HEARN ANDERSEN AND LEAVING ASIDE THE FINANCIAL FACTOR
By Alex Vallenllla / @alexvallenilla
So far as it has been conceived Bitcoin has worked. While there are technical issues on the basis of the criterion of some developers within the Bitcoin, Gavin Andersen and Mike Hearn Foundation, they have some handle only in that if more people connected to the network chain block is required the size of the blocks are confirmed, is also larger, it leaves out the effects from the financial point of view and speculative stem from wanting to change something that has worked, as it was conceived.
Andersen argues that for change to BitcoinXT, it is necessary that 75% of the nodes that make confirmations in the chain of blocks, pass the new mode. BitcoinXT is currently running at 1 Mb they have managed to extract three blocks and have 13.5% of nodes connected to that network.
The first drawback, from the IT point of view, is that if the block size changes from 1Mb to 8Mb, as suggested by Andersen and Hearn, the network will be reduced, because of timing problems portfolios from PC, 1Mb, consume bandwidth. Andersen argues that confirmation times are reduced to increase the size of the block, its main argument, however, leave out millions of users can not connect to the new size, capacity limitations.
The previous point breaks with a foundation of Core Bitcoin, a decentralized network, accessible to everyone. Reduce size, reduce the number of users, reducing the market and reduce the number of operations that directly reduce the amount of liquidity which supports the price of Bitcoin. This last point is the most important, the inherent liquidity to Bitcoin, fewer users, inevitably less liquidity. What these sages of computer set aside is very important, more than the size of the blocks that Bitcoin is possible and has the value, because the support it receives comes from the confidence of the public, to more users, more confidence and greater value, less public, Bitcoin, no longer reliable. As for more decentralization, better Bitcoin.
Say BitcoinXT achieve consensus and meets prior to January 2016, 75% of the nodes. Core Bitcoin be incompatible with the new network, because for that month BitcoinXT upgrade to 8MB block. From there will be two bitcoins, one for users and ability to connect with others with less capacity. Mike Hearn has been clear in his statement on his blog, shamelessly he said that "Bitcoin has forked, hopefully everyone understands." A very clear statement that there is an update, but a new Bitcoin, in seeking to sink the already known. Again the ball passes the golf market. If this is allowed or will BitcoinXT community, investors and speculators will of the two, withdrawing the liquidity that provide for lack of reliability and trust. Core Bitcoin is a project of a currency that can not be manipulated by monetary authorities in the world and is understood and how it works, if the world developers will appear from time to time, each with a different bitcoin, with any name and you try to bring down the other, no investor will put a penny in such nonsense, because Bitcoin is possible because in question are the central banks that issue and print money daily, so that confidence in many fiat currencies has been lost, as will happen to Bitcoin, if Hearn and Andersen insist on such folly. Then come BitcoinXXT, BitcoinXXL. Then about that some will say it is not enough 21 million Bitcoins in the world and that software should be altered to 100 million in five years and other developers say they are 300 million. No investor will put a penny on it.
If Hearn Andersen and want something different, there is the option of Alt-coins or alternative currencies to Bitcoin and convertibles.
There are computer reviewing the matter, Bitcointalk.org forum specifically on this link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.360 BitcoinXT crumbles, there are data that BitcoinXT tracks IP addresses, this breaks with another principle of BTC. Another point touched is that the block size is far from being a problem yet and if confirmed transfers take time, users have the option from its nodes up commissions to make them faster, among other topics.
What are they doing?
In the accompanying graph, chain blocks, shown as a prelude to the launch of BitcoinXT, more than 200,000 daily transactions were processed for more than one week, the most historically seen high and with a visible jump that shows an unusual move, taking into account that in January 2015, only about 80,000 transactions recorded in the graph jumps in the same period the block size to record highs of 0.78 Mb, since there are only six days in 2015 barely spend 0.5 Mb, who made these movements and to what end? Andersen and Hearn should know, What reason? For now difficult to know. (See accompanying graphic).