Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
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.
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.
Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
-snip-
Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering.
FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely.
P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12250669#msg12250669
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?
Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?
They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.
For years?
Oh, not you Jonald! 
You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!
* Edited.
People should really stop mixing things up ...
You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.