Bitcoin Forum

I wonder sometimes

He is doing a shitty job then:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/search?q=bitcoin+xt&restrict_sr=on

Aren't all altcoin posts usually deleted when they aren't posted in the appropriate place?

I don't think it makes sense to call Bitcoin XT an alt-coin anymore than it does the current version of Bitcoin Core, which has hard-forked several times since it was introduced.  Furthermore, Bitcoin Core will only fork away from Bitcoin XT when XT has 75% of the hash power behind it.

The very second a >1Mb block is created by XT, we'll have two different chains. That's a fork in my book.

In anyone's book. As soon as the second prong begins, it's completely different network

We'll have 2 different chains how?
Let's imagine the scenario:
%5 of the miners are mining on XT, and %95 of it mines on Core.
XT miners finds a block and adds it into their chain (let's say it's chain A)
Core miners reject that block and finds another one (let's say it's chain B).
How will chain A proceed? Core miners will never give a damn f* about chain A, so There's only 5% of the network mines for it (imagine the difficulty).
 Chain B will proceed because it still has 95% of the mining power.

Anyway, if majority of the HR doesn't switch into XT, it'll be fine for Core & Core miners.

Yes, I agree.  But any block greater than 1Mb would be rejected until XT had 75% hash-power support... a fork is only meaningful to people if there is some appreciable percentage of hash power behind it.

I pity the fool that accepts BTC using the Bitcoin XT client (post fork)...

After the fork coins would be stuck on their respective chains.  I do look forward to the watching the Core/XT exchange rate.  Tell me OgNasty... would you sell all of you XT coins for Core coins at a 1:1 ratio?

It's still possible to find the deleted post by googling.
Here is the censored post about XT binaries.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gc742/bitcoinxt_test_binaries_available/

Is this only on XT's testnet or will we be seeing a forked XT chain soon? If so seems like an unorganized and sloppy way to release it.

XT will not fork the blockchain until a supermajority (75%) of the miners is running XT. So running XT now is no difference to running Core.

I think theymos has given a very good explanation, don't think there's anything worth discussing.

What if majority of miners choose Bitcoin XT? What will we do then? My technical knowledge is limited. What else is different other than block size in XT?

So is Bitcoin XT a completely new code of coin or just a fork for bitcoin?

Well those posts should be considered off topic depending on where they are posted.
 
Think about it this way, bitcoin is defined by the reference implementation which is currently Bitcoin Core. And discussion of Bitcoin should follow the reference implementation and any proposed changes to it. Thus discussion of the hard fork is allowed. Bitcoin XT on the other hand is neither the reference implementation (so not strictly bitcoin as defined by the reference implementation) and is an alternative client which does not belong in Bitcoin Discussion. Therefore theymos is in the right to move or delete posts about XT if they aren't in the right section. Discussion about the client itself should be in the Alternative Client section while discussion about its protocol might be considered as altcoin discussion. However discussion about how the protocol should be changed on bitcoin that also references xt should be allowed to stay in Bitcoin Discussion or Dev and Tech discussing.

What constitutes an altcoin? I think this is obviously more than an altcoin.. the future of Bitcoin itself is on the line. People are going to reach XT one way or another. Im not entirely sure if moving posts from the main board is appropiate.


It's a fork.

Well the next couple of weeks are going to be interesting, think about all the Chinese miners if they switch and mine bitcoin XT, bitcoin blockchain will not move for days

I have a question:
In a purely hypothetical situation, let imagine majority of the Devs have decided to raise the 21 million bitcoin cap to a 42 million cap.
And as so, they all in agreement decide to change the bitcoin protocol and etc and cause a hard fork to enable the new 42 million coin cap.
Now since almost all have agreed and proceeded, the community will most likely have to follow, in theory.

Now in that purely hypothetical situation, Bitcoin Core is no longer actually Bitcoin Core, but Bitcoin Core Version 2.
Would you say that any discussion by the Devs in this forum (which doesn't actually happen usually) about the above situation
be considered "not strictly bitcoin" and "off topic" since it is technically Bitcoin Core Version 2, and thus should not be allowed in this forum, before the hardfork?

The problem is that someone is misrepresenting the word "consensus" in the wrong way.
It is used as something where some developers must agree on, when it is NOT.

Consensus has only a technical meaning to say that the majority of the network, nodes and miners, have come to freely agree to use some rules wrote on a client/software.

Who has wrote this client/software is TOTALLY irrelevant.

They will all be mining the same chain until 75% of blocks have signaled support for the XT rules.  If and when there is a greater-than-1MB block, the hashpower supporting the Core chain will only be 25% of what it was moments before, and blocks will only be found every 40 minutes on average.  If 95% of hashpower switches, Core blocks will only be found every 3 hours and 20 minutes.  If the fork happens to occur right after difficulty adjustment and only 5% of the hashpower remains on the Core chain, there would be 3 hour and 20 minute blocks for 7 months.

