There are also no blacklists within Bitcoin XT. You are spreading misinformation, this is not conductive towards constructive discussion.
it seems there is some fundamental disagreement. the hard-coded list of deprioritized IP addresses fits the technical definition of a blacklist. (see: the dictionary) Wladimir also stated that is was a blacklist, and used that as a basis to reject Hearn's pull. clearly it is a list of IP addresses that is viewed with suspicion (after all, they were listed in the first place due to fears of DDOS)
Fair enough, however only the blocksize itself is fundamental to the protocol level in terms of a hard fork, which makes the other features essentially optional. To be fair however the "black list" within XT is only activated once the node is already under DDOS attack, what this feature actually practically does is quite different to what most would think when people hear the term "black list", nobody is being censored most importantly. When discussing XT in relation to a hard fork, it should really just be a discussion about BIP101, since that is the only feature within XT that would not be optional post fork if you do wish to maintain compatibility with this chain. I would prefer to talk about other solutions then XT however since a more conservative increase of the blocksize would be a better solution in terms of us all reaching consensus.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks