Bitcoin Forum

A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple. (and this is very dangerous for bitcoin)

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into Blockstream on the false assumption that block sizes would never be raised. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (money making) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining unnecessarily low.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream, and the lack of consensus of the developers is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" who have a financial interest in keeping the blocks low are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not Gavin and Hearn.

A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change well before it becomes an issue to avoid the kinds of consequences that would cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses.

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable.

I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the illusion in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different. Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level.

If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, the arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And this is dangerous for bitcoin!

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin. I think this split is very dangerous, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I am in support of Bitcoin XT. The BlockSize increase is necessary and a good thing for bitcoin! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

Finally you've seen the light. I recall you were on the other side. I have been restraining myself to post abaout the BlockStream agenda as I'm sure it will be called conspiracy, fud.

I think its the best for the community to take a step back to look at the big picture here. Each and every one of us need to think about the future of bitcoin. Dont blame on supporting the fork for the short term price crash. It is crucial that bitcoin must overcome this to survive.

OP did a great job to make his decision so can everyone here.

I would like to add that BitcoinXT is only the first client that implement BIP101. Any other clients can also implement BIP101 if that suit other users. All BIP101 blocks will be counted to the 75%.

I have no doubt that someone ( reputable to the community) would fork bitcoin core and add BIP101 to it.

In the end what are we voting and pushing for is a fork that support BIP101.

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08259.html




Mike and Gavin are absolutely right to force the issue. It may suck, but really it's the only way because Blockstream et al. are intent on their path that LN (a feature that not only does not exist yet, but is years away and has its own centralization problems) is the ONLY scaling solution (besides normal technology advancement). We are now reaping what was sowed with multiple developers from one company dominating core development.

This does not mean that LN does not have its place, but it is not a panacea. LN has utility for instant and microtransactions, and it should derive its fees from THAT utility, NOT artificial scarcity.

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

Even despite the broken english, that's more logical than the pro-XT argument.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.


I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?


I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

It's simple, really. You need to have a blockchain hard fork in order to change this 1MB limit. This means older nodes are incompatible with newer nodes, and this brings a huge risk of chaos if done without consensus (at least 95% of nodes, miners agreeing to change it).  ;)

Btw, many don't forsee any serious problems if the limit is not changed in the near future. This is only what the XT guys say in order to give people a sense of urgency.

Yep, the transaction flooding attacks didn't raise the fees a huge amount. If everyone had kept some old unspent coins (at least about 6 months or so), then they could have used those to make any vital bitcoin transactions without long waits or paying the elevated fees (old coins sent with low fees are equivalent to fresh coins sent with high fees when it comes to transaction priority). It barely impacts users really, but it costs the attacker no small amount of money (20 BTC in fees if I remember rightly, lol)

FUD accusations from the XT crowd are steeped in irony in this light; their entire campaign is premised on FUD mongering about something that is not urgent

I'm all for increasing the block size limit, although I would rather see a somewhat more conservative, modest approach like Pieter Wuille's proposal (https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6) instead of a sudden 8× increase.

But I'm against Bitcoin XT.

1. There more to Bitcoin XT than just the size increase.
2. The confusion, ambiguity, polarity, fear and discord it creates, is much worse than the entire block size issue whatsoever.

Spring 12 to spring 13 (Halving between) brought a 10 fold increase of txs. Therefore, it is urgent to be ready for a repetition of that. XT is ready - core is not.

Not the only thing XT is ready for. I'm not interested in XT, please stop offering it to people that clearly do not want it. Is this how people like you usually handle rejection? (harassment)

???
You are free to run the blockstream client as long as you want!

Why aren't you saying that then, instead of offering me again something you know I will reject? You could say "I see where you're coming from, I know what you'd like, Blockstream!". But instead you try telling me that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again? And XT is the only thing "ready"? It won't be ready for anything if it doesn't get popular support.

You should read Krona Rev's post again.

We should run even The Devil's Bitcoin node if it sticks to the consensus (and doesn't have privacy leaks).  :o

I don't offer you anything, and I'm not "telling you that because the one block halving sent transactions surging, then it will again". I'm telling you that if next halving will send transactions surging again, then XT is ready already; core is not. They have to do something, if they want to be ready. But it seems that they don't want. The blockstream devs want to see the txs on their private chain. At least that's the impression of the 8MB block-proponents.

Can you think of any other inevitable events that could (or not...) precipitate increased transactions rates? Perhaps something that directly increases the demand for Bitcoin transactions? if you chose one such example, then you could actually make a good argument based around predictable sudden increases in tx rate. Why am I having to help you construct your argument for you, tell me?

This is the most intelligent (and logical) response I have seen in a while.
And I am guessing that the OP will follow the typical route: Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

Carlton, you can't argue with these fanatics. Interestingly, I thought I read a post where you were pro-xt a few days ago. I may be mistaken.

At any rate, the choices are never "Blockstream or XT". The BTC network, even during testing, has a fee and age setup to handle more important transactions. There is zero chance that we'll have a problem in the next 10 years unless the entire US and China decides to ditch the USD/Yuan and go to Bitcoin and then the chance is only slightly higher than being hit by lightning because miners are mining ALL THE TIME. Fees will rise for important transactions, less important or free tx's will take a little longer. That's the way it is now. The only change is that fees will rise for immediate transactions.

The End.

I don't need your 'help', thanks.

The record tells a different story.

