You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] Brolo_El_Cunado 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I know you are getting downvoated (accurately, it would seem) but I'm curious for more of your point of view as I'm still struggling to figure out the XT issue.

What is the agenda of these nefarious actors that they are trying to advance on the bitcoin community? What ends are they seeking and how is increasing the size of a block from 1MB to 8MB going to achieve them?

I ask because you are the only person who has taken a strong stance against it that I have seen.

0
6

[–] stevenroose 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The two extreme opinions are the following:

  • People in favor of XT claim that the Core devs that are against BIP 101 (the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal that XT implements and supports 8MB - 8GB blocks up to 2036) are mainly Blockstream employees. Blockstream is the company that debuted sidestreams and are developing the Lightning network, a Bitcoin sidechain that will exist alongside Bitcoin and make faster and cheaper transactions possible.

  • People against XT claim that blocks as big as the ones BIP 101 introduces will make Bitcoin less decentralized because only big companies will be able to run full nodes. A number of exchanges and (primarily Chinese) mining pools expressed doubts of they would be able to keep up with the network if 8MB blocks (and even bigger ones over time) come up.

A lot of hard feelings and shouting from both ways. This is not a big problem an sich, since clashes of opinions are normal and will eventually be solved.

The only real bad thing happening right now is r/bitcoin being severely censored by their moderators. They will tell you XT is an altcoin and suddenly don't allow altcoin discussion on the sub. A massive amount of posts are being deleted and people are being banned. The r/bitcoin community is outraging against the mods and primarily theymos (the guy that also runs BitcoinTalk.org and never had much sympathy from the Bitcoin community. Mainly because he is sitting on a huge pile of donation money from the old days and refuses to invest it in improving the BitcoinTalk forum.)

0
3

[–] Brolo_El_Cunado 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thank you, @stevenroose, that clears it up nicely!!

0
4

[–] KurtB 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I am not here for cheap votes, I didn't follow the debate until this week. Basically, the block size matters as much as the number of Bitcoins that can possibly exist. -- Which is: Not at all; provided they don't change.

What matters is stability.

Theoretically: If 2 US developers can drum up enough popular support to impose changes of that scale, Bitcoin isn't worth a quarter Fed. Technically: I am not getting into this debate.

If some people want to make a lot small, cheap, transactions they can a) bundle/compress, b) use other chains, c) Append 7MB of XT to a core block, d) be creative ... Bitcoin is not and should not be the only solution.

If some people want to store more information cheaply on a trustless layer, they should help build the safenetwork.io.

However, it's best to listen to the diverse arguments, what you find is that everybody had a different idea of what Bitcoin could be/should be. Some like it to be Western Union, or Visa, others Dropbox, NASDAQ a Casino or a voting back-end for elections.

They forget what the Bitcoin Blockchain is: Free of disorder and uncertainty, the most stable place in the known universe.

0
3

[–] EgotisticalGiraffe 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I downvoted him not for his XT hate but because he is promoting sabotaging XT users. When he talks about "lure them into a trap" he is referring to Not Bitcoin XT which is a wallet implementation that appears to be an XT node but once a consensus is reached it will not relay XT blocks. It has no other purpose but to fork the network early when real XTnodes are still a minority so users on the XT fork users will see their coin's value plummet. If XT were to succeed normally then a majority of people would use it and people that were adamant for 1MB blocks would find themselves in the minority.

0
1

[–] KurtB 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If the Hearn Gang wanted to make a point in a civil manner they could have simply enquired miners to send a certain note with their blocks. Once they can show 75% they could have initiated this forking process.

That would have been genuine and I could have ignored them as I did before.

Because they cannot have their way they decided to scam people. They know well that their fork doesn't work, but now they can manipulate the conscious.

Whenever they spawn more XT zombie nodes Bitcoin volatility will increase.

They factually try to take the Blockchain hostage, constantly threatening with a fork while shorting BTC.

promoting sabotaging XT users

This is self-defense.

The Hearn Gang is walking a tight line. Currently they are just perceived as scammers. They will be neutralized this time, however, it's paramount that we impose a cost on them as a warning to others.

I support upgrading their status from scammer to attacker. I don't want to quote block 369443, but advise those who aren't ready to step back. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain/tx/b79149317d7b0be33357663e88ee346924888360e9b76b139aac9bbc6dc27841