What happens now that BitcoinXT is essentially dead

[brg444]

1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.

It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?

There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?

[Carlton Banks]

nothing, i just hope consensus don't follow something worse, like the whole route that give advantage to miners by increasing fees and shit like that

i'm all for dynamic TX limit, which is bip106 apaprently

There will be more than one design for dynamic limits, I think 106 is the first into the BIP repo though. You could argue BIP100 is dynamic... but voting system is a more apt name for it, which I think was how Garzik described it.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.

It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?

There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?

Bitcoin succeed because it has the best developers, the most money invest, the biggest network. It's as simple as that but some people seem to not get it, they think because anyone can fork Bitcoin Bitcoin isn't special or something.

[brg444]

nothing, i just hope consensus don't follow something worse, like the whole route that give advantage to miners by increasing fees and shit like that

i'm all for dynamic TX limit, which is bip106 apaprently

There will be more than one design for dynamic limits, I think 106 is the first into the BIP repo though. You could argue BIP100 is dynamic... but voting system is a more apt name for it, which I think was how Garzik described it.

The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

[brg444]

1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.

It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?

There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?

Bitcoin succeed because it has the best developers, the most money invest, the biggest network. It's as simple as that but some people seem to not get it, they think because anyone can fork Bitcoin Bitcoin isn't special or something.

Bitcoin attracted the best developers, the most money and the biggest network because people increasingly trusted it with their wealth.

Bitcoin is money. Money grows with trust. It's really not all that complicated.

[Mickeyb]

Nothing happens, it seems that the XT won't win. But the Pandora's box is open and now there is no turning back (for this I am actually thankful to Gavin, that he has run the alarm).

We will have some other BIP, simple as that. It stays to see which BIP this will be. It's up to the community, miners, devs, and payment processors to decide, but there is no turning back once again. The block sizes will be increased in my opinion.

[mallard]

Maybe Mike will vanish and make his own altcoin.

[turvarya]

1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.

It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?

There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?

Because it was the first and because of the network effect. The same reasons other open source projects are very successful.

[Carlton Banks]

The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.

[JeromeL]

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?

One of Bitcoin's value is permissionlessness. Permissionlessness to use Bitcoin and permissionlessness to contribute. So I expect Mike and Gavin will always be welcomed to contribute to Bitcoin's future, just like before the XT episode.

That being said, it seems clear Mike/Gavin and the other core devs don't share the same Bitcoin vision. Mike/Gavin see Bitcoin as a payment system (SPV, 0-conf, user-experience, ...) while the core devs see Bitcoin as a currency (resilience, censorship-resistance, privacy, ...) on which payment protocols can be build on (Lightning). At this point, it is unclear if the two visions can walk hand in hand in the same direction.

[uxgpf]

Btw. there's now another fork called Bitcoin Unlimited or (Bitcoin U) with no blocksize limit. I just saw it announced on reddit, but can't find the thread anymore (maybe it got deleted).

[Carlton Banks]

Btw. there's now another fork called Bitcoin Unlimited or (Bitcoin U) with no blocksize limit. I just saw it announced on reddit, but can't find the thread anymore (maybe it got deleted).

lol that argument isn't worth having. Not least because it gives Andresen and Hearn an opportunity to present themselves as the "middle ground" (between lunacy and genocide lol).

[uxgpf]

What happens now that BitcoinXT is essentially dead

Core devs won't agree with each other about the scaling proposals (because they have different goals) and Wladimir doesn't make the choice (if such is against his principles), thus there is an eternal lock-up on the issue and they'll move to work on other more interesting issues.

The average transaction rate will just level out at about 0.5 MB/block or half of the current blocksize limit (like it did when majority had 250, 500 and 750kB soft limits).  Some players in the economy will just leave to another projects or quit as they lose their confidence in Bitcoin's ability to grow, which in turn causes price to start trending down. There will be other forks as people get uneasy about about profits and growth getting wasted and Bitcoin will survive.

Really? Well.. no one knows.

[uxgpf]

lol that argument isn't worth having. Not least because it gives Andresen and Hearn an opportunity to present themselves as the "middle ground" (between lunacy and genocide lol).

Funny thing is that Andresen would probably support no limit rather than BIP 101.

In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen.

[turvarya]

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?

One of Bitcoin's value is permissionlessness. Permissionlessness to use Bitcoin and permissionlessness to contribute. So I expect Mike and Gavin will always be welcomed to contribute to Bitcoin's future, just like before the XT episode.

That being said, it seems clear Mike/Gavin and the other core devs don't share the same Bitcoin vision. Mike/Gavin see Bitcoin as a payment system (SPV, 0-conf, user-experience, ...) while the core devs see Bitcoin as a currency (resilience, censorship-resistance, privacy, ...) on which payment protocols can be build on (Lightning). At this point, it is unclear if the two visions can walk hand in hand in the same direction.

I don't think, they have different visions of Bitcoin. They just disagree on how Bitcoin reaches it's goal.
I don't think, a (internet) currency, which is not a payment system makes much sense and a payment system, which is not a currency, is not something you would need Bitcoin for.

[Lust]

With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

i think that there were currently 3 blocks mined so far.
But it seems like that Bitcoin XT is going to die in near future.

[knowhow]

Well the team avoiding a consensus will result in a damage since community wont be able to know what the developers wanna to do with bitcoin,it can drops several on next announcements of those team,with two visions...just hoping they return work as one otherwise the mess will start.

[brg444]

The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.

I agree with that concern and here is a way to mitigate this, quoting Matt Corallo:

"Greatest common denominator" agreement did not seem to be agreeing to an increase which continues over time, but which instead limits itself to a set, smooth increase for X time and then requires a second hardfork if there is agreement on a need for more blocksize at that point."

Smooth is the key word here. It won't even go from 1-2, providing we do hard fork, but should follow a schedule of smooth increases over-time or according to a cost-based flex cap for X time.

I'm guessing they'd like to throw "the industry" and "the community" a bone while they get to work on building & lobbying for actual scaling systems.

[jdbtracker]

We have no choice, we  must integrate Bitcoin XT into Bitcoin Core and proceed as a double blockchain.
The standard chain is already hitting 50GB, we must embrace the duality.

[Kakmakr]

I guess Gavin and Mike need to go back to their masters and beg for forgiveness for their failure with XT and come up with something the community wants. They will have a much bigger fan base, when they put something on the table with features serving the users interest.

The XT Shills needs to crawl back into the holes they came from and the divided Bitcoin community need to lick their wounds and hold hands and sing <Gumbaja> until we face the next civil war. ^hmf^