by the way, if you done some research XT was just a bait and switch for the same guys behind blockstream.
No. It seems a deliberate destructive movement by Hearn, the same guy that seems to have broken R3 into *groups*.
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h ~19% according to here.
but there are other implementations too.
What other implementations are there besides Core and BU that have implemented rules that have not been activated yet (Segwit for Core vs. voting up to 16 MB maximum for BU IIRC)?
but anyway you are acting like its a competition to be reigned in as king. rather than thinking of the bitcoin network remaining diverse. and not having a king
BU has not been making claims that core should fork off to an altcoin. yet core have been making claims that BU should fork off to an altcoin. funny that!.
False. BU proponents, primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been fighting for blocking scaling via Segwit and pro a fork.
please take off your core fanboy hat and put on a unbiased bitcoin network hat and try to research what you preach
I'm most certainly not a 'core fanboy' and what I preach is correct.
dynamic base blocksize along with dynamic weight to allow the features some love with the capacity growth we ALL want.
That requires more research.
which would require both a node consensus followd by a pool consensus. and dont worry. nothing happens unless consensus is reached.
While I'm pro a larger block size limit after the sighash problem is solved (making it linear), I am not in favor of node voting on the block size limit. This creates added complexity and confusion. Also, you can easily spin up a few hundred/thousand nodes in an attempt to manipulate this.
Update: Minor fix.