I do not know if your above statement is in reference to what I wrote, or someone else, since I did not use the term "Consensus".
So I assume it is not, but in the event it is:

I have not heard of any new implementation of the bitcoin protocol being created by anyone other than the Devs.
My understanding is the Devs publish the updates to the protocol and the miners and community agree to use it or not (the Consensus).
But ultimately, the miners and community will use the new over time. There isn't really a choice for them. All will eventually update.

So the statement that the Devs do not follow Consensus may be correct,
but the fact is they come before and proceed the network consensus since they release the new updates.
Network follows the Devs, not the other way. (Atleast that is how I see it.)

Before the "updates/fixes" are released, the Devs agree on what will go into the next version or not.
That is what I was referring to in my question above.

I would say that the discussion by the devs would not be considered off topic because they would be either discussing a proposed change to the protocol  or discussing a client that has been agreed upon to be the reference implementation (or will become it) even before the hardfork. Of course it would be off topic if the discussion didn't take place in the right section (e.g. dev and tech discussion). Additionally, if the client is being discussed before any such protocol change has been agreed upon and a definitive date given for said change, then it would be "not strictly bitcoin" since it has not yet been determined whether that client will be the reference implementation and the change has not yet been agreed upon.

OK, I think I understand and agree somewhat.
I'm not going to continue my original train of thought because i think I'm not actually knowledgeable enough with Bitcoin/bitcoin to articulate it.

But ultimately I think when Bitcoin XT Blockchain splits from Bitcoin Core Blockchain, it should not be placed into the Altcoin section.
Placing those thread into that area is a form of thought control. Anything within that section is usually deemed irrelevant by our community.
Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Core will compete to see who will be the reference implementation (which in theory should make us stronger).
By placing it into the Altcoin Section, it is a form of belittlement.

But I'm just a noob. I see this whole CORE vs XT as two brothers fighting, sadly.

i fully support theymos' actions.
bitcoin xt discussion does not belong in these sections.
bitcoin xt is worse than an altcoin, its not an altcoin its a hijack coin.
i doubt it will ever gain adoption when people understand what is the driving force behind it.
argue all you want about bigger blocks and more features but bitcoin is the way it is now and if you dont like it you can start bitcoin xy and bitcoin xz then start your own forums and act as you like. 
for now if youre browsing bitcoin sections and people are spamming xt crap then it deserves to be deleted.

i for one, will never mine any xt coin and sell my btc on the xt chain the moment someone is willing to pay me anything for it.

What is the driving force behind it?

I'm impressed at the level of Bitcoin knowledge of bitcointalk.org users compared to /r/Bitcoin users. :) Most of the people in this thread and other similar threads are interpreting the issues correctly (or at least with some evidence of actual thought), unlike most Redditors.


Bitcoin's hardforks (though some people don't classify them as hardforks) were done with consensus among the the Bitcoin community/economy/experts. In the current state of the debate, any max block size increase won't have consensus, though I think that consensus on a compromise proposal might be achievable in 6-18 months.

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.

i like to call that the least common denominator  :'(

(ediit)  how or why would miners ever go against the market?  this makes no sense to me.  unless you mean people like myself or mp who will not support "the market" only to see original bitcoin succeed in the end and the market coming back to those core miners who secure and support it.

if you could please elaborate on what you mean by the miners going against the market and why miner action in your opinion is not the way to judge the direction of the bitcoin network?

thanks again for all your efforts to enforce the rules and not allow the forum to be hijacked.


to hijack a $4 billion financial network away from those defending it from abuse and use it for your own benefit or even subvert its future.  

lets compare 2 scenarios.  
assume 20 years from now 1 btc is worth $5000.  mining rewards then would be less than .5 btc per block so fees would have to make it worth it for miners to continue to secure the network.

scenario 1, 1mb block limit.  you would have to pay something to have your tx confirmed.  this fee would be determined by the market and be well worth its value to send funds globally without an intermediary.  this fee would be split amongst the miners for work securing the network.

scenario 2, 100mb block limit or whatever the arbitrary limit is then that allows everyone to send every transaction with little to no fee, aka free spam.  who is going to secure your blockchain then?  why would they if there is no way to cover the cost of equipment/power? who will power your spam network?  NOT ME!

if you go xt hearn and asswipe will make more changes against all protocol rules.  some have even discussed raising the cap.  just for a bit to make it worth it for miners.  in their system this would be necessary as miners would have no reason to mine for fees alone and they know this.

I agree that the economy and infrastructure that has been built around the current (and prior) implementation must be protected.
But I also believe that Bitcoin/bitcoin is still an experiment, it is still evolving, and we shouldn't lay down and say it is now "perfected".

If a compromise could be realistically reached (which is hard to see lately), then I think many users would be greatly relieved.

