[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

[bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

[Ken Friece]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2016 bytes --]

1.) Most people are running XT as a vote for bigger blocks and not because
they specifically support BIP101. If Core supported bigger blocks, most XT
users would switch back to Core and XT would die.

2.) In this high stakes game of poker, XT just went all in, but Core still
has the far better hand. There are many, many scaling solutions Core could
adopt that would appease XT users enough to kill XT. Don't let perfect be
the enemy of good. The real question is whether or not anyone can provide
enough Core leadership to reach "consensus". The longer it takes for Core
to reach "consensus", the stronger XT gets.

3.) Bitcoin market price has a far greater mining centralizing effect than
larger blocks ever will. Right now, miners with reasonably efficient
hardware and energy costs (.5W/GH mining hardware, 10 cents per kilowatt
hour power, $250 BTC price) spend about half of their mining income on
electricity. If the total Bitcoin market cap is under ~5 billion at the
next halving in July 2016, it's game over for all but the most efficient
(large) miners. The mining centralization that may occur with 8MB blocks in
2016 is nothing compared to the centralization that will occur if the total
Bitcoin market cap does not grow substantially between now and the next
halving.

4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of
uncertainty right now, which makes the mining nightmare scenario outlined
above more likely. The entire ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once
a Core scaling solution is adopted. Hopefully this issue will be revolved
well before the next halving in July 2016 so the market has time to adjust
and grow again.

5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time
again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT
gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all
Not-BitcoinXT will do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up
putting more people on the losing side of the fork.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2143 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

[Milly Bitcoin]

> 4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot
> of uncertainty right now, ...

That is true VC investors and people starting companies.  People who 
invest directly in Bitcoin love all this stuff.

A few weeks back a bunch of stories quoting nonsense spouted by Bitcoin 
cultists that Greece can use Bitcoin now as a replacement currency and 
store of value.  The price went about $300 so I sold a bunch of my 
coins.  Now we have these stories that Bitcoin is splitting in 2 and it 
went down to near $200 so I bought them back.

The point is that "developer attacks" have to be taken into 
consideration when discussing these things.

Russ

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations

[Felipe Micaroni Lalli]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On 19/08/2015 09:24, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time
> again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT
> gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all
> Not-BitcoinXT will do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up
> putting more people on the losing side of the fork.

If 25% or more of the hashpower are against XT, Not-BitcoinXT becomes an
important weapon for them. This was not a "bad idea", but can shake the
market.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]