Published on: 2015-08-19T17:14:52+00:00
On August 19th, 2015, Ken Friece expressed his opinion on the idea of Not-BitcoinXT in an email. He believed it was a "really terrible idea" because Mike Hearn, the creator of the XT client, had shown that he would not back down. Friece argued that the chances of Not-BitcoinXT gaining 25% of the hashrate were almost non-existent. Instead, he believed that it would only help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and leave more people on the losing side of the fork. However, Friece acknowledged that if 25% or more of the hashpower were against XT, Not-BitcoinXT could become a significant weapon for them. Despite some dismissing it as a bad idea, it had the potential to shake the market.The blocksize issue in Bitcoin has caused uncertainty among investors and entrepreneurs. While this has been challenging for some, direct Bitcoin investors have found enjoyment in these uncertainties. The recent Greek debt crisis led to a belief that Bitcoin could be used as a replacement currency, resulting in a price spike. This presented an opportunity for the author to sell some of their coins. However, with reports of Bitcoin potentially splitting in two, the price has dropped, allowing the author to buy back their coins. It is important to consider the concept of "developer attacks" when discussing the future of Bitcoin.The ongoing debate over the block size issue has led many users to run the XT client as a vote for bigger blocks. However, if Core were to support larger blocks, most XT users would switch back to Core, causing XT to die out. In this high stakes game, XT has gone all-in, but Core still holds the better hand. Core has several scaling solutions it could adopt to satisfy XT users enough to eliminate XT. The longer Core takes to reach consensus on this matter, the stronger XT becomes.The author also points out that the mining centralization effect resulting from larger blocks is overshadowed by the greater centralization caused by the Bitcoin market price. With a total Bitcoin market cap under 5 billion at the next halving in July 2016, only the most efficient miners will survive. If the market cap does not substantially grow, the potential mining centralization with 8MB blocks in 2016 would be insignificant compared to the scenario outlined above. The blocksize issue adds uncertainty, which investors dislike and increases the likelihood of the mining nightmare scenario. The entire ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once a Core scaling solution is adopted.In summary, Not-BitcoinXT is seen as a terrible idea by some due to Mike Hearn's unwavering stance and the slim chances of it gaining sufficient support. The blocksize issue has created uncertainty in the Bitcoin market, affecting investors and entrepreneurs. The ongoing debate between XT and Core continues, with XT users supporting bigger blocks but ready to switch back to Core if it adopts larger blocks. The potential mining centralization caused by larger blocks is overshadowed by the centralization impact of the Bitcoin market price. The ecosystem requires time to adapt and expand once a Core scaling solution is implemented.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T15:34:24.715035+00:00