Time To Grow Up

[dachnik]

Let's look at the symbols.

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.
Wanna vote yourself out of Bitcoin? Great, this way! Head for the >> (e)X(i)T (check the actual logo).

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

3) Bitcoin as Satoshi created it.
Doesn't have any suffix, prefix or any other strings attached to it. That's the one that has a static limit on block size baked in, but big enough not to limit Bitcoin's growth until it is reached. I argue, that the path of the original true Bitcoin is the one, where static limit is raised to 8Mb.

If we look at the table below from the perspective of a block size increase, we will see one simple truth:

Option              Action               Result
Bitcoin XT       CHANGE           CHANGE
Bitcoin Core    NO CHANGE     CHANGE
Bitcoin            CHANGE           NO CHANGE

Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.
Note, that option [NO CHANGE -> NO CHANGE] doesn't exist, that's how evolution is built into the system.

Do we always need celebrity figures to provide it for us, to spoon-feed us everything we need?
How many of you have built the software you are running? The instructions are out there, it's not rocket science.

The path has been shown. Are you the ones to walk the talk?
Time to grow up.

[kelsey]

XT means change yes changing Bitcoin for an altcoin.

[adamstgBit]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

[adamstgBit]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

[kelsey]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

my bad misread n deleted

[adamstgBit]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

my bad misread n deleted

k,

if anything is going to kill bitcoin it will be an array of forks forced out by the core dev team's indecision.  XT was a warning, time is running out.

[kelsey]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

my bad misread n deleted

k,

if anything is going to kill bitcoin it will be an array of forks forced out by the core dev team's indecision.  XT was a warning, time is running out.

don't completely disagree, but don't see such an immediate rush needed.

but if XT is adopted there will be a war.

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

[Lauda]

don't completely disagree, but don't see such an immediate rush needed.

Exactly. I agree that the block size limit needs to be raised and that other solutions are necessary as well, but we do not need to rush with risky solutions. There's no immediate need for the increase, and with the two upcoming workshops a solution should be found within this year (hopefully). That still gives us enough time to test and implement it before the halving.

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.
Update:

Such posts are against the rules. Just saying.

[dachnik]

... a jr. member makes more sense than the devs. ...

"a plaque and platinum status is whack if you're not the baddest"

By the way, I don't think that devs' intentions are anything else than good, but their judgments may have been overshadowed.
They are welcome to finally see the truth and help propel Bitcoin onto the next stage of its evolution.

[adamstgBit]

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

my bad misread n deleted

k,

if anything is going to kill bitcoin it will be an array of forks forced out by the core dev team's indecision.  XT was a warning, time is running out.

don't completely disagree, but don't see such an immediate rush needed.

but if XT is adopted there will be a war.

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

i think everyone can live with being ~12 months away from constantly hitting the block limit on every single block. but we could see some new blockchain application which pushes us up to this point much faster, at that point core dev needs to do something fast or forks will come, then suddenly "what is bitcoin" becomes ambiguous, if there is a fork 2 version of bitcoin have ~50/50 hashing power, you might think price would cut in half, i think fungibility, and ease of use would go down the drain along with price. now imagine 3 bitcoins! what a mess!

[adamstgBit]

... a jr. member makes more sense than the devs. ...

"a plaque and platinum status is whack if you're not the baddest"

By the way, I don't think that devs' intentions are anything else than good, but their judgments may have been overshadowed.
A few millions in cash will do that to pretty much everyone in our demographic.

So, they are welcome to finally see the truth and help propel Bitcoin onto the next stage of evolution.

agreed, but good intentions, never did anyone any good.

i'll take a bad solutions over good intentions anyday.

[Bit_Happy]

Let's look at the symbols.

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.
Wanna vote yourself out of Bitcoin? Great, this way! Head for the >> (e)X(i)T (check the actual logo).

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

3) Bitcoin as Satoshi created it.
Doesn't have any suffix, prefix or any other strings attached to it. That's the one that has a static limit on block size baked in, but big enough not to limit Bitcoin's growth until it is reached. I argue, that the path of the original true Bitcoin is the one, where static limit is raised to 8Mb.

