Quote from: oblivi on August 20, 2015, 04:14:00 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 04:06:20 PM

Quote from: valiz on August 20, 2015, 09:13:16 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 20, 2015, 12:33:59 AM

Quote from: bittydude on August 19, 2015, 11:40:09 PM

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

You can't change the max block size without a hardfork anyway. It's not like you are tweaking a knob. Perhaps you are confusing the software fork with the blockchain hard fork.

Please go ahead with the XT-CIAcoin and suffer the consequences. You are free to do so

I do realize that any increase to the block size requires a hard fork, I think that Core will never increase the block size so therefore supporting a hard fork is de facto not supporting Core. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks and wild conspiracy theory against XT instead of having solid arguments. Can you explain to me how XT is a CIA coin?

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

This sounds pretty CIA to me. And don't get me wrong, I want bigger blocks and I was support XT until I realized there is a lot of fishy things going on here, can't trust that at all, so I will stay with Core for sure. We have still a long way to get near 1MB blocks limit, we are at the half at best, I dont see the big necessity for big blocks NOW.

As far as I understand it that article is a very bad journalism. Since Peter Todd has already come forward and said that he was wrong about IP's being leaked, not that it even matters since Bitcoin is not anonymous in that way anyway. What you are pointing towards is a DDOS prevention code, this is a good thing. You can still connect through Tor and there is an option to just turn that feature off. It is not a part of the fundamental protocol unlike the block size itself, so therefore it is peoples free choice whether to use that feature or not. If the network is subjected to a DDOS attack by the CIA for example then we could use this code to prioritize connections so that we can still connect to the Bitcoin network.

Therefore calling XT a CIA coin just because of this is hyperbole and not constructive towards good argumentation. I would expect a "fed" or "gov" coin to not have a limited supply and be controlled by a center of power. This is definitely not the case with XT.

Trying to do a hard fork when we need it will be to late, it would be chaotic and people might lose money, that is why it is better to implement increased block sizes before we need them, before it is to late. We should have started this even earlier then we are now IMHO.