Yes, he's one of the many who believed that a collective of the millions might be a community. I knew that this will never be the reality. Consensus exists only in communities (Dunbar's number). Large collectives are ruled by the majority.

No, not all developers who oppose XT are employed by Blockstream. The choice you sublty try to place users in is created by your manipulative phrasing.

So please tell us, why are you spreading lies? What is your motive to encourage XT by telling blatant lies?

Then XT. Following Satoshis vision.

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

Well, I don't know about "on-board". But the CIA have a tendency to, well, kill people that espouse world changing views that they dislike. Turns out Gavin didn't offend them as such.

Probably because killing him wouldn't solves any of their problems over a decentralized system. No?

First of all, I don't agree with OP. There are more choices. But, even if you make a good point, this is the worst axiom you could choose. You have to proof(or make a logical argument, if you prefer that terminology) , that there is code, that makes it hard to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. An axiom should be something, that can't be proven, not something, you are just too lazy to proof.
Also attacking an axiom is nothing that is somehow forbidden(otherwise I could just take absurd axioms like "the sky is red") as a "logician" you should know that.

This is so typicall for people opposing Bitcoin XT just fear mongering with no substance. Most of the time its as bad as Fox news...

The Cia asked if he would do an 2 hour presentation about bitcoin to them. You might like it or not but government agencies are curious (I don't like it by the way). But this has nothing to do with andresen. Every other person who would have been in his position as core lead would have gotten the same call. And then would the have reacted in the same perfect way he did? He was the one who made publicly known - before the presentation. He even made the presentation available in the Internet. He did this to prevent conspiracy theories...

Just ask yourself: If he was a cia agent with a secret agenda would he then tell everybody that they invited him for a 2 hour presentation that he explains bitcoin to them?

It was just the smart move to deal with a difficult situation: not even holding the presentation would give the impression that Bitcoin has to hide something and would give agencies justification to do something against it. On the other side you don't want to be in bed with them. So he did it just perfect: go there tell them 2 hours long that its a decentralized peer2peer network and so on, but do not cooperate in any way with them and go home. Problem solved.

By the way Bitcoin is open source so what should be hidden in it?

Most people against XT are just taking some stupid stuff and try to frame persons or XT just with no substance its really like Fox news... 75% of the code of Bitcoin has been rewritten over time (ironically mostly by andresen himself), but now he asks for an open debate and public vote on a really minimal change (1MB to 8MB) and that is the incarnation of the devil...

If they didn't want to promote Gavin's system, then inviting him to present on it seems like an unlikely move. Better to choose a computer scientist they could rely on to present the views they wish to be associated with. The organisation (and it's counterparts) is essentially a public relations firm with an undeclared mission statement (propagandising citizens) and extraordinary resources. They don't make mistakes like that, not when they have the opportunity to prepare.

This is misleading... most developers are in favor of increasing the blocksize above 1MB, They just want to have more realistic and conservative approaches that are thoroughly tested first.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634475022212460545

but they are talking about it since 2 years. a decision has to be made in the next 3-4 months.

and BIP 103 is a joke in my view...2MB blocks in 2021  :D

If that's your logic, then why aren't you arguing for even bigger blocks? If bigger automatically equals better, why not pick infinity as the limit?

There has been a lot of work done to prepare for availability in the last 2 years that already has been implemented.

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

Indeed. I wonder who will be in favour of running experiments on the various proposed solutions? It seems like the XT plan is to run an experimental solution on the live network. Where is Mike and Gavin's testbed data?

100%. i would like to stay with core if this is possible.


@ Carlton

blocks size should be increased with demand / technical progress.

I think you might be a little confused then. Schedules cannot determine demand, that's the opposite of dynamic response. You clearly don't favour either BIP 101 or XT, if demand is involved in your preferred solution.

As far as I'm concerned bitcoin is still an experiment in a lot of levels. XT is showing just this from a social and free market level.

That's not a very inspired reply. Was Satoshi going to kick the system off by referring to it as the replacement financial system? There will be no discernible stage at which bitcoin can be objectively determined "not an experiment anymore", and it should be clear to anyone who is attempting to hold an honest debate that the question is entirely subjective, and could be argued about ad infinitum.

You did think that through before you put fingers to keyboard just now, didn't you? You are trying to have an honest debate, aren't you? Because the alternative possibilities also don't look so good for you. Either you didn't think it through, or you're being dishonest, or you're just trying to score any cheap points you can manage. Man up, please.

Indeed the "experimental phase" is somehow subjective but this situation was absolutely inevitable from the whole beginning as a SOCIAL experiment as the system grows and views are diverging. We are now crossing this point and the outcome (no matter which one) will clear out a lot of ambiguities. You should try to accept this instead fighting the inevitable.


I'm not the one being emotionally attached to either Core or XT. So why would I be dishonest? What would be my motives?

I think you might be mistaking impassioned defence as emotional attachment, and your suggestion that caring about the outcome equates to dishonesty is in itself dishonest. not really interested in your motives, or in your discourse, you've proven to me you're worth ignoring

What makes you so impassioned about Core itself and what makes you think the Core devs will always pursue your own goal? What makes you think bitcoin has been made for you and not the collective? And if bitcoin has been made for the collective than why being so against it to have a choice? If you believe the economic incentive works as it should be and we are no longer in an experimental phase then you should no worry that the incentive will work out just fine for the collective to come up with a final comprise and move forward. Don't you think?