If we look at the table below from the perspective of a block size increase, we will see one simple truth:

Option              Action               Result
Bitcoin XT       CHANGE           CHANGE
Bitcoin Core    NO CHANGE     CHANGE
Bitcoin            CHANGE           NO CHANGE

Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.
Note, that option [NO CHANGE -> NO CHANGE] doesn't exist, that's how evolution is built into the system.

Do we always need celebrity figures to provide it for us, to spoon-feed us everything we need?
How many of you have built the software you are running? The instructions are out there, it's not rocket science.

The path has been shown. Are you the ones to walk the talk?
Time to grow up.

Great, let's do the one simple change.
If this post gets enough exposure, can we finally put the huge, forking mess to rest?

[adamstgBit]

Let's look at the symbols.

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.
Wanna vote yourself out of Bitcoin? Great, this way! Head for the >> (e)X(i)T (check the actual logo).

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

3) Bitcoin as Satoshi created it.
Doesn't have any suffix, prefix or any other strings attached to it. That's the one that has a static limit on block size baked in, but big enough not to limit Bitcoin's growth until it is reached. I argue, that the path of the original true Bitcoin is the one, where static limit is raised to 8Mb.

If we look at the table below from the perspective of a block size increase, we will see one simple truth:

Option              Action               Result
Bitcoin XT       CHANGE           CHANGE
Bitcoin Core    NO CHANGE     CHANGE
Bitcoin            CHANGE           NO CHANGE

Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.
Note, that option [NO CHANGE -> NO CHANGE] doesn't exist, that's how evolution is built into the system.

Do we always need celebrity figures to provide it for us, to spoon-feed us everything we need?
How many of you have built the software you are running? The instructions are out there, it's not rocket science.

The path has been shown. Are you the ones to walk the talk?
Time to grow up.

Great, let's do the one simple change.
If this post gets enough exposure, can we finally put the huge, forking mess to rest?

i figure all we need is one dev to read this, then he will tell all the other devs, a few epiphanies later one line of code will be changed.
 

[brg444]

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

 

 

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?

Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

[brg444]

Time to grow up

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

 

[maokoto]

OP is right. There should not be all this fuss. Just raise the block and move on. As I understand it, blockstream could be also implemented on bigger blocks.

[dachnik]

By the way, I don't think that devs' intentions are anything else than good, ...

agreed, but good intentions, never did anyone any good.
i'll take a bad solutions over good intentions anyday.

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?
Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

With suggested 4-year manual steps of block size increase, we might as well approximate the curve suggested in BIP101, but only for as long as it serves the interests of Bitcoin.

Who decides what those interests are? We do.
The ones who populate the network with full nodes.

OP is right. There should not be all this fuss. Just raise the block and move on. As I understand it, blockstream could be also implemented on bigger blocks.

Correct.
But only if it's shown to not significantly shift the incentives structure, that has proven to work so well for the original Bitcoin.

[CIYAM]

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

[tadakaluri]

Let's look at the symbols.

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.
Wanna vote yourself out of Bitcoin? Great, this way! Head for the >> (e)X(i)T (check the actual logo).

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

3) Bitcoin as Satoshi created it.
Doesn't have any suffix, prefix or any other strings attached to it. That's the one that has a static limit on block size baked in, but big enough not to limit Bitcoin's growth until it is reached. I argue, that the path of the original true Bitcoin is the one, where static limit is raised to 8Mb.

If we look at the table below from the perspective of a block size increase, we will see one simple truth:

Option              Action               Result
Bitcoin XT       CHANGE           CHANGE
Bitcoin Core    NO CHANGE     CHANGE
Bitcoin            CHANGE           NO CHANGE

Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.
Note, that option [NO CHANGE -> NO CHANGE] doesn't exist, that's how evolution is built into the system.

Do we always need celebrity figures to provide it for us, to spoon-feed us everything we need?
How many of you have built the software you are running? The instructions are out there, it's not rocket science.

The path has been shown. Are you the ones to walk the talk?
Time to grow up.

Bitcoin XT try to change Bitcoin as Altcoin.

[dachnik]

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

It's not that much of a technical discussion.
The limit ultimately determines the size of the consensus network.
If nodes cannot keep up, they will be pushed out.

Whether we want to keep our favorite toy or let it slip out of our hands is really up to us.