From: Ken Friece <kfriece@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core versus XT observations
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKujSOHGPTy-A3TUKKxO4kJYhWaReqyni2aE0CvK0ON8tixNNw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- 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, $250 BTC price) spend about half of their mining income on
electricity. If the total Bitcoin market cap is under ~5 billion at the
next halving in July 2016, it's game over for all but the most efficient
(large) miners. The mining centralization that may occur with 8MB blocks in
2016 is nothing compared to the centralization that will occur if the total
Bitcoin market cap does not grow substantially between now and the next
halving.
4.) Investors hate uncertainty, and the blocksize issue is adding a lot of
uncertainty right now, which makes the mining nightmare scenario outlined
above more likely. The entire ecosystem needs time to adjust and grow once
a Core scaling solution is adopted. Hopefully this issue will be revolved
well before the next halving in July 2016 so the market has time to adjust
and grow again.
5.) Not-BitcoinXT is a really terrible idea. Mike has proven time and time
again that he will not blink or back down. The chances of Not-BitcoinXT
gaining 25% of the hashrate are pretty much nil, so in effect, all
Not-BitcoinXT will do is help XT reach the 75% threshold sooner and end up
putting more people on the losing side of the fork.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2143 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2015-08-19 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-19 12:24 Ken Friece [this message]
2015-08-19 13:05 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-08-19 17:14 ` Felipe Micaroni Lalli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAKujSOHGPTy-A3TUKKxO4kJYhWaReqyni2aE0CvK0ON8tixNNw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=kfriece@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox