Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 24, 2015, 02:30:53 AM

XT, as defined on Trolltalk and /r/bitcoin, is most certainly an altcoin:

Quote from: theymos on August 10, 2015, 03:18:04 AM

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.

The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

If can't accept that, please fuck off to /v/bitcoinxt.

Already refuted:

Quote from: DooMAD on August 17, 2015, 11:52:24 AM

To summarise, he's basically saying if the economy doesn't follow the miners, there's a problem. Which is a negative spin.

But at the same time, the statement would be equally true if he had phrased it to say that if the economy does follow the miners, there isn't a problem. Positive spin.

A subtle change in emphasis makes all the difference. The only thing he's really giving here is an opinion. He thinks a fork would be bad and he's trying to make it sound as scary as possible. He's more than welcome to his opinion, but it's not beyond repute.

If Bitcoin forks and people go with the flow, everything keeps working normally. There is no drama. First we'll see if the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away. That's how it would work regardless of what the client is called or who coded it. If it was bitcoin core that introduced the 8mb patch, the fork would occur once the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away. Same story, different name. At the end of the day, it makes no difference. Another equally valid outcome is that the alternative client reaches consensus and the core devs concede and release a version of core supporting 8mb blocks and then there's no bickering over a silly name or the personalities involved.

It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus. If he wants to keep moving threads to altcoins because of his opinion, I honestly couldn't care less. It's only going to polarise the discussion, encourage controversy and make people dig their heels in. If anything, it's generating more support for the alternative client than there otherwise would be.

Feel free to express your opinions, but they are only opinions. Don't present spin as fact.

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 24, 2015, 07:41:46 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on August 18, 2015, 07:47:32 PM

My first choice is BIP101, but if certain corners of the community are absolutely hellbent on torpedoing it through increasingly fraudulent means (the 'notXT' spoof client, impersonating satoshi, reddit and forum censorship, calling it an altcoin, general FUD or misinformation and all the other underhand and dishonest shit that's currently going on), I would settle on this proposal as a compromise or fallback.

However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves.

Wouldn't it be better to fork away the people with such behavior? What's the benefit to keep them within the bitcoin movement?

I fundamentally believe Bitcoin is permissionless. That means I wouldn't want to exclude people just because I don't agree with them doing things I perceive as being immoral to influence the outcome of the fork proposal. Based on everything I've read, I think the right course of action is a larger blocksize. If at the end of all this... actually, I should clarify what I mean by that first. I don't just mean this silly "XT vs Core" spat, but the wider blocksize issue, including alternative proposals we haven't thoroughly explored yet (like my second preference linked to above), so the "end" could be a long way away yet. But if at the end of it all, there is still no fork and Bitcoin remains at a 1mb blocksize, that simply means we (those of us who want a larger blocksize) didn't state the case effectively enough. I'll accept that outcome. I can't promise there won't be an "I told you so" or twelve if that outcome leads to negative consequences down the road, but I'll accept it. I only believe in forking if it's with consensus, but I'll continue to make the case for larger blocks and call out the BS when I see it.

Quote from: LaudaM on August 24, 2015, 06:48:40 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on August 18, 2015, 07:47:32 PM

However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves.

Fraudulent activity?

Was I not clear about that part?

Running a client to spoof your version and manipulate the figures is not honest behaviour
Impersonating satoshi to "discredit" the fork proposal is not honest behavior
Dismissing the fork proposal as an altcoin is not honest behaviour
Attempting to sweep discussion on both forums and reddit under the carpet is not honest behaviour
Claiming XT has suddenly introduced the possibility to log or ban IPs when this has always been possible is not honest behaviour.

The best part is, no one can stop them from doing these things. They're perfectly entitled to do as they please. But they aren't doing their cause any favours. People aren't stupid and if they suspect something underhand is occurring, it's only going to make them dubious of the motives involved.