But if scenario 2 happens,
why couldn't miners that now have a max block of 100mb, cap their individual blocks to a lower number like they do now?
Miners can have a max block of 1mb now, but they were all using around 715kb, a little while ago.
Miners should set the fee as they want it and compete against each other with how many tx they can handle and fill.

You are proposing a monopoly fee market with a do not compete agreement between all miners.

Plus 20 years from now the world will be very different and is unpredictable.
The problems of today with handware/electricity/cost might be rendered null.

It could even be possible that in the future, large mining farms will go away since it is not profitable, and the individual garage miners rise again.

Obviously there is a conflict of interest among core devs. However the majority of the hash power owner (chinese mining farms and bitfury etc... more than 60% of hash power added together) have expressed their concern and support only 2MB or 4MB block. Conservative approach is always better than aggressive, and Gavin is too eager to make a big change, very risky

I agree that Bitcoin is not ruled by miners.  Their role is to process and confirm transactions that comply with the rules of the system, and protect against double spends by burying such transactions under heaps of proof of work.  If and when miners stop serving the interests of the user base / economic majority, than at that time those users should search for some alternative method of transaction processing that would provide the required confidence and transparency.

Theymos, why would 75% miners want to make changes that don’t have the support of the users, big businesses, or exchanges, especially if doing so would leave them mining tokens that no one wanted?  It doesn’t make sense.  I don’t see any reason why a 3/4 majority of the hash power would choose such a path.

While I do agree with your concept of the economic majority, the fact is we don’t have any good way of accurately measuring what they (the majority) prefer with the singular exception of a market.  Let there be two coins and see which one captures the exchange value.  We all know the problems with the other voting methods, most of which are variations on the sybil attack.  Voting with hashpower, owning to its manipulation-resistant properties, is the second-best stand in for voting with a market.  So the current vote can maybe be likened to a ballot initiative, with the signature-gathering stage (or perhaps a primary election) being the 75% threshold for miners, and the final election being the opening of the markets, chain vs chain.

That is a much better system - for bitcoin at least - than waiting for a handful of core-devs and other ‘experts’ and ‘important people’ to all come to an agreement they may in fact never reach.  One approach is decentralized, the other looks eerily like the central bank model of an inner circle of chairpersons, governors, presidents, etc.

So let’s let the economy vote, with its money, and may the favored chain win.  Markets run their best when information is free flowing.  Theymos, you are in a trusted position in the bitcoin community of having control over two of the most important forums for discourse.  If the economy is going to have its vote, please help it arrive at the correct result, whatever it may be, by keeping these channels open to people from all persuasions, even if and when it seems like things might be going in a way that you don’t think is best.

I will sell all of my XT coins to whatever poor sap wants to buy them, at whatever price I can get for them.  I don't hold altcoins.

You gotta be joking. Bitcoin XT is the biggest scam-alt-coin ever made. Delete that shit.
Stop spreading FUD about hash power here and hash power there.

If i'm not mistaken, if XT goes live, it means that the majority of the network is running it, so there should be enough "fools" to buy your coins.
I doubt that will happen tho, i'm just saying that theoretically, it would make core the less desired one ?!

Anyways,trying to censor it may give it more attention than ignoring it alltogeather i believe.

cheers

I will not mention reddit, however theymos has the right to do whatever he wants to in a privately owned forum. He can ban a person and delete all of his/hers posts just because he wants to (I'm not saying that he would, nor that I support such actions).
People really need to re-evaluate what they're doing. Essentially theymos has allowed you to do various things in his forum under a set of rules determined by him and/or other staff members. If you do not like something, then you are free to leave.

Bitcoin XT is classified as a altcoin and will never be anything else. Looking at the node count, it will never probably take off. The stance of the staff towards Bitcoin XT is correct. It is a Bitcoin fork and everything related to it should be moved away from the Bitcoin sections.

This thread should have been rightfully placed in off-topic section if it had not mentioned Bitcointalk.

---

---

A fork, just like all of the altcoins out there.

As theymos wrote it would be concerning to see a fork without consensus especially if its between miners and services.
Whether discussion could have been moved to it's own section for XT and core or treated as an Alt-coin depends on your viewpoint but its in the purview of the admin to decide.

In my opinion XT was going to be superceded by another solution in the future but the discussion and debate has ended in more/less a loop with developers pretty much in fixed positions for now.
In the end the economy will decide what will occur one way or the other, or it will be a community fork in the worst case but for now all we can do is wait and let the issues resolve themselves.

IMO anything using a chain that the bitcoin core implementation does not use, is an alt coin. XT conversations shouldn't be related to Bitcoin discussions.

What is stopping Gavin from broadcasting an alert to core clients saying an upgrade is required in an attempt to move people to XT?

I agree with you. Well the alert mechanism is not really often used, and a lot of the people contributing to Bitcoin Core want it removed. There is very little potential for abuse.
If a bad alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system and erases all other alerts. As a result, active misuse is effectively not possible.

Exactly, however like I said previously (in this forum) more trouble , more power!

