What's wrong with XT?

[subwoofer12]

I didn't know much about XT until this past week but I fail to understand why support for it is so divided. The most controversial elements are the IP blacklist, disenfranchisement, and the hard fork.

Personally I see nothing sinister about the IP blacklist, all it is, is protection against DoS attacks. If you're still skeptical you can just disable the list:

Code:

disableipprio=1

As for disenfranchisement this sums it up:

Money is inherently a social tool and to use a currency is to accept its rules, even if you don’t like them. You can’t use the dollar whilst opting out of quantitiative easing. Even if this were technically possible (maybe you are a large bank), you’re going to start receiving “eased” dollars instead of “real” dollars in payment sooner or later and arguing with your customers about this is a quick route to commercial death.

Any change to Bitcoin that is accepted by the majority inherently “disenfranchises” the people who didn’t want that change. This has nothing to do with hard or soft forks: regardless of which technique is used, if transactions using the new rules start to enter widespread circulation then sooner or later you will receive coins in payment that trace back to a new-rule transaction. And then you have two choices. You can verify the new rule, or you can not verify it. But the only thing not verifying does is reduce your own security: it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in practice everyone always upgrades. To disagree with a soft fork that is adopted by the majority is no different than disagreeing with a hard fork: if you don’t like the new rules ….. tough cookies. That’s trade.

We can see proof of this in P2SH itself. The competing proposal had some miner and developer support, but in the end everyone accepted the version we have today. They had no choice in the matter, or rather, they chose to accept the change and continue using Bitcoin. It being a soft fork made no difference.

So the idea that hard forks vs soft forks is some epic struggle for personal rights over oppression just doesn’t make any technical sense. The distinction is not just wrong: it’s completely irrelevant.

Having a hard fork is inevitable in Bitcoin's future even if Core turns out to be the winner in this battle. Let's make the switch to XT now and get the hard fork over with.

For every other issue that's been brought up Mike Hearn has strong counterarguments

An XT FAQ
On consensus and forks

As of right now I don't see any disadvantages with XT and I'd consider myself a supporter. Please attempt to change my opinion

[tokeweed]

Go here:  https://forum.bitcoin.com/

They'd love to talk about it over there. 

[subwoofer12]

Go here:  https://forum.bitcoin.com/

They'd love to talk about it over there. 

You're not making a very good argument

Why are you against XT?

[tokeweed]

Because Gavincoin is dead.  Let's just leave it and move on.

[subwoofer12]

Because Gavincoin is dead.  Let's just leave it and move on.

How would you plan to address scalability then? Bitcoin XT is the best proposal I have seen so far.

Far from being dead: http://coin.dance/xt

[tokeweed]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

[knight22]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

[tokeweed]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

[knight22]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

So bitcoin can with the help of trusted third party?

[tokeweed]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

So bitcoin can with the help of trusted third party?

If you want it to scale to 'Visa' like proportions, yes.  Or go XT, which the majority doesn't want.

And remember, it's you who want it to scale right now.  I'm fine with it evolving slowly.

[knight22]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

So bitcoin can with the help of trusted third party?

If you want it to scale to 'Visa' like proportions, yes.  Or go XT, which the majority doesn't want.

And remember, it's you who want it to scale right now.  I'm fine with it evolving slowly.

Going XT allows the system to grow organically BTW. Blocks won't be filled out overnight you know? The limit is still only an anti spam limit.

[muyuu]

Every single difference with Core is for the worse IMO. Much for the worse, even the governance model and the people in charge are immensely for the worse.

Obviously you are free to disagree and join their rather lonely motley crew.

[mexxer-2]

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

[muyuu]

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

Indeed. It's where it belongs.

Thanks OP, that minimum decency is usually missing in the XT crowd, that makes you elite there.

[knight22]

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

Indeed. It's where it belongs.

Thanks OP, that minimum decency is usually missing in the XT crowd, that makes you elite there.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

The only thing ridiculous is the inability of bitcoin to move forward.

[colinistheman]

The camp against a block-size increase apparently thinks that high fees and few transactions (like moving gold once a year) is how the blockchain should be used.

View this dialogue to see why:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ok69l/blockstream_to_launch_first_sidechain_for_bitcoin/cvyfzyw

If you read the conversation, you may come to the same conclusion. These individuals do not see bitcoin as a payment network. They see it as a settlement network only.

[mexxer-2]

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

Indeed. It's where it belongs.

Thanks OP, that minimum decency is usually missing in the XT crowd, that makes you elite there.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

The only thing ridiculous is the inability of bitcoin to move forward.

Seeing as the OP himself has said nothing about it, and that I am more or less here 12/7 and I haven't noticed a "Moved to:" for this thread, I'd say the probability of what you are saying is low.
Edit: Awww come on not this discussion again, we have been over it on 100s of threads and lastly its only the hype that gets someone's attention towards it, not the usefulness.

[muyuu]

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

Indeed. It's where it belongs.

Thanks OP, that minimum decency is usually missing in the XT crowd, that makes you elite there.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

Why would you assume OP has no dignity? I was around and didn't see it outside of here. Unless it was moved automatically it's likely that he respected the rules of this forum and acted with a minimum of decency. Probably a wild idea for you, but not for everybody.

[muyuu]

The camp against a block-size increase apparently thinks that high fees and few transactions (like moving gold once a year) is how the blockchain should be used.

View this dialogue to see why:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ok69l/blockstream_to_launch_first_sidechain_for_bitcoin/cvyfzyw

If you read the conversation, you may come to the same conclusion. These individuals do not see bitcoin as a payment network. They see it as a settlement network only.

It's a certainty that raw transactions on the blockchain don't scale to payment network levels while keeping Bitcoin decentralised.

So unless you want to destroy Bitcoin as we know it, you oppose that obtuse school of thought. Thing is, some people do want to destroy Bitcoin as we know it and have openly said it, among them the man in charge of XT.

[tokeweed]

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

So bitcoin can with the help of trusted third party?

If you want it to scale to 'Visa' like proportions, yes.  Or go XT, which the majority doesn't want.

And remember, it's you who want it to scale right now.  I'm fine with it evolving slowly.

Going XT allows the system to grow organically BTW. Blocks won't be filled out overnight you know? The limit is still only an anti spam limit.

I like BTC fine as it is, thanks.  From nothing to worth over 200 per coin?  That's not bad.  Not bad at all. 

Just let it evolve.  No need to rush things.