Attacking an axiom is definitely not forbidden. It's the only reasonable way to reject the conclusion of a correct argument. That's why I said:


You seem to have picked "some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor" as an axiom to question. I can first say that I'm aware that the announced intention of the code is to counter a DDOS attack. I can even concede that is the reason for the code and that nothing nefarious is intended. (I don't know, of course.) Nevertheless, it's clear that under some conditions nodes will begin dropping connections to nodes behind Tor. This will make it difficult to run Bitcoin behind Tor, at least during those times. In the axiom I used the phrase "safely behind Tor," but I haven't justified "safely." I don't really need to since my original argument wouldn't depend on "safely." I could weaken the axiom by dropping "safely" and still make an argument concluding XT should be opposed. Nevertheless, it seems that if a user running Bitcoin XT behind Tor isn't careful, the code might make certain calls that reveal the user's true IP. That's how I would justify "safely" if it became necessary.


I hope the scare quotes aren't a sign of logophobia. I mean, it's the 21st century. We're here. We're clear. Get used to it.

Edit: The last line was just for fun. I thought I made up the word "logophobia" meaning "fear of logic." It turns out "logophobia" is already a word that means "fear of words." So it turns out it doesn't even make sense.

Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

That's written by the geezer who created XT. Not the most balanced of correspondents.

What, the same Arstechnica that were found to be accepting bribes from industry for favourable coverage last year? That'll be them.

This articles argues with satoshis vision for bitcoin and carefully talks about the arguments of opponents of XT. Do you have to say something to the arguments presented in it, or is it just the typical "framing game" as fox news...

Lmao awsome!!! Im saving this one! For posterity prosperity. ;)

How fortunate that a real life logician should appear! I look forward to a very PRECISE and CLEAR discourse! Indeed, I am willing to have a structured debate on Debate.org which allows voting on the winner and constrains the discussion between the two parties. Let me know if you like the idea.

I feel doing nothing about the block size limit is very dangerous for Bitcoin. If nothing else, Bitcoin XT is forcing us to have this hard discussion before the problem becomes real and derails Bitcoin from the path of mass adoption.

It seems clear to me that the reason "a significant portion of the community [is] against it" is because there is not a consensus among the developers. And it seems clear to me that the reason that there is not a consensus among the developers is because there are many developers who are heavily invested in BlockStream and other such solutions to the problem and thus have large financial incentive to appose a block size increase which would essentially undermine the work they have been doing as a solution to the scalability issue of a 1 MB block limit. I am not opposed to their solutions, I am opposed to the notion that we should depend ONLY on these solutions and not also increase the block size. I think we should do both and all.

I am in agreement with you that the threat of a fork with a significant portion of the community against it is dangerous, and I don't want to see bitcoin split into two different chains, that is the LAST thing I want. But as you see the problem as the proposal by Gavin and Hearn, I see the problem as the developers who dogmatically oppose block size increase because they are financially incentivized to keep the 1 MB block limit.

It is like how cops actually require crime, though you'd think their goal should be to eliminate crime. In the same way the developers of BlockStream require a low block size, though you'd think they'd support the elimination of the block size problem. If we had consensus with the developers, we would not have this large portion of the community that opposes it so religiously.


I am not against BlockStream. I am fine with their idea. I think we should increase the block size, and I think we should also have BlockStream and Lightening and other innovations. Those of us who want to increase the Blocksize are not saying we should not have Blockstream, but those of you who want Blockstream are saying we should not have a block size increase. It is you who are doing the censoring.


In order for me to accept these axioms I require more information. What about XT exactly "makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor"? Why is it vital that it can be safely run behind Tor? (is this the core argument against XT?)

I agree that if "it is vital" that Bitcoin can be safely run behind Tor, and Bitcoin XT "makes running behind Tor impossible" then it would logically follow that "XT should be opposed." However you did not say that XT makes running behind Tor impossible, you said it just makes it "more difficult", and as I know not a single person who even has thought about the reasons for running behind Tor, I find that the benefits of XT outweigh the difficulties it may cause to run behind Tor, considering that running behind Tor would still be possible and thus not eliminated. The people who want to run behind Tor will find a way to do so, even if it is difficult to do. This, as you say, "vital" ability remains preserved under XT and therefore "XT should not be opposed". Even though it makes it "more difficult."


You are correct that I harbor axioms of my own, but you project them falsely. My axioms have little to do with "opposing BlockStream" as you have suggested. My axioms have much to do with "supporting Bitcoin." I am heavily invested in bitcoin, and I believe that bitcoin is perhaps the greatest single innovation in technology that the world has ever seen. I want to protect bitcoin as much as I want to protect this planet and my own life. An axiom I might have is that Bitcoin cannot achieve mass adoption with the arbitrary block limit of 1 MB. I can conceive of a world wide event that might insight a large leap into bitcoin, suddenly flooding the network with new traffic and transactions, in such an event, with the current block limit, I submit that new users would experience extremely looong confirmation times, high network latency on the magnitude of several hours, transactions may never be confirmed, fees may become unbelievably high, and such a situation would lose all confidence in the Bitcoin project, and we might see a new alt coin arise to replace Bitcoin as the dominant crypto currency. As I am in support of bitcoin, I want to see Bitcoin succeed in the event of mass adoption, and thus I support XT or any method for increasing block size as quickly as possible, as we may only have a few months to prepare for such an event.