Good to know there is some way to counter it... although seeing 'alert key compromised' on the client probably wouldn't be the most comforting thing for most core client users.

scenario: Gavin sends a maximum sequence-number alert himself and starts spreading FUD that core keys have been compromised and to move to XT immediately  :o

I doubt it would pay off in high numbers but people react to silly things sometimes around here  :)

However we should think that a lot of people don't use the bitcoin core client, so *what are you talking about?



PS: *I don't want to be arrogant, but is it possible to know how many users are using bitcoin core ?

I guess I just don't see Gavin letting XT fall off the map easily and if normal methods of getting people to switch over do not work, would he be willing to go down a more malicious path?    It seems like he has a lot riding on its success...


This may be relevant to your question...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zt6ir/how_many_users_does_the_bitcoin_network_have/

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/

I think that you did not understand my original post. A maximum sequence-number alert can not be changed and it only states "Alert key compromised". Basically in this scenario Gavin would cause the least amount of damage. He could issue that and make a post on reddit, BTCT, or somewhere else that people should switch to XT. However, people would catch on within a minute and expose him.
I'd realize this as soon as a saw the post.

No, not really.

Well my off-the-wall thought was that Gavin would do this in a more educated way and have many alt accounts (or friends/XT supporters) throughout reddit/btctalk/etc ready to start spamming/FUD'ing the message, not just himself posting. There are probably smarter ways to try and cause some form of panic/distrust amongst core clients and at least cause a temporary shift to XT.

As stupid as it sounds, some people may interpret that static message as "Alert: key compromised" I realize there is no ":" in it, but people panic over less if you combine it with many threads being posted by *whomever* saying "keys are compromised on the core!" and then they look at the client and see 'Alert key compromised'

... I realize its far-fetched, and I would hope the majority of the community is not this dense.  ;D

Vote Bitcoin-XT. Just because I hate people who think they are dictators.

There is another dictator waiting for you in XT coin. He wants to ignore the longest chain. Good luck with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

Decentralization and anarchism are good in theory. In reality, they gives rise to dictatorship. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You are now being pessimistic. Basically whatever the outcome of such action, Gavin would lose all credibility and be blacklisted even if he succeeds. Even if this event does happen and people switch to XT, in the meantime the others would find out what he did. After everyone becomes aware that they were deceived by Gavin, they would either stay on XT or revert to core.
Either way doing so Gavin would weaken both chains and lose everything that he has worked for in the past few years.

However, I'm not sure maximum sequence-number alert works nor if he can issue it on his own.

Optimism gets me burned too much.

He would just do what everyone else does... blame losing his key to a hacker, he never sent the alert. I am sure he is clever enough to maintain some of his credibility, but yes it would be tarnished. No doubt it would be a last ditch effort, I think he has already lost a chunk of credibility to bitcoin core folks... not sure what he is going to do when XT crashes and burns, so he might not have much to lose if he can't get people to move over to XT willingly.

EDIT: I'm not sure how the maximum sequence-number alert works either, obviously a moot point if it requires more than just him

There will be a compromise, but not in the direction you are imagining.

Hint: Bitcoin is about power, not popularity.   ;)

Antifragility.  And wildfire.

https://i.imgur.com/QZvcb2g.jpg

Jesus! That made my day, thank you! Thermos! ;D

What makes you think merchants won't switch to xt if the majority of miners mine on xt and not on core?

Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?

Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.

Please respond/ retort.

I distinctly remember you buying one of my loaded physical litecoins a few years back.

Correct me if I am wrong.

There is a difference between optimism and realism. That would not work. He'd lose credibility in my eyes for not having proper security measures in place. XT can not work without proper consensus, and trying to force it means that we lose consensus and decentralization.
I'm not against a increase, however I'm definitely against the initial plans of its implementation. Doing this without consensus could do much more damage than any previous hack/problem in the past.

A chain with more miners is not more efficient. It is more secure, though there would be very few things that could attack even 25% of the network's hashing power.

Blocks would be slower (25 minutes on average instead of 10), but this would only last for a few weeks until the difficulty goes down. Even today it's common for blocks to take 25-60 minutes, so this wouldn't be Earth-shattering.

This wouldn't actually last for long in the scenario where 75% of miners switch but no big economic actors do because the miners who switched will switch back very soon after they realize that they're mining coins that no one will accept.

Smoothie has already switched over, so XT miners will always be able to trade their XTcoins for silver and Hawaiian real estate, no problem.   8)

This is of course assuming that ZERO merchants choose to accept XT fork coins.

That has yet to be seen. No one knows that.

Should be interesting to see what exchanges/businesses do when some accept XT and some dont (assuming that scenario plays out).

LOL just because I switched doesn't mean I will accept payment on a fork. The outcome remains to be seen once the blockchain forks. Any merchant accepting payment on a fork before consensus has been made is retarded.

