odinn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-08-21 š Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
š
Original date posted:2015-08-21
š Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
To answer your question, from my perspective, I am not opposed to
block size increase.. I am hoping it would be in the context of
something like BIP 100 as I've said before.
But I'm extremely opposed to XT.
Would I continue with bitcoin if things continue and "XT prevails" as
you put it? That is addressed in part here in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157545.msg12196537
Basically, in short, I would fight it as long as possible.
I won't use XT, and I suspect there are many like myself who will
never use it as well.
On 08/20/2015 03:16 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> BitPay seems to support BIP 101:
>
> https://medium.com/@spair/increasing-the-block-size-limit-85ff236fc516
>
> We do not know where this is going. But I suspect that ultimately
> also the core client will increase the block size.
>
> Bitcoin is also the subject of research. I think that research is
> much to slow (and uncertain) for many companies and users. This is
> the reason for XT. Nevertheless, I think further research on the
> base of the current protocol version is very important. Thus, I
> hope that the current block chain survives. Albeit at a lower level
> with fewer users. And expressly not to sabotage necessary changes
> in the main project.
>
> Let's suppose XT prevails or core is changed within the terms of
> BIP 101:
>
> Do you think that there are enough people to continue with the old
> protocol version? Would developers fork a Bitcoin client for
> supporting the old nodes with security updates? Or will there be a
> compatibility mode in XT, so that XT behave like an old Bitcoin
> node? What about smaller but important projects like picocoin?
>
> - oliver _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1paRAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CTkQH/3N1kEuiGOCwHOe0Upw+XLi5
lIt0eME9cWsknqJvHyASVF6OGRcNdl5GFd2KG25P7NoxE5ZyP6zRuwzcPkAuDPNz
h+3lnNYx/e2sg69FPNXSnhShV0mlGAV7r/poLRFMP4AsOyq4kVmjD3LFFndnRJ9I
SekAj847ocMqcujkTt29gKw4JNT7JiWAbGELpxms4GYHvyCdDkjS319GfN5BcerV
xSYXcfrlji+dNFoll1TAEfXjcfuYmMitdXdRmbbcslxB57hAY/owwTRyOkjnrwDV
vacPYRauG2xcYQVGQAvRPSXaKtaE0sBau5Yjk1eN534knggypdrx0CC+BmqEqhA=
=HpeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
š Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
To answer your question, from my perspective, I am not opposed to
block size increase.. I am hoping it would be in the context of
something like BIP 100 as I've said before.
But I'm extremely opposed to XT.
Would I continue with bitcoin if things continue and "XT prevails" as
you put it? That is addressed in part here in this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157545.msg12196537
Basically, in short, I would fight it as long as possible.
I won't use XT, and I suspect there are many like myself who will
never use it as well.
On 08/20/2015 03:16 AM, Oliver Egginger via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> BitPay seems to support BIP 101:
>
> https://medium.com/@spair/increasing-the-block-size-limit-85ff236fc516
>
> We do not know where this is going. But I suspect that ultimately
> also the core client will increase the block size.
>
> Bitcoin is also the subject of research. I think that research is
> much to slow (and uncertain) for many companies and users. This is
> the reason for XT. Nevertheless, I think further research on the
> base of the current protocol version is very important. Thus, I
> hope that the current block chain survives. Albeit at a lower level
> with fewer users. And expressly not to sabotage necessary changes
> in the main project.
>
> Let's suppose XT prevails or core is changed within the terms of
> BIP 101:
>
> Do you think that there are enough people to continue with the old
> protocol version? Would developers fork a Bitcoin client for
> supporting the old nodes with security updates? Or will there be a
> compatibility mode in XT, so that XT behave like an old Bitcoin
> node? What about smaller but important projects like picocoin?
>
> - oliver _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJV1paRAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CTkQH/3N1kEuiGOCwHOe0Upw+XLi5
lIt0eME9cWsknqJvHyASVF6OGRcNdl5GFd2KG25P7NoxE5ZyP6zRuwzcPkAuDPNz
h+3lnNYx/e2sg69FPNXSnhShV0mlGAV7r/poLRFMP4AsOyq4kVmjD3LFFndnRJ9I
SekAj847ocMqcujkTt29gKw4JNT7JiWAbGELpxms4GYHvyCdDkjS319GfN5BcerV
xSYXcfrlji+dNFoll1TAEfXjcfuYmMitdXdRmbbcslxB57hAY/owwTRyOkjnrwDV
vacPYRauG2xcYQVGQAvRPSXaKtaE0sBau5Yjk1eN534knggypdrx0CC+BmqEqhA=
=HpeA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----