Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
by
brg444
on 19/09/2015, 15:57:38 UTC
This is yet to be seen (which I am not really optimistic to be honest), otherwise expect a more aggressive fork that would cause a split. I would gladly support that if it means leaving "bitcoin that doesn't scale" right where it belongs: dust.

Man, I really don't know what you are doing here, since you are so unsatisfied with Bitcoin the way it is (currently zero issues with blocksize for non-spam transactions despite Hearndresen-FUD the system would break). Personally, I came to Bitcoin because it is a one-of-a-kind decentralized and secure store of wealth and transaction system without counterparty risk. Otherwise I would have been satisfied with Paypal.

It seems to me that you want "scaling" at all costs, even if there is no current demand and this means giving up decentralization. Also, you want to scale the dumb way by implementing extremist block size increases only, instead of using much more efficient second layer solutions. Therefore I don't think it's Bitcoin you want (as indicated by the message in the genesis block) - you want a Paypal 2.0.

There's a promised altcoin* out there that promises to satisfy this need: It's named Hearndresencoin / GavinCoin (short: HDC / GVC). Although it seems to be failing to get sufficient support to achieve its mere existence, competent altcoin adopters like you will surely push it for success... so I suggest you should join the altcoin boards full time and don't waste your time in a Bitcoin forum any longer.

*) Why promised altcoin? Because Hearndresencoin doesn't even have its own blockchain (it tries to live on Bitcoin's resources) it is not yet able to execute its core altcoin functionality (other "features" like IP filtering already work though). Therefore HDC is a promised or double-virtual altcoin.

ya.ya.yo!
To quote adamstgBit because I could have said it better myself:
i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.
Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.