I support bigger blocks that's the only reason I switched.

If the network decides against larger blocks I will then switch back to core.

Nah not gonna happen until you buy Luke a high end computer, a new place that comes with high speed connection.

Not satisfying one of the dev? well tough luck.... we dont have 100% agreement.....

Dumbest shit i've seen from these clowns

XT is "not gonna happen" because nobody (not even our foolish pal smoothie) is willing to stick their neck out by being the first to defect from Core's economic majority.

here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:

"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."

How am I foolish?

Just because I choose to support bigger blocks does not make me foolish.

You are now starting to sound like you have to resort to ad hominem.

Very mature.  ;D

It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.

---

---

Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT.

Bitcoin XT forwards both double spend attack transactions.  If bitcoin-core receives a transaction and another one that conflicts with this transaction,  core will ignore the second one and not forward it.  Now, Bitcoin XT will forward both such transactions..  ergo both double spend attack transactions.

You may want to send a conflicting transaction which wouldn't be really double spend.  In the case you might want to increase the fee for a transaction that is not getting confirmed.

I wonder whether most nodes could cope with 20 MB blocks.  Whereas computing space storage and speed might go up exponentially, home bandwidth rates have faced stagnation and bandwidth caps.  Perhaps the majority of users will use light clients anyway.  We lack the hard data to know what would happen, which makes this XT testnet a good thing.  We only know the parameters in bitcoin-core worked out even in face of a transaction flood attack.  If you have more demanding bandwidth, you may get fewer nodes, we cannot say for certain how many unfortunately.

There is another side of matters that are not technical, yet I think they are even more important in the XT vs. core debate.  If Gavin gets his way here against the majority of developers and if I were king, I would definitely feel I could coerce him into doing things that would be good for the bankers that I serve but bad for bitcoin.  Now his life would become very difficult for him at this point.  It sets a very dangerous precedent.

sdp

Why not just allow discussion of a hard fork (which may or may not happen) continue?

It is bitcoin with support for larger blocks if CONSENSUS of the network is achieved.

How is it not a candidate for actual bitcoin discussion when the code is supportive of the current bitcoin network going forward?

If people choose not to use it then fine. But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.

It isn't like we are talking about a complete restart of the network like Litecoin or whatever.


CORRECTION: Supporting XT is ONE way of supporting bigger blocks.

Don't get it twisted.

Having the network (community) ultimately decide if consensus of a hard fork is reached is dangerous? really? If the majority chooses to use XT (or whatever hard fork version) then how is that bad?

If consensus is reached then that means the majority of nodes in the original bitcoin network agree to the changes. If they don't XT will just die.

What's the problem?

No need to censor posts on discussion of a possible fork (not that it will happen).

You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested).                                Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested.  ::)
Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring.

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar.
Here it is. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0) Ignore the longest chain.  ::)

censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit.  ::)

thanks for the link...watching it now.  ;D


...

interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it.

Thanks

@LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion

is it based on nodes?

hash power?

majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?

all 3 above?

Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?


Convincing huh? you can only try to convince a bunch of kids for so long. They're running circle and refuse to compromise. Guess what the economic majority want that feature and IT WILL BE DONE if bitcoin core devs decide to play hostage game.

Last time I checked, there was Bitcoin-scrypt which was almost identical from Bitcoin aside that it used scrypt instead of SHA. Does my implication not apply then?
Stop posting from shills.

Well you could say that it happened on reddit, however theymos did not do it without the right reasons (as mentioned in post).


It is better to say miners as they provide hash power which can't be properly measured anyways. I would say all of the above. Let me quote theymos on this one as I fully agree with him on the following:

---

---

Update:
Insults will not be tolerated in any way, and you're now a confirmed shill. Welcome to the ignore list meono.

Hey idiot, if you prefer to the video atleast have a fucking understanding of what he said b4 jumping on the bandwagon to bash blindly.

Let me quote you what he said so you can fucking read over again:


This fucking block size debate has been going forever. Bitcoin core devs play games around all the bullshit they can come up with. Also bitcoin miners MUST follow the economic majority unless they're stupid. They're business to make profits, they dont care about the growth of bitcoin community. So why the fuck do we have to beg them ?

This community/forum is now just full of retards. Most of old members are gone, all new members are altcoin junkies.

Retard, first let me fix those typos for you

Second there is a difference between forking the current blockchain and forking the original code to create a new blockchain.

Calling a fork of bitcoin blockchain an altcoin is stupid. Consensus of the bitcoin network isnt between bitcoin core devs, what are they? the fucking owners or what?

Consensus should be based on the network/community.

I partly agree but I think the retards are the trolls like you who cover the forum in all these shitposts and personal attacks. It has gotten to the point that the majority of members here have to stay anonymous to avoid receiving personal attacks from people like you. I honestly think there should be a huge crackdown on alt accounts. I also think that personal attacks and threats of violence should be removed from the forum too. The forum is a bit too liberal in this area, there needs to be some order if we actually want this to be a friendly Bitcoin community and not turn into something like hackforums. There are always going to be bad-apples who want to ruin it for others and they will succeed unless action is taken.