I am not opposed to Blockstream or any of the other solutions, but I don't want to risk their not working or not being ready in the event they become our only hope, and so I support the implementation of an increase in the block size just as gavin and hearn are suggesting. And I agree that this should be brought up and discussed and debated NOW before it becomes too late.

As it stands I have no reason to oppose XT, and every reason to support it. But perhaps you can lead a breadcrumb trail of logic that I may follow towards the light and arrive at the conclusion, "XT should be opposed." I am open to being wrong. It may just be that I lack necessary information with which to arrive at the correct conclusion. If indeed I lack information, please inform me so I may arrive at the correct solution.  ;D ;D ;D

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one. There are also logical arguments for supporting XT. Both Gavin and Mike are good at writing articles outlining such arguments (e.g., read Hearn's Crash Landing post). Ultimately, as I've already said, the difference is in the axioms -- the assumptions about what Bitcoin is or should be -- assumptions about what might occur in the future. This becomes clear if one reads the actual arguments both sides make (when it's not just ad hominem). Most people who've followed the block size issue for a while are aware of the arguments on both sides.

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0)

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

I am sorry to report but it seems you misunderstood my critique of your Tor argument. It would be a straw man if I had strengthened your argument and then defeated the new version I created of your argument, and then claimed victory over your original argument. That is not what I did and I would expect you to more thorough than to miss that.

What I did was strengthen your argument and then show that if your argument were thus strengthened it would be true, and I would accept your argument, but however, the point of strengthening your argument was to contrast it with your original argument, which is not true, and I do not accept. The point of presenting the strengthened version of your argument was to demonstrate the reason for my rejecting your original argument.

The strengthened argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I agree and accept this argument as true because if running behind Tor is vital and Bitcoin XT eliminates running behind Tor it would destroy bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin XT should be opposed. But it is not the argument you gave. I present the above strengthened argument only to demonstrate why the below original argument is not true, and I do not accept and do not agree with.

The original argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT makes running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I do not agree and do not accept this argument as true because Bitcoin XT still allows the vital function of being able to run behind Tor, it only makes it more difficult to do so. Making it more difficult does not result in the destruction of Bitcoin, and therefore the benefits of Bitcoin XT outweigh the negative aspect of making running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore not be opposed for this reason alone.


This makes me sad. You gave a logical argument but refused to defend it beyond falsely accusing me of presenting a straw man argument. The spirit behind the accusation a make that there are no logical arguments is that there are no convincing logical arguments being given. I have not been convinced by your Tor argument, and yours is the only logical argument I have been presented with. Until I am presented with a logical argument that is truly defended and is at least somewhat convincing, I will stand by my claim the the opposition to XT is purely a fear based emotional one, and not a logical opposition.

Strengthening an assumption actually weakens the argument. This is probably obvious to everyone, so no need to elaborate.


Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.

My good sir, you want me to have created a straw man argument very badly but it is just not the case. This is probably obvious to everyone, but it is obviously not obvious to you, so I will elaborate:

I changed one of the axioms of your argument and then said, "if the axiom were this, then I would agree, but since your axiom was not this, I do not agree."

Your rebuttal is, "You changed one of my axioms, and challenged that modified axiom."

My response is, "No good sir, I changed one of your axioms and agreed with that modified axiom. I did not challenge the modified axiom, I agreed with it. I then challenged your axioms directly." (which you have failed to acknowledge in any way, let alone attempt to rebut)

Your modified version of my axiom was: "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor."

You are now saying (bold above) you "agree" with this axiom. (I think you mean you believe the axiom is true, since I never introduced the statement or suggested it was true.) However, it's also clear from your previous posts that you clearly don't believe "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor." Is it possible you're confused about what you're really trying to say?

Thank you! That was one of the most enjoyable posts I have read on this forum for quite a long time.

Exactly. Framing this debate as XT vs Blockstream is highly manipulative; I reserve my right to reject their ideas for Bitcoin also. Blockstream might not succeed as the sidechain extension to Bitcoin, but something better could. But that's a completely different issue to the Hearn gang coup d'etats.

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

The Blockstream coin will not be a coin on the Blockchain. It will be an altcoin.

Lol what coin. You people are beginning to sound really desperate, it's not very dignified.

Carlton stop waistîg your Time with these people.

Zarahustra go fork yourself.

I have seen this repeated a lot now and I need to correct this, to be clear so that everyone understands. There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I was not aware of that.

I've moved on from this static-size/scheduled-increase debate really, anyway. Like I said elsewhere, arguing about the blocksize limit is mindless, like trying to answer the question "how long is a piece of string?"

Yes. They don't want to discuss that. Instead of discussing it, they spread conspiracy shit.

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

you too veritassapere. fork the friggin off. noob.

To clarify:

IF: Bitcoin XT eliminated the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: It would follow that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

BUT: Since Bitcoin XT still allows for the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: Bitcoin XT should not be opposed.

The conclusion "bitcoin XT should be opposed" does not follow from your axioms sir. Are we clear now?

beautifully constructed argument sir, I am in total agreement well done

Isn't that the same fallacious argument that Krona Rev ably deconstructed just a page or two back?

Throws in a wrench fork if mining is equal to transaction fees after revenues perpetual increases in block size results in lower rewards, lower rewards = less incentive to mine after halving = Centralization under XT.

A limited supply leads to higher transaction volume above dust = More value per transaction + Miner incentive after halving = Long term growth and development

Spin it how you want it still ='s from both viewpoints.


