@ademczuk
I appreciate the alert but as a casual user I can see that Mike hearn (or whomever he represents) has created a problem to solve. @adam If XT cannot solve scaling then this fork is an attack.
The apache tribe was defeated by admiting that they could only survive by centralising their livestock. You tought me this in your first 20 episodes.
There is no such thing as "solving" scaling - it's a sliding scale, hence the name. We can't expect to just wait around until we figure out a solution that will let us go from the current 100,000 transactions a day to 7,000,000,000,000+ transactions per day instantly. We still have to get to the 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 per day mark, and the easiest and most obvious way to do that right now is to increase the block size limit, which has already previously been raised (everyone was using lower soft limits before) in similar situations of increasing TX volume.. So what we are talking about is keeping things business as usual for the next several years, and then we can work on figuring out how to get to a hundred million or a billion+ transactions per day. Additional nodes on the network come naturally with the adoption (main reason nodes have been going down up till now is actually the transition from hosting the blockchain yourself to just using SPV wallets like Mycelium)
@shmadz
Welcome Mike as our new bitcoin overlord? This feels wrong.
Wrong? Mike (and Gavin, apparently) just wants to get more than 75% of nodes to all use the same client. A client that he has complete control over.
Once the switch is made, it will make it easier for Mike to roll out some of his other pet projects. Perhaps we get redlists with v11.1?
And I haven't heard anyone mention the second part of the protocol change, the doubling every 2 years...
What could possibly go wrong?
Edit @Adam - re: "benevolent dictator or deadlock" .. how can you be sure that Mike Hearn is benevolent? Or that once he is given the keys to the kingdom he will stay that way?
That's true, but you can say that about anyone. I can sit here and pick apart 10 ideas from Greg Maxwell that I don't like, so why should I trust Core? Anyways I'm pretty sure Mike knows by now if he actually tried implementing stuff like that, people would lose their shit, plus a lot of his other ideas seem to just be him thinking out loud, rather than seriously "I'm going to do this". Either way, it doesn't matter because if BitcoinXT turns into the same sort of deadlock, or goes rouge and actively includes tools for censorship or w/e, then today's story will just repeat itself and you will see a movement to BitcoinZY or whatever else. Maybe that's inevitable, it only took about 5 or 6 years for it to happen to the Core project, so it could be a cycle :p
@adam
And I haven't heard anyone mention the second part of the protocol change, the doubling every 2 years...
I don't know anything about this, link or any light you can shed?
Yeah, every 2 years the cap doubles, for 20 years until it reaches 8GB IIRC. So in 2018 the cap will be 16MB, 2020 it will be 32MB and so on. Miners still have their soft limits though, so realistically no one is going to be mining blocks that don't make sense to mine. There is also another catch there though... the legacy network protocol has a fundamental limit of 32MB, so eventually it is going to need to be rewritten and there will need to be a hard fork. Gavin mentions this briefly in his scalability roadmap he posted last year http://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/
@twebit
What ever happened to the hard fork policy at bitcoin.org? https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
Does the XT violate this policy? Always wondered?
Yeah, XT is actually precisely what they are referring to in that post, they just don't outright say it. There is a big argument about it on github.. Pretty much same day that Gavin had originally said he would move over and post the patches to XT if no consensus could be made, they posted that as a pre-emptive move.
@adam
@twebit
What ever happened to the hard fork policy at bitcoin.org? https://bitcoin.org/en/posts/hard-fork-policy
Does the XT violate this policy? Always wondered?
I emailed Gavin for comment on this - One important question is who actually does this apply to? Bitcoin.org isn't an "official" anything, just another site on the internet that can pick what info it displays
So the 'official" policy might just mean it won't be linked from bitcoin.org
Also worthy to note that the same people that run bitcoin.org are the ones that run /r/bitcoin, bitcointalk.org and the "official" bitcoin wiki. Good ole Theymos and friends..