Gotta love the internet, calling anyone that point out our stupidity ... a troll.

Also a shill if they dont support what we believe.

Funny someone actually said I'm Gavin's alt acct.

Your post is a perfect example of what i mean by "full of retards". Meanwhile, Icebreaker is a known shill for HashFast fraud.

http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/07/05/25-shocking-facts-about-chinese-censorship/

smoothie, knock off your drama queen act.  Or I will make memes about your First World Censorship Problems.   ;)

Opinion != act

let alone drama queen act.

Oh noes IceBaby gonna make memes ...lol

Go right ahead see if I give a shit.  :P

You can express your opinion (which is a speech act, and in which you disagree with theymos' moderation) without resorting to cheap theatrics.

The goal isn't to make you "give a shit" but rather to make the lurkers "understand what censorship means" (and doesn't mean).

If you look it up at OED, the definition of "censorship" is not "moderator decisions with which HRH smoothie disagrees."

Is theymos chilling your free speech by means of making your fearful of the consequences of expressing your opinion?

No?  Good.  QED, that's not censorship.   :)

Most people know I am not a fan of how Theymos handles some things around here, so I have no reason to kiss his ass... that being said discussion of Bitcoin XT belongs in the altcoin section. It has its own blockchain, therefore it is not Bitcoin, no matter how much it is based on Bitcoin. If people start using XT and it "becomes" Bitcoin, then the Bitcoin core will be the one relegated to the altcoin section.

Until that day happens shut your mouth and trade your little altcoins with people who care about it. People arguing XT should be allowed in all of the Bitcoin main sections and Reddits are basically just namejacking and using a combination of semantics and people's ignorance of the protocol to drive a wedge between the community. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.

LOL, must suck that you dont have authority huh?

Now you can kiss my ass instead of Theymos's, i might change my mind

What the fuck are you on about?

found this and thought it was funny:

https://i.imgur.com/DCnDovk.jpg?1

Show me where theymos engaged in "suppression of speech."  I'll wait...

Show me why theymos qualifies for inclusion in the group "governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."  I'll wait....

Moderating his privately owned forum does not count as "suppression."  In fact, forcing theymos to moderate his own forum in a manner he did not choose would be suppression of his speech!

You are very keen to justify your use of the emotionally overwrought term "censorship" rather than the proper term "moderation" because you have otherwise lost the debate, and must now appeal to emotion rather than facts and logic.

Moderation of a private forum doesn't meet your Wiki definition of censorship.  Go back to reasoning in terms of cheese, you dozy twonk.   :D

Bitcointalk is not public property.  You don't have free speech rights here, like you would in a public place.

Why is that simple concept so hard for you to understand?  Are you refusing to understand it, to justify calling moderation an inflammatory term like "censorship?"

Maybe I need to dumb it WAAAAY down for you, and ELI5 in terms of cheese and food.   :D

Bitcointalk isn't public property, whether theymos claims ownership of it or not.

Hell has froze over, I  agree with Techshare entirely in his post.


~BCX~

Do vs don't (ulitmately) accept isn't nearly as important as the order/magnitude in which acceptance begins to occur.  Chickens like you, who are only willing to accept XT *AFTER* others have stuck out their necks, don't matter.

Only the brave souls who are willing (at great risk) to be first to defect from Bitcoin's economic majority matter.

Why?  Because if there are no (or insufficient) first defectors, the second and later waves remain moot.

Please review this material and reexamine your assumptions.

Let's address some of the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal (http://trilema.com/2015/lets-address-some-of-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/)

HAHAHA  Mircea Popescu , It has been a long time since that piece of shit go MIA.

Thank you for introducing me to his writings, he's hilarious!

Actually this won't happen. Honestly, it isn't that hard to persuade someone to switch since they don't know all the details. It is much easier if other factors are involved such as money.
While XT will definitely have more than zero merchants, it will do exactly what theymos stated. It will cause a noticeable or even significant network split which is a horrible possibility.

---

---

This is what I was referring to:

Who will be the first merchant to accept XT?  It's not a safe move, so any business with fiduciary responsibilities must steer clear of such an imprudent initial move.

Maybe Hearn will start some XT Alliance, a kind of suicide pact so Gavincoiners can share the risk?  That's still inadvisable:


Strength in numbers doesn't help the XT dead-enders because the more of a juicy target they present, the more incentive for this to happen:

do exactly what?

Didn't theymos say that:


In that scenario he says it clear as day "no big economic actors" switch over to XT but 75% of miners do.

Not sure what you are addressing in response to my post in response to theymos' post.

Time will tell. This is why bitcoin is exciting...we are headed into uncharted waters.

There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users.

Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum.

People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT.