-
Solution A - Size Increases
Solution B - Side-chains

True Solution
- Will be determined as we approach the true date of settlement in 2016.

No need to scale or upgrade Bitcoin guys, BlockStream's got you covered. Everyone talks about decentralisation but at the drop of a hat everyone falls over themselves to get back to centralised solutions. 

Most Bitcoin holders have no clue about the blocksize debate, they just want a cork for that fork. As all forks are bad and could lead to blindness. 

https://i.imgur.com/xH6r5AP.jpg

Thanks for the clarification. Reading the relevant portions of your comments again, I can see this interpretation, so I'm willing to just accept that I misunderstood. It would've been clearer to me if you'd asked me to flesh out the argument if you didn't accept there is such an argument. Here's the closest thing to an actual argument I gave:


It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Great! Welcome to the thread. I agree that there's been too much ad hominem and hyperbole. It would be better if, in particular, people avoided accusing BlockStream of nefarious plans for profiteering and accusing Gavin Andreson of being a CIA mole.

I've thought about ways to try to seriously apply logic to the situation. It's tricky. Let's assume everyone on all sides wants Bitcoin to be successful. The problem is that "success" for Bitcoin means different things to different people. We could distinguish them as different predicates: successful(1), successful(2), successful(3), and so on. And beyond defining success, it's possible for people to have a variety of views on the matter: Bitcoin is successful(i) now and we must keep it successful(i). Bitcoin is not successful(i) now and we must make it successful(i).

It might be possible to model the situation using some kind of modal logic or directly with Kripke semantics. There's the world as it is today, and then there are multiple possible worlds* that may follow. In some of those accessible possible worlds, Bitcoin would be successful(i) and in others it would be unsuccessful(i). Different choices about the development of Bitcoin change the world and so change the possible worlds that can follow. It's probably best that I stop here and continue if there's interest or criticism.

*Sometimes people object to the way "possible worlds" sounds and prefer something like "possible states of the world." They're the same in the way I'm using it here.


It sounds like your primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is that significantly more people use it than currently do. Is that correct? Would you consider Bitcoin successful if, say, it kept the same number of users as now (give or take a factor of two)?

First of all you are not actually countering my argument here, you are arguing from a different point. Since mining centralization and decentralization from the users perspective are different things even though they are related.

I can counter this however, since I am a miner myself and have never believed that increasing the block size would lead to increased centralization of mining. Firstly you say that if we do not increase the block size you believe that there would be higher rewards for miners. I do not think that this is true, I think that it is more likely that there would be an increase in the reward for mining when there is increased adoption with an increased block size. Since there would be more transactions to collect fees from, especially if Bitcoin could gain the type of volume that Visa for instance presently does. As opposed to collecting fees of a lower amount of transaction that have a higher fee.

Secondly you claim that when there is less incentive to mine that there will be more mining centralization, I also do not see how this is true since mining incentive within the Bitcoin network is meant to be a self balancing system. The burden of proof is on your end for this particular statement, so i will wait for your response on that.

So in my opinion we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work block chain. It would also be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low.

My primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is not just that significantly more people use it then currently do, however I do believe that this is an important criterion, but quite pointless by itself if Bitcoin became like Visa for instance. So increasing adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom would be a more accurate criterion for me.

lol fork your opinion. noob. you mean nothing.
even dogecoin woulndt want anything to do with you.

hdbuck is the poster child for Core.

source here (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/22m063/blockchain_20_let_a_thousand_chains_blossom/cgos1zb)


The key word here is "replaced".  With all the kerfuffle about block size, people forget that to make blockstream viable, bitcoin has to change.

Perhaps it's good to separate between necessary conditions vs. sufficient conditions for success. You seem to be saying that significantly more people using Bitcoin is not sufficient, because decentralization and financial freedom are necessary.

Propositionally we could assert that the following would be true in every world:

SD: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

Or, if we want to be classical and avoid implication, the following are both always true:

SD: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

I agree that both decentralization and supporting financial freedom are necessary. (In fact, now that I've clearly stated this, I'm not sure I currently consider Bitcoin "successful." I would tend to consider Bitcoin to be successful at the moment, but I also believe that mining is currently too centralized.)

Is a signficant increase in adoption necessary? By "significant" here I mean something more than twice the current users. I haven't thought deeply about the specific numbers. I can try an absolute percentage just to be precise. Is it possible for Bitcoin to be successful if less than 0.1% of the people in the world use it? Actually, I'm inclined to distinguish between "use it directly" (meaning the individual holds the private keys and sends transactions to be included into the block chain without using a third party service) and "use it indirectly" (via third party services). "Mass adoption" would very likely give different percentages for direct use and indirect use (as has the current level of adoption). You can decide if "use it" means "use it directly" or "use it indirectly" -- and you can adjust the percentage -- before deciding on an answer.

(Incidentally, while I find the discussion interesting, I can't be online often. If I don't reply quickly, or even daily, it's not with ill intent.)

Side-chains are far fro "solutions". It needs more development to call it as a solution.


Are you spamming? Its not a problem to oppose XT but don't spread FUD or disinformation. If you have valid proofs, post it.

Posting large red letters in every thread doesn't help your cause.  You just seem like a troll.

Just checked the r/bitcoinxt sub and was very surprised to see over 10,000 subscribers. I'm sure plenty are fake as you like but that's more than I was expecting.

