Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 06:20:16 PM

Quote from: maokoto on August 26, 2015, 06:01:32 PM

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.