They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc.

Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end.

All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others).

You made my day !

Um did he just contradict himself?

Hardforks are not silenced yet XT is a hard-fork implementation of bitcoin when certain conditions are met. Some time down the road.

Therefore XT should not be silenced.

Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network.

I love the logic fails even by Theymos.  ;D

Sidechains, blockstream, and lightning network are not bitcoin yet they are allowed to be discussed on reddit/r/bitcoin

Is this a case of selective censorship?

No, the XT is pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not.

You need to learn what censorship means.
I'll quote your beloved opponent in case you didn't read his reply to you:

lol how is it pretending to be Bitcoin?

Does xt pretend to send transactions on the network seamlessly now or does it actually do it?

Selective censorship is where the claim is xt is an alt coin but side chains also being an alt coin are allowed to be discussed.

What is stopping you from making a Reddit for XT? What ENTITLES XT to a right to be in the forum main sections? Like I said earlier, this is nothing more than an altcoin namejacking Bitcoin. Infinitecoin had the SAME issue with "Infinitecoin 2" which was later renamed Colossuscoin after public protest. The developer of that coin tried to use many of the same arguments I see here for XT. This is a game they have played before in the altcoin scene, now they have just decided to use this strategy on a bigger target. This whole idea is carefully crafted to leverage peoples ignorance of the protocol to divide the community in the hopes they will find enough ignorant people to sign on with them thinking they are supporting something genuine. Don't be fooled, this is an attack on Bitcoin.

The name of the game is a death of a thousand cuts. If it works once they will do it over and over and over until the community is completely divided and ripping the infrastructure apart. Real distributed consensus comes down to who has the better code, not if they have access to all the main information outlets. If XT is really better, it doesn't matter one bit where people post about it. THAT is how real open source works, not these namejacking political semantics games we are seeing used to try to leverage the launch of XT.

As far as the bolded part, you never engage in that kind of behavior now do you?

Agree to this.

Remember Panda coin? At some point was there 3 Panda coins. The first one. Then one made to battle that scammer-pump-n-dumper who made the first one (forgot his name, think he was asian). Then a third one to replace the two previous coin. Nobody know which Panda coins they where holding or mining....... at the exchange they where called PND, PAN and PANDA.

The moral of this.... panda completly died because of this confussion. A am affraid the same could happen with bitcoin. Would proberly not be long before some make a bitcoin XT2 or Bitcoin TX. Then will the confusion be complete, nobody would know which shit coin they just bought on local bitcoins.

Namejacking, that is exactly the word I was looking for (thanks tech-guy). They should have called it LargerBlockCoin (LBC) instead, at least that would have been easy to understand.

Anyone knows where we are supposed to post the BitcoinXT threads ? last time I posted on Bitcoin Discussion it got moved after couple of hours i guess and they got moved to Altcoin section however I see shitload of posts on Bitcoin discussion right now so .. what's up?
Are they censorship on Reddit only or here aswell ?

Technically it is not censorship but enforcement of internal rules /sarcasm.  I think you can discuss about BitcoinXT (only a client for the moment, like electrum etc..) in the off topic because bitcoinXT is not an altcoin.

There should be a new sub section in the forums dedicated solely to XT. Everywhere I look, there are XT threads & junk posts talking about the same stuff over & over & over again. It's littered everywhere, in nearly every section of this forum.

No, this makes it even worse. Let's keep the threads to a single section only. They are being moved, and if you start one in the altcoin section you're fine.  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0)
Also OmegaStarScream, if you have questions you can PM me if you do not want to start a thread.

What part of my reasoning didn't you understand? XT is following a protocol which is different from the current Bitcoin, yet currently it is capable of transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain. But it doesn't make it Bitcoin, as the consensus-critical part of code is changed without reaching actual consensus. When the overwhelming majority of users from different cohorts (the so-called economic majority) start running XT, only then it can be considered the new Bitcoin, not when 75% of miners are mining it. Until then, it's just pretending.

Anyone have a Solid learning link for Bitcoin XT? I have been out of the loop for a while and this is all I'm seeing lately so i would love to read a Reliable thread about it Both Pros and Cons since it seems to be such a "Hot" topic.
Thanks!

Unfortunately, I don't think such a thread exists. Whatever I read is mostly political propaganda, while the issue is technical. If you can't handle technical debate (deep technical understanding is required), it might be better to stay away from this hot issue until the dust settles. That's my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

That's good advice for me....I'm not a Tech guy. I seen the name of the thread and wondered why theymos was being named in the whole censorship thing and got curious.

I'll keep my eye on this thread and do some reading on Google about what the hell XT is lol

Thanks for the Info Roadtrain!

1. I believe there is a reddit for XT already. But what entitles mods to censor discussion of XT which is directly related to bit coin? Oh right nothing. If XT is an altcoin then Core is also an altcoin as it differs from the original implementation satoshi released right? lol

2. My behavior related to this situation has been appropriate. If you want to bring up drama from years ago, go right ahead. You obviously shouldn't be the one to talk given you were removed from the default trust list on this very forum for your questionable behavior.