If our arguments do drop like flies like you say they do, then why don’t you attempt to rebuttal one of my arguments directly? Since I have not seen you attempt to do this yet. I am a reasonable person so if I am wrong I would like to know if that is the case, so please enlighten me if you can.

Sorry, I've only been replying to the points for which I formed an answer, I don't specifically remember what you've been saying up to now. I will pay more attention to you, if that is what you demand.

I don't think this is anti XT news, this is a weak attempt to introduce a third option, "Blockstream"? to the debate.

Why hasn't ANYONE been talking about Blockstream on this forum, at the same frequency as XT over the last few weeks? This is the first I'm reading of it and while I don't read everything, I scan this main forum daily...I would have seen it...

Looking forward to your reply, thanks.

I do not demand any thing. Its just that you come onto this thread claiming that our arguments drop like flies without even attempting a rebuttal or pointing out how I or anyone else for that matter is wrong in their argumentation. When there has been sophisticated argumentation on this thread on both sides. Just saying that our arguments fail instead of actually trying to prove us wrong is not a particularly convincing argument, it is actually not a real argument at all. You are just giving people the false impression that the arguments coming from the XT camp are weak without actually proving that your self. Surely you don’t expect this type of dialogue to be convincing for intelligent people?

I don't know about that, I have been engaging quite a few people and it always directly concerns their argument. Again, I am sorry that I haven't spoken with you yet, but there is alot going on.

BlockStream is not the answer and BitcoinXT is an altcoin.  Saying those are the only two choices for Bitcoin is extremely dim-witted.

Fair enough, its cool, you seem like a reasonable enough person. At least you are not attacking me and calling me a shill lol. You are even telling some of these pro Core trolls to chill and not be so malicious which is admirable. Check out this argument I made if you would like, it is still ongoing, since I am still preparing my response, which i will post later this evening. Since Krona Rev has made some excellent points in terms of defining the conditions for success.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12215043#msg12215043 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12215043#msg12215043)

Bitcon should not be related to any main company, to avoid being called corporate coin. It will squander everything bitcoin stands for if that ever happen.
It seems that it was planned because I never heard of BlockStream before and now they are here to the rescue Core... interesting.

First of all Bitcoin XT is not an altcoin. To think that we should never hard fork is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized.

There are right now only two fundamental choices we can make. We can either vote for Core or we can vote for BIP101, these right now are our only two choices. You can call me dim-witted if you would like but I would prefer it if you could prove me wrong. Can you point me towards an alternative client that I can run right now that will support bigger blocks which is not BIP101?

You do realize that Bitcoin will continue running without BlockStream or XT right?  You seem to think you need to take some dire action right now to save Bitcoin.  I would suggest that your attitude is exactly the type of panic that those two teams are trying to play on.  I mean, supporting XT for solving a larger block size debate because you want "an alternative client that I can run right now" seems like the actions of an impatient and frightened person.  If you have some financial involvement with BlockStream or XT, I can see why you'd push those as the only options.  If you aren't involved with either of those projects, then you need to open your eyes and think for yourself.  BlockStream and XT are both bad options.  Don't support either one.

The shill candidates have been subverting anti XT arguments in a highly developed fashion. I checked back a little just now to your exchanges with Krona Rev, you've been arguing straight, and having a productive debate. You seem as reasonable as you claim on that basis.


But it will be after the fork. Especially if the address format and the magic bytes have to change, in the event that Bitcoin and XT are running in parallel after January 11th.


I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion.

This could so easily have been the other way around. Andresen voluntarily relinquished lead dev role to Wladimir van der Laan to join the Bitcoin Foundation. If he had still been in charge, he was one of a few with commit access to the git repository. If, given those circumstances, everything else had transpired the same way, then Gavin could at this point in time have already commited BIP 101 to the Bitcoin main branch, causing far more serious divisions in the dev team than we see today. I predict that a group composed of Greg Maxwell, Mark Friedenbach, Luke Dashjr, Pieter Wuille etc would be the people forking the client. I would be in that camp, given those precise circumstances.

The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant.



Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented.

Why not bigger blocks without XT?  ???

"Don't support either one.". The only way to do this is to not support Bitcoin at all in terms of running a full node or mining. Since not using XT or a patched version of Core is the same thing as a vote for Core. I would like to point out that there is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features should be irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

"XT which is a disgrace to what Bitcoin stands for". Why is it a disgrace for what Bitcoin stands for?

I can admit that I do have a financial involvement in either Core or XT, since I am invested in Bitcoin and I want it to succeed. I suppose it is also true that I believe we should take action now to save Bitcoin, since I do not want the network to become overloaded in case we do have a spike in adoption possibly after some global event.

We can have bigger blocks with XT, just run a patched version of Core with BIP101. :)

As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization...

Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it.

I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core).

4 dev is better than 2.

besides you'll never run anything. noob.

might as well sell the few satoshi you have you retard little scumbag.

gtfo of bitcoin.

"I agree with the premise, but not the conclusion." I am glad that you agree that hard forking away from a core development team in this way is not intrinsically wrong.

"This could so easily have been the other way around." I agree entirely

"The obverse of the "fork to check the devs" principle is that it can be used for malign purposes as well as those that are benevolent. My assessment is that this threat is malignant." This I find interesting, why do you think that this threat is malignant? Since I have not found reason to believe this considering that the change would still require 75% consensus, and you can just run a patched version of Core with BIP101 or XT without the other features. I am very interested in specifically why you think it is malignant?

