Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion

[BitcoinEXpress]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization


Thoughts?


~BCX~

[coinableS]

Gavin was crazy to try to hard fork by using his weight in the bitcoin ecosystem. It completely backfired.
I think it died because XT was labeled as something much different than core when it was actually very similar.
I tried both and I went back to core after a few days. There can only be one bitcoin, and if there cannot be a clear consensus towards a change then classic bitcoin it is. This was a good test of the strength of a decentralized system. Even with high influence people like Gavin and Mike they could not change bitcoin. There must be an overwhelming majority to make the switch, and we didn't have that with XT.

[killerjoegreece]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization


Thoughts?


~BCX~

i agree on both points 1 and 2 gavin coin will never be a reality

[HostFat]

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

[brg444]

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

And barring a stock market collapse I don't think we're going to see blocks full on average then. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

[JeromeL]

The debate won't be concluded until the final tally:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929659.0

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/cryptovoter-brings-decentralized-voting-bitcoin-oct-23-vote-increase-block-size/

"Oct. 23, there is a vote on whether to increase the maximum block size.

For the first time, the Bitcoin community can objectively gauge coin-holder support for controversial developer proposals and give developers the mandate they need to implement change,” the company noted in a press release."

Decisions in Bitcoin (and in FOSS projects in general) are taken through consensus among the community. Not through some kind of democratic voting. So all the polls we see here and there, even for the ones using proof of stake mechanisms, are irrelevant.

[Pab]

 Nice news,i even didnt know that,why by my opinion it was done to disturb btc
Died becouse oposition against that fork,i hope XTdevs will not comeback with his next shit

[VirosaGITS]

I don't think "lets argue to see if XT is still bad once we get to the point we're unable to process all TX's as the blocks all start getting full" is a sound concept, because even though XT did include a block size change, changing the block size is not "Bitcoin XT".

As we probably all know, there are others suggested solution to this problem, while myself i think BIP100 is a solid concept for a solution, more options will arise.

I think Bitcoin XT is just a failed project that prove that trying to strongarm the Bitcoin scene into changing to their wallet is not going to work. IMO it just felt like they wanted to become the "Core devs of Bitcoin" somehow. Trying to turn Bitcoin into what they want, affecting Control over it.

[unamis76]

XT has died/has low number of blocks/low number of nodes probably because it isn't called Core and because it represents change, a new idea.

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

Yes, either that or when/if a better idea than XT comes, or there's a compromise between ideas and BIP's.

[jonald_fyookball]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

[iCEBREAKER]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

[Meuh6879]

XT is an other client to connect to Bitcoin network.
Like other SPV wallet ...

the thing is that not really all member have read the changelog of this software.
special tuning is attend and work better than STOCK version.

like the MOD in the emule environment.

[VirosaGITS]

XT is an other client to connect to Bitcoin network.
Like other SPV wallet ...

the thing is that not really all member have read the changelog of this software.
special tuning is attend and work better than STOCK version.

like the MOD in the emule environment.

XT was a replacement for Core, not a SPV wallet that run on the current block chain. They wanted to make change that would require a hard fork and that is no way anything similar to "just another SPV wallet".

[Meuh6879]

not a SPV wallet that run on the current block chain.

not now ... but, if you have free hand, it's more easy to "build".
hard fork is only the head ... you loose easly the main goal : alternative "client".

[jonald_fyookball]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

Don't be ridiculous. We would have lost that anyway.

[brg444]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

That's only true if you are a disingenuous troll completely ignorant of the extent of work that had been put in the last 5 years to get Bitcoin to where it is now.

Yes, I'm talking about you

[VirosaGITS]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

[iCEBREAKER]

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

The market cap dropped like a rock the instant Gavin confirmed the coup had his full support.

In five years, Bitcoin has been scaled from nothing to 1MB.  You silly hyper-entitled children have no idea how hard that was, and just demand more in an 'are we at the moon yet' refrain.

A civil war can be started by one belligerent party, whether or not the other is aggressive.  (Yes, I know you Gavinistas redefined doing nothing as doing something.  )