XT operates just like bit coin as of right now so NO it is not an alt coin.

Litecoin is an alt coin.

I guess side chains are alt coins too right? They shouldn't be discussed on reddit and are not directly related to bitcoin right? Please spare me the hypocrisy.

"overwhelming majority" now that is subjective. What does that mean 99%, 82%, 93.2837493%?

Yeah if the major exchanges and miners move to XT and there is 25% not moved over then what will you say then? Would you concede that XT is the new "bitcoin"?

What percentage are you referring to?

Nodes?

Merchants?

Miners?

I mean there are too many different metrics to measure "the overwhelming majority" to accurately know that it is true based on some random % that you or any other person thinks up. So what is the difference if 75% is chosen? Is it wrong? To you yes, to some others no.

It is a difference of opinion not a difference of facts.

It is subjective up to a point. The term goes from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority
What is a fact is that 75% miners do not constitute economic majority. They may or may not represent it, but themselves they are not economic majority. That's why they are reluctant to actually follow XT currently.

What is also clear is that XT doesn't have the economic majority as of now.

Personally, I would only switch when almost all relevant businesses (exchanges being the most important currently) switched. I also believe it's the best for Bitcoin to avoid any noticeable split. I bet most miners think the same.

Logged in here for the first time in many months just to express what I have learnt today when I was trying to educate myself about blocksizes and bitcoinxt (on r/bitcoin):

1. (Some of) the people who are against XT is pro-censorship!

2. I can not trust this r/bitcoin for information anymore (and I'm not sure about bitcointalk anymore either)....

I really don't buy the arguments about bitcoinxt being a altcoin, and even if it is/was it's just something to big to try to silence through censorship...

A lot of people, including me are trying to understand what is going on and when "one side" use the same techniques as China uses to control their ppl, I really do not trust that  "side", although I understand most ppl, doesn't agree with Theymos actions...


I just was BANNED from r/bitcoin for mentioning bitcoinxt in a comment(!!!) and I'm quite worried what will happen here now since the same person is making the decission!.

I think Theymos does the correct thing. The XT stuff gets out of hand. It spreads FUD for bitcoin in massive amounts. It's annoying and causes attrition. These XT-fools claim to be a majority but are in reality just some 10% to 30% of people. I think they got their point across. Time to give them their own sub maybe? I for one am very annoyed by these discussions about XT. Will never switch and would dump on an adoption of said crap.

Mods are entitled to moderate.  They are also entitled to use their discretion as they see fit.

If you don't like it, you are entitled to leave their forum/sub.  The self-help remedy is to start your own (with hookers and blackjack).

You are not entitled to stay on and bitch like a young Hillary Clinton about how much you disagree, forum-lawyer their decisions (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148654.msg12159505#msg12159505), or use inflammatory, inaccurate bullet words like "censorship" in obvious social engineering attacks trying to shame them.

Theymos has done incorrect thing. He is afraid of the general consensus, as it may go against the privileged position he had enjoyed for so many years. I think, all the banning of opposing voices, has been done to satisfy his personal ego, as he think himself as the Sole Global moderator of the entire Bitcoin community.

FTFY. Either most of the XT followers here are not aware of these things or are being stubborn and ignorant at the same time. You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the members of this forum. While the main story is related to the block size, this is what XT currently consists of:

• Automatic blacklisting controlled by the Tor project (AFAIK without their consent).
• Buggy block size validation.
• Lighthouse slave support.
• Incomplete/buggy double spend detection.

If this was a Hearn vs theymos thread, I'd have to question the sanity of everyone on Hearns side. Theymos did nothing wrong. This is a privately owned forum (i.e. theymos is letting you play in his backyard), and you're just lucky that some stricter person isn't calling the shots (else most XT supporters would be banned by now for constantly breaking the rules).

In fact, he is more likely afraid of there being no consensus at all thanks to irresponsible moves by Gavin and Mike.

The former owner of r/Bitcoin? Perhaps.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154794.0

Can you imagine if Hearn was the sysop here instead of thermos?  I would be banhammered into the next galaxy!

Thermos is so chill, it makes the "zomg censorship what's next, book burnings and lists?" hyperbole way too funny.   :D

Thermos adapts to the needs of the community. How the community resonates with how he adapts, that's a different story.

The technician, developer class would destroy all communication into an esoteric Gentoo-realm that no common man could understand, as they would not budge in the face of user backlash: They would force all changes down everyone's throat, Linux style.

It is a miracle that The Guardian even covers Bitcoin in its current spiritual state. The press would ignore Bitcoin if the developers controlled the community due to the vocabulary likely being reduced to unintuitive mash in such a scenario.

OK, you can buy the book rights for 100 BTC (paid in Monero).