"Would you agree that this range of choices should be expanded? I don't want either of the outcomes you have presented." I can absolutely agree with that, and actually if a third alternative came into being which would represent a compromise between these two positions I would personally adopt that instead. The way I see it though is that if these are the only two options we have now I will choose the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

And also, 4 devs is actually better than having the entire bitcoin community as a "backseat driver". The users should define the outcome, but not the implementation. That's the job of the engineers, and it is a centralised task. And it will be centralised under whoever the development team is, we can't all do it.



@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

alrite, pardon me if it is a bit harsh sometime, i am a civilized irl.
i surely wish i did not have to do this.
but thats internet and you gotta fight with the same weapons these people are using.

This is real life, and it's easier to be more restrained here. In real life, you don't think what to say, look at it again, edit it a bit and then hit send (then edit again, or heaven forbid, delete!).

You can do it.

edited for clarity



https://i.imgur.com/HI4kOGA.jpg

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

That is funny, I feel the same way, but the other way around again lol. I do hope we get a third option that represents a compromise between these two extreme positions. That way we would both be able to agree and we would still be united under the same Bitcoin. But yes I think that if the block size is never increased I would just move to another cryptocurrency that reflects my own beliefs better. Maybe we can not have a singular global currency, maybe we must split, maybe that is the lesson we learn from this grand experiment, don’t get me wrong I do hope that will not be how it plays out. The crypto revolution will be alive no matter what happens to Bitcoin. I am a strong believer in the philosophical dialectic so i believe that if we are rational we should be able to find the solution and the synthesis of our beliefs.

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

I have read it all actually, I presumed that what was meant, was for me to present an argument against the spying on IP addresses within XT, I figured that the question is about BIP101, so therefore the extra features within XT (IP prioritization to prevent DDOS attacks through tor), are optional and therefore should not be a reason to not support BIP101. What was the question then which according to you I have failed to answer?

I do think that the range of choices should be expanded, actually as soon as a third alternative comes into being which would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would personally support that instead. The way that I see it though, is that if these are the only two options we have now, I am in a position where I do have to make a choice even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

I get the feeling maybe you missed my response to your post, since I have actually already answered this question. lol :)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12222488#msg12222488 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12222488#msg12222488)

Yep, I missed that. It's thick and fast in here still.

That's a sensible response given your situation, I can empathise as I previously did some mining too. To answer your question to me, choosing between 8 MB XT and 1 MB Bitcoin, I would choose 1 MB Bitcoin. At least that's the question I believe you meant! But of course, that decision can't be made in isolation from the resumption of reality: XT would continue on it's schedule and Bitcoin would have to change, however that is achieved.

In addition, I will outline what I believe I would have done were I still mining today. And it is nearly the same choice; stick with the Core client, but open to the idea of mining the XT chain for at least a short while, profitability would trump ideology (I think we might all be tempted to run VISA or SWIFT nodes if such a thing existed). But that would depend, so, so, so heavily on the unknown/unpredictable events that will take place between now and January, one of which is XT's demise. This drama almost certainly has a few more acts to play out, I would be surprised if not.

Obviously I would choose 8MB BIP101, But I can understand your position thinking that Bitcoin Core will have to change because of the existence and schedule of XT. In that sense XT might be a good thing even if you don’t agree with it, as a catalyst for change. I do hope that this plays out in such a way that we end up being on the same side of the fork, that would be a good outcome in my opinion. :)

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical argument:


And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument:


We are not off to a very good start I must say considering how many clarifications it took to move you off of your position that I had made a straw-man argument, and now this contradiction in claims about whether or not you have in fact actually given a logical argument at all. But nevertheless, I am always open to debate and so if you would like to fully flesh out an argument I'm all for it, though at this point in my evolution on this topic I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

Hopefully you realize that we are on the same team. WE all want Bitcoin to succeed, and so we should work together to find the best solution to the problem we currently face.

The whole thing was a parody, the point was that the choices are stupid, it's like now we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

Your statements where not an argument against IP filtering but rather for larger block sizes.

Anyway, on reflection I've edited the questions to make the stupidity more accurately reflect the OP. Thanks for your input

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click

You might think that both options are stupid but if you are running a full node or if you are mining Bitcoin then you do have to choose.

"Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other." The ability to hard fork in this way represents the process that allows us to arrive at such an agreement.

"XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol" This has been shown not to be true many times now, I will say it again. It is a ddos protection method that is only activated when your node is under a DDOS attack, so the alternative to not using the DDOS protection method when under attack is that Bitcoin will not be able to connect to the network. It does not leak IP's and it is disabled by default when connecting through TOR. Furthermore this option is entirely optional, you can turn it off within XT, or even run a version of XT that does not have this feature, or you could even run Core with a BIP101 patch.

"My Position is not to worry about it." If you are running full nodes or if you are mining, such a position is the same as a vote for Core. If the majority of full nodes and miners felt this way we would have one megabyte blocks forever IMHO.

We as the bitcoin community should remove the git right of any bitcoin core developers who are on the BlockStream  paycheck list. BlockStream is and will be toxic for the bitcoin development as long as they have influence in changing the block size.

point is most of them dont want to change it.. ::)

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

https://bitcointalk.org/useravatars/avatar_261027.png

Can you read?


What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

Can you read?

I asked you explain it.

