9
10

Did the bitcoin xt died? (self.bitcoinxt)

realhacker が 投稿

From what people are telling me bitcoin xt might be dead..because of lack of blocks mined as indicator. I hope you guys succeed, though, because bitcoin core is corrupt and the reason i left.

全 32 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Demotruk 10ポイント11ポイント  (14子コメント)

What is dead may never die, but rises again harder and stronger.

We have plenty of time to see how this debate plays out. There is overwhelming support from the community, the merchant ecosystem and miners for a blocksize increase. If Core fails to sort out its governance issues, then by the time this problem really comes to the fore, XT will be the only solution implemented and readily available.

[–]realhacker[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

thoughts on strategy? mike hearn seems a good guy to get behind and has my support.down with theymos and bashco ruining everything and exploiting people.

[–]Demotruk 7ポイント8ポイント  (12子コメント)

The miners are the only major stakeholders that have to be convinced at this point. Gavin mentioned on the Epicenter Bitcoin interview that he'd have to spend time getting people on board, so I imagine that's what will be happening, plenty of talking to miners and any merchants/wallets etc. who still have reservations.

I don't believe that the core devs need to be convinced. IMO spending too much time trying to convince the devs puts them on a special pedestal where they should not be.

[–]realhacker[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

well that's encouraging. i was a bit concerned things became stagnant or people were becoming dismayed with the xt effort...but i think that all of the reasonable people are on this side of the fence.

[–]Not_Pictured 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm tickled as can be that there is now a legitimately used and supported alternative to core. A more popularized one at least. That alone took a huge weight off my chest.

So long as bitcoin can maintain decentralization (or improve on it) I have no worry that the block size will increase in due time.

[–]jphamlore 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

XT was never going to get the miners' support after this Mike Hearn post to the developer's mailing list in June:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008401.html

Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.

[–]Spartan_174849 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think mike's comment is rational.

Why would the network suffer because a single country's fucked up government?

It's similar to the small blocker fallacy that slow/capped connections should be able to run full nodes.

[–]jphamlore 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The comment was completely irrational in the context where it was made. A person purporting to be speaking some of the concerns of the Chinese miners simply made an observation of technical problems with raising the block size due to their particular network concerns. Simple decency would imply that Hearn should have at least acknowledged some consideration of this problem instead of completely brushing off the concerns of someone whose approval XT needed to succeed.

[–]toduBIP101 and Bitcoin XT proponent 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

The two Bitcoin XT developers (Mike and Gavin) have already shown consideration to the special needs of the Chinese miners by lowering the original 20 MB cap to 8 MB, as soon as the Chinese miners published their joint open letter with their 8 MB request. Going lower than that would choke bitcoin's capacity to an unreasonably low amount.

The 8 MB blocksize cap is a reasonable compromise between the Chinese miners' problem with low Internet upload capacity, and the need for high transaction rate capacity that the rest of the world has.

[–]wonderkindel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why would the network suffer because a single country's fucked up government?

Because that single fucked up country is the one making the chips.

[–]realhacker[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

because that's where the mining power is centralized--disproportionately so. assuming bitcoin finds a non-illegal use case, IMO, some technical consideration should be given to return it to its roots, where one need not have a million dollar rig to mine. i wonder if such a thing is possible.

[–]Spartan_174849 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I recommend looking into "economies of scale" and re-evaluating your opinion and expectations.

[–]realhacker[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

economies of scale: having the capital to achieve lowest cost. how does this relate to your point?

edit: to add, i think this kind of relates to what i was saying as a counterpoint - that miners are advantaged by economies of scale, and as such, the tendency is to become centralized (those that gain sufficient scale make it very hard to compete for anyone else.) precisely what's happened, in my view, and probably objectively too.

edit2: browsing a bit further down the your sub's posts: https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/643456696535416833

[–]Spartan_174849 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It seems as some people desire something which is impossible or unrealistic: having all nodes to mine solo on an equal playing field.

[–]realhacker[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

then i ask, what is the point of all of the technical work making things decentralized, esp with all of the inefficiencies that come with it? in other words, if centralization is the outcome, why not just do that up front? and actually, traditional banking entities are probably more trustworthy centrally than some anonymous chinese entities as they are subject to regulations.

my thought is there might exist some hashing algorithm or alternative scheme in which these problems could be mitigated, perhaps incorporating time rather than raw computing power, which is very wasteful.

