Author: s7r 2015-08-19 15:41:49
Published on: 2015-08-19T15:41:49+00:00
The sender of the email addressed to Jorge and Eric has implemented application level filters so priority can be given to certain people in response to all the noise on the -dev mail list. Although he agrees with their arguments, he does not have enough information to take a definitive decision on whether or not to increase block size because he is neither for nor against it. He highlights that Bitcoin XT is not necessarily an attack over Bitcoin and will not split it into two different coins. It is just a result of an open source free system which lacks centralization. In fact, there is lack of control over it from all parties. The sender also discusses the advantages of Bitcoin by design, but points out its limitation that relies on majority being honest and doing the right thing. He clarifies that Bitcoin won't split/die because of this fork, regardless of what happens. Further, the sender says that if the value of Bitcoin can be decreased or Bitcoin as a project killed just by two people forking the software and submitting a consensus rule to a vote, then Bitcoin is already dead. He argues that we cannot panic every time somebody forks Bitcoin and tries to change something; it should be allowed by the nature of its license. He says, "It's as simple as that." By having a software fork and consensus rule submitted to vote we actually prove how open Bitcoin is. There is no authority in Bitcoin. This is the truly decentralized nature of the software, not important if we have 10.000 full nodes or 1000 full nodes.The sender also responds to a statement made by Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev regarding the extremely weak position of Bitcoin XT from game theory. The sender argues that Satoshi gets to decide the winning fork just by his huge economic investment in Bitcoin and this puts Bitcoin core in an extremely weaker position than it was before the Schism hardfork. Even if XT fails in making blocks bigger, it may destroy Bitcoin. However, the sender assumes that Hearn and Andresen want to improve Bitcoin and not make it centralized or destroy it. They have forked an open source software and implemented a voting system for a consensus rule change which is allowed, but whether they are qualified enough to maintain the software or if the decision is technically correct or not is another story.Lastly, the sender suggests that one way to permanently separate BTC from XTBTC is to move them all in transactions bigger than 1MB. This will hurt the utxo size in Bitcoin XT, but that's just a side effect.
Updated on: 2023-06-10T19:39:21.786060+00:00