit worn out with the BIP101 shills. It's hard work arguing with sophists.

[VeritasSapere]

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

Not a massive jump, not a baby step.  Some large miners have agreed they would move to 8MB if needed.  

Although it's more of kicking the can down the road, it's a solid kick which hopefully gives devs enough time to come up with ways to avoid need all transactions on the blockchain.

I am not 100% commited to 8MB, I can change opinions on this matter.

I would support increasing the blocksize to eight megabytes if that means we could reach a higher degree of consensus on the matter. Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

[Carlton Banks]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

[brg444]

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

Not a massive jump, not a baby step.  Some large miners have agreed they would move to 8MB if needed.  

Although it's more of kicking the can down the road, it's a solid kick which hopefully gives devs enough time to come up with ways to avoid need all transactions on the blockchain.

I am not 100% commited to 8MB, I can change opinions on this matter.

8x more current limit is kind of a massive jump considering some users are already experience trouble supporting their own nodes under current 1MB setting...

[spazzdla]

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

Not a massive jump, not a baby step.  Some large miners have agreed they would move to 8MB if needed. 

Although it's more of kicking the can down the road, it's a solid kick which hopefully gives devs enough time to come up with ways to avoid need all transactions on the blockchain.

I am not 100% commited to 8MB, I can change opinions on this matter.

8x more current limit is kind of a massive jump considering some users are already experience trouble supporting their own nodes under current 1MB setting...

We can't be looking to accommodate people using phone lines.

[spazzdla]

Solid reasoning spazzdla! In other words, it's a slightly arbitrary decision to some extent, although I'm sure some kind of useful, if not definitive, metrics could be tested to add some context.

And to be honest, I kind of prefer this argument to any of the technical ones, but maybe I'm just a bit worn out with the BIP101 shills. It's hard work arguing with sophists.

Thanks!!

It just kind of dawned on me it's been an issue for awhile and I haven't talked about it in some time.  Was wondering what people are thinking.  IMO it's best to really push this now and not when it is 100% required.

Although I am sure most agree to that.

[muyuu]

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

[spazzdla]

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

For uploading purposes?

[Carlton Banks]

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

Now.

I've got sympathies on both sides here; accommodating the lowest common denominator seems too restrictive, but it just so happens that the practical reality of that could mean 100's of millions across important populations like India or China with no capability to run a node. There's gotta be a way of finding a compromise between the two.

[brg444]

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

Now.

I've got sympathies on both sides here; accommodating the lowest common denominator seems too restrictive, but it just so happens that the practical reality of that could mean 100's of millions across important populations like India or China with no capability to run a node. There's gotta be a way of finding a compromise between the two.

Practical reality is that 50% of the hashing power is within an area that could be considered the lowest common denominator in terms of internet bandwidth.

Unfortunately we're kind of in the dark about what typical non-mining Chinese users think on that subject.

[VeritasSapere]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status. It can be considered an option among the rest. Which means that if Core refuses to increase the blocksize and the economic majority does want it to be increased, then us switching over to other clients is justified, this is what puts the power in the hands of the people and this is how the Bitcoin protocol was designed to be.

[Carlton Banks]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

 

[VeritasSapere]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if the possibly occurs that both Core and XT are unwilling to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing the freedom of choice that Bitcoin allows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

[Carlton Banks]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if possibly both Core and XT might not be able to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing free choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Except that this is just one moment in time like any other, and you know already (becasue I was talking to you at least once when I said it) that this could all have been completely different.

If Gavin was still in charge, proposing reckless blocksize increase schedules, it would be me supporting the fork. The combination of your poor memory and resulting poor logic really hasn't helped you out there.

[VeritasSapere]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if possibly both Core and XT might not be able to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing the freedom of choice that Bitcoin allows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Except that this is just one moment in time like any other, and you know already (becasue I was talking to you at least once when I said it) that this could all have been completely different.

If Gavin was still in charge, proposing reckless blocksize increase schedules, it would be me supporting the fork. The combination of your poor memory and resulting poor logic really hasn't helped you out there.

I remember you stating this in the past but it does not change what you are saying now, denying that Core is an alternative just like all of the other implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, by saying that Core is not an alternative you are implying that Core is not a choice, which obviously is not true.

You are correct in pointing out that you did say this in the past, I suppose if that scenario did play out then you would consider Core an alternative? This is a bit hypocritical, or you could just admit that you where mistaken in the definition of the word alternative, instead of attacking me by saying that I am being overly rhetorical. It seems like sometimes you are just in this constant attack mode, you know I am not your enemy, I also want what is best for Bitcoin.