[–]jstolfi 11ポイント12ポイント  (11子コメント)

Slush miners stopped showing support for BIP101 because they were DDoSed by the small-blockians. I suppose that when Satoshi wrote "majority of the CPU power" in the whitepaper he meant "majority of the DDoS power".

The largest miners seem to support BIP100 that lets them decide the max block size without being distracted by the community's opinion. But of course they can implement whatever size limit they want, and the rest of the community will follow.

[–]Spartan_174849 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

rest of the community will follow.

Or migrate to an other system.

[–]jstolfi 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

I see no chance of that happening. As likely as the Americans switching to euros if the Fed does not manage the dollar as they would like.

[–]Spartan_174849 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Expect using fiat currencies is mandatory.

Also,in collapsed countries people switch to foreign currencies, items and barter.

[–]jstolfi 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

in collapsed countries people switch to foreign currencies

But the currency has to collapse first...

[–]Vibr8gKiwi69 points an hour ago 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

If bitcoin remains mismanaged people will switch to the next bright and shiny new thing that doesn't have the mismanagement problems. It will probably happen fast and unexpectedly. This is my big worry...

[–]FaceDeer 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's only a concern for people who are left holding a bunch of bitcoins. For everyone else a switch away from a mismanaged cryptocurrency to one that isn't mismanaged is a solution to a problem, not something to worry about.

[–]Ant-n 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed,

We should all try to be 'educated' on other cryto as some of them got potential.

With that being said I think we should all try our best to maintain bitcoin.. It's our best chhance of a cryto going mainstream..

[–]toduBIP101 and Bitcoin XT proponent 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Zimbabwe abandoned their native currency and adopted the USD instead, as soon as their government enlarged the inflation parameter unreasonably much.

If the miners choose a fork that is considered to be unreasonable by the rest of the economic majority, then there will be another fork. Because there would be little point in mining blocks that no one is using, the miners would quickly rejoin the majority.

I don't think the miners will be successful in getting everyone to use a BIP100 fork, should anyone ever even write the actual source code for it. I'm guessing that the BIP101 fork will win. It will probably happen within 12 months from now.

[–]jstolfi 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If the miners choose a fork that is considered to be unreasonable by the rest of the economic majority

The Zimbabweans (and Ecuadoreans) did not stop using the currency because they disagreed with the government monetary policies. They stopped (or actually, their governments gave up) after the currency suffered enormous devaluation through continuing issuance by the government.

Of course the cartel (like any other cartel) will not try to do changes that would motivate everybody to dump. Objectively, the change in reward schedule described above would not be different than the US government raising the target inflation rate from 1% to 5%. The people would hate it, but that would not be reason enough for them to abandon the currency for another one. (Actually, the reward scehduel change would be less objectionable than that dollar inflation hike,because it would mean holding the current BTC inflation for two more years but then decreasing the inflation twice as fast.)

I'm guessing that the BIP101 fork will win. It will probably happen within 12 months from now.

I don know which one will win. My bet is in my BIP99½, namely a one-time hike to 8 MB and "then we will see what happens". (But of course no one will admit that it is my idea 8-D).

However, 12 months is too much. The increase must happen in 6 months or less, otherwise there will be a significant risk of congestion.

[–]realhacker[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

any analysis of the ddos? i know cloudfare and some others can usually approximately identify the source region. could it be the chinese? im unclear on whether xt is in miners' interest. it's an illegal activity that should be given some attention.

[–]jstolfi 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neither XT nor BIP101 were ever favored by the big miners.

In their joint letter, the Chinese miners said that they were OK with 8 MB limit, but against the autmatic increases of BIP101. Later they said that they would not switch to BitcoinXT "because of its experimental nature" and hoped that the developers got to an agreement.

But Blockstream would not accept any increase at all. So I do not know where thay stand now. Anyway, they surely have their own private forks of Core with their patches, and will just patch them to implement whatever block size they want.

Recently Adam Back seemed willing to accept an increase to 2 MB "now" and other modest increases spaced by a couple of years. Perhaps he realized that the LN would not be ready by mid-2016. Or perhaps it is just another stalling tactic -- whereby "now" will be eventually clarified as "2017"...

[–]cipher_gnome 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

1000 blocks is about a week. I predict there won't be any serious support for bip101 until a week or 2 before 11/1/16.

[–]realhacker[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

can you elaborate a bit?

[–]rydan -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

The next six weeks are critical.

[–]FaceDeer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why? It would be nice to fix things sooner rather than later, sure, but we can still fix things later if need be.

[–]rydan -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

bitcoinxtobituaries.com