If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument.
Are you posting to hear yourself type?  Or you want to influence opinion?
If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position.

Me, I'm interested in the truth.  If you show me where I've been wrong,
perhaps I'll take your side.

Proofs?  What proofs?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

When a user uses a sidechain it requires a transaction to a special output. A script is involved in the transaction so as to make the validation between chain. The SPV proof. These proofs/transactions are sometimes considerably larger than regular transactions.

Currently they are researching advanced cryptographic methods so as to reduce the size of these proofs given existing block space constrain. Raising the block size could significantly accelerate the deployment of the actual model of sidechains by delaying the eventual need for very efficient proofs.

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

afaik core-devs said that sidechains are not a scaleability solution
(though i dont know there reasoning)

to me it seems that a transaction which only happens inside a sidechain is not recorded on the bitcoin blockchain at all (only converting transactions which moves btc to sidechain and vice-versa are)

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

While brg444 is talking about sidechains, I'd also want to comment on the Lightning Network and its relevance to the blocksize limit.
Here's a quote from its paper:
Here's my elaboration:

I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it.
(If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.)

Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases").

no Lightning network and sidechains are too different concepts.

actually i like lightning network very much, but it depends on bigger block (to be exact: it depends on the availability of blockspace.)

sidechains are more like an altcoin which value is pegged to bitcoin.

One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like
I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense.
As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008617.html

You ignoramus. Just answer the question.

By limiting the blocksize, they create an artificial upwards price pressure between high value users. This will eventually make the price of putting a low value transaction on the native bitcoin blockchain uneconomic. Low value users will be forced on to alternatives - conveniently implemented using sidechains. Yhe value proposition of side chains is their use for frequent, low value transactions, and fixing the block size at 1mb will ensure demand.

your point above is bullshit - if you move 80% of traffic off-chain,  you have enough room to bloat the chain as much as you like. You could put a 100kb spv proof script in there if you like, there will be nothing else in the block except a few sidechain consolidations.

What is exactly a low value transaction? Your definition. Because some low value transactions have been uneconomic for a long time already. The definition of low value is subjective and is constantly changing.

And what's more important - how Blockstream is supposed to monetize on sidechains if their motives are selfish?

"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

Overly general quote, but it does sum up the reason why I currently support XT.

You re right - it is entirely subjective. The user may feel that they get more economic value by putting it on a sidechain. But at least they will have the choice.

I'm sure they can figure out a way to monetize it when they roll out well developed  shrink wrapped sidechain implementations

I would like to point out here that this has become a political problem, not a technical problem. We should try to look at this from a political and economics perspective. Part of the problem might be that some people are looking at this, as if it is an engineering problem when it is far more political in nature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc)

HOW ABOUT YOU PUT IT BACK UP WHERE IT CAME FROM? MR TECHNICAL EXPRETTT.

doesn't belong there anymore

techinal problem is solved ( up the limit ) the details as to how that solution should be implement is more political  than technical

So much for having me on ignore, you retard.  :D Lying is just second nature to you, isn't it?

you wish adam.. you wish.  :-*

I have written this article, even though I do still need to respond to some of the things said on this thread, I will get to it, been busy, including writing this article and giving a speech on the subject. Will post it here, I was thinking that people here might appreciate what I have created. :)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335)

@BitProdigy Thank you very much for explanation,i didnt know how dangerous it is for Btc

Can somebody tell me do XT developers are aware that thay are creating btc killer
thay are technology advanced and propably very good devs,so i think thay are aware
Did somebody pay them for doing that

Respect for the well thought out posting. Just hope the Theymos censorship patrol show mercy on you.  :-\

As long as the blacklist crap is there I wont support it. Yes i know it an be bypassed, bla bla bla....
The reason that I am sceptic to it is that they had the nerve to put it in there in the first place.
it dosn't really matter if it was put in to protect against ddos or whatever. Blacklisting for whatever reason does not belong in the code

You are a stupid fucking idiot, talking about things he doesn't understand.
There is no blacklist. The End. There are really enough posts on this forum explaining that, but no, you rather listen to some random guy called turtlehurrican, who doesn't know shit about programming(but hey he can copy code from github, which is a pretty useless skill) and who just enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame and all the sheep running behind him.

I choose Bitcoin.






http://38.media.tumblr.com/c8029c921f16059c58c0cf3d908cfda0/tumblr_mfm7y05pz81qe27tzo1_500.gif





n00bs.

 I have found good article,new altcoin created from XT fork,whatever it may hurt btc as well

http://www.finance-guy.net/finblog/bitcoin-forkin-war (http://www.finance-guy.net/finblog/bitcoin-forkin-war)

Not this again. The first sentence is already wrong
Seriously, couldn't you find an article, that gets at least the first sentence right?

I find this amusing for two reasons:

- The standard fee for plain everyday transactions you'd like to confirm quickly is 0.00005 BTC.  At current exchange rates, that's 1.1 cents.
- A basic 0-fee transaction will generally confirm within a few days, if you really can't afford that 1.1 cent fee.

There you go - two options that are by no definition 'uneconomic'. 

If we do not increase the blocksize and there is a significant increase in adoption then transacting on the main chain would become prohibitively expensive. At this point the only alternative which would provide sufficient scale is using third parties on top of Bitcoin. You could also just use another cryptocurrency instead of Bitcoin, which is what I would do in this situation. This article explains well the economics of not increasing the block size and what the consequences of this most likely would be:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0)