Bitcoin Forum

I would like to start this discussion by getting some possible misconceptions out of the way.

First of all, Bitcoin XT is not a altcoin. Bitcoin XT is a client that functions on the same blockchain as the Bitcoin Core client. Bitcoin XT represents a proposal to implement BIP101 which is a proposal from Bitcoin Core which has not been implemented into the Bitcoin Core client itself. Bitcoin XT allows the miners to decide whether to increase the block size if they reach a 75% consensus, if that happens the network will hard fork and allow bigger blocks using the schedule specified within BIP101. It would be good to point out here that a block size increase can only be achieved through a hard fork. However since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork, It makes the other changes within XT optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way they would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. You can turn off, any of the extra patches contained within Bitcoin XT inside of the client itself. There is even an alternative version of XT that does not include any of these other changes and only increases the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101, which would then be compatible with XT after the fork if the miners reach consensus. That is why the discussion should be focused on whether we should adopt BIP101 not Bitcoin XT. So at this time it is a choice between Core who have not implemented increasing the block size or BIP101 which will increase the block size if consensus is reached.

Sometimes when we look at a problem from the perspective of different disciplines of thought we can reach different conclusions. In the case of the block size debate it might be true that an engineer would come to a different conclusion then an economist or a philosopher would.

So looking at this problem from a political perspective.

We first need to establish our ideology, since the conclusion we will reach will actually depend upon the ideology we adopt. Since philosophy is not a science, philosophy however can provide us with answers that science can not, in the same way that science can answer questions that philosophy is unable to answer. Since the question of what we want Bitcoin to be, and by extension what kind of a civilization, do we want to live in, are questions that are political and philosophical in nature. Which is why compromises should be made between these different perspectives.

Bitcoin itself in its current form and even in its original state represents such a compromise. Since from an engineers perspective the most efficient payment system would be one that is centralized, decentralized systems are less efficient but they are “better” because of very human reasons. The subjective definition of what is “better” is a result of our ideology and the priories we apply to this problem. This should be the product of ethics and political philosophy with a grounding in the technical realities in terms of what is possible. Therefore the technical perspective should not be prioritized over the philosophical principles of what we think Bitcoin should become.

Now to answer the question of what ideology we should apply to this problem, everyone has their own ideology as a free thinker, fortunately most bitcoiners can agree on some basic principles. I will start by by saying that our goal or ideology for this block size debate should be to increase adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom. We could add to this definition if we would like, but it is good to keep in mind that good philosophy should be as simple as possible.

Adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies for instance. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

It is important to understand that it is not intrinsically wrong to hard fork away from the core developer team. Since it is this political mechanisms within Bitcoin which allows it to be so truly free and decentralized in the first place. I could explain why that is the case.

The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against the power that a core development team could hold. We should have multiple client implementations with competing development teams, it should be an extension of the concept of decentralization. Since if we did think that we should have the consensus of the core developers, even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, this would be tantamount to centralization of power. If we think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or quoting Mike Hearn "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized and free. That is why it is not intrinsically wrong to hard fork away from the core development team.

Now I will present a simple argument in favor of increasing the block size. So presuming that our ideology is to increase adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom. While also presuming increased adoption over a period of several years.

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.

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 with high bandwidth connections. 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.

One of the first things I would like to address is the claim that increasing the block size would lead to increased mining centralization. I do not think that increasing the block size would lead to increased centralization not at least to the point that would justify resorting to being “forced” to use third party payment processors instead of being able to practically transact on the Bitcoin blockchain directly. Since that would represent a much greater loss of decentralization compared to just increasing the block size. The reason why I do not think that bigger blocks would lead to increased mining centralization is because miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. Which is why we can see this as a type of free market of pools, or a form of representative democracy. The difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds, effectively changing my vote. It is important to remember that Pools are most often entirely different entities then the miners themselves, not including some of the larger industrial mines, however as long as they are in competition with each other they can still contribute to decentralization. It is the miners that decide, not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. Miners are incentivized not to undermine the value of the network they protect. I do not think that the people that benefit from Bitcoin would attempt to undermine it, not because I trust them but because of how peoples incentives are aligned and how this relates to game theory. The same is true to a certain extend for the people that run full nodes.

Another problem relating to mining centralization is block propagation, however again this is not a problem for the miners since it is the pools that run the full nodes, which are being run using powerful computers and high bandwidth connections anyway, or can easily be moved to locations where they have these advantages in terms of block propagation. Since miners can freely choose where to point their hash power, it would therefore still be possible to have a diversity of pools like we have today if we increased the block size.

In terms of a selfish miner attack this relationship between the miner and the pools have the same effect. The miners will not allow a pool to become so large so that it would undermine the security and therefore the value proposition of Bitcoin, this has worked so far, and if we look at the hash rate distribution of the pools today it has actually become more decentralized over the last six months, compared to what it was like before.

I do realize that mining centralization has increased over the years, but this to a certain extend is to be expected because of economies of scale. The consequences of which I think we should accept, since it has been proven to work. Furthermore to think that all miners should be able to run their own full nodes for the purposes of mining is unrealistic, since it would require a mining operation on an industrial scale to even consider running your own pool. At which point running a full node in a data center would be trivial in comparison to the cost that such an operation would require in the first place. Mining within Bitcoin is a self balancing system and it works, to think that small miners should be able to feasibly solo mine again is already so far removed from the reality today that to go back and rewind the clock so to speak and to go back to how mining used to be, would be to radical of a change to even attempt to enforce. Furthermore since just leaving the block size where it is now does not alleviate this problem and increasing it would not significantly change the situation either. It is therefore not a good argument for why we should not increase the block size.

It is important to remember that if you run a full node or if you are a miner, you have to vote, you literally can not do these things without casting a vote to either side, therefore it is impossible to be neutral if you either mining or running a full node. Since I do think that the block size limit should be increased, and right now I have to choose between Core or BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if it a choice between the lesser of two evils. This is a case of political realism. In political thought the lesser of two evils is often the pragmatic reality we have to accept in order to even justify the existence of the state, and we should not think that 90% consensus is practical considering how democracies actually and practically function.

That is why I am in favor of BIP101 and by extension Bitcoin XT since XT is just the Core client with BIP101 added to it, which is a proposal that exist within the Core client along side other proposals to increase the block size. Which however can not be implemented in the Core client itself because of internal disagreements within the Core development team. I do not think that Core will increase the block size unless there is a hard fork initiated by another client. Because there is a fundamental disagreement within the Core development team itself that cannot be resolved. This has led to a stalemate in the decision making process within Bitcoin Core. Since the Core developers can effectively veto each other on decisions.

This fundamental disagreement lies in that some of the of the Core developers do not want the block size to be increased. Because some of the Core developers like Peter Todd think that the Bitcoin blockchain can not scale efficiently and that therefore we should not try and make it scale directly at all at this time. I think that this is a case of the nirvana fallacy, since just because we can not scale Bitcoin efficiently it does mean we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all. From a purely technical and engineering perspective Peter Todd and some of his colleagues might be correct. However from a political and economics perspective increasing the block size now does make a huge difference in terms of adoption and the survival of Bitcoin in the long term.

Some of these Core developers however believe that instead we should use third party payment processors on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead of most people being able to use the main chain directly. They want to restrict the block size so that a fee market can develop, and so that it “incentivize” the market to come up with other solutions like side chains, lighting network and other off chain solutions like Coinbase.

I would like to point out here that I do like the lighting network and I do think it should be implemented, however I do not think people should be “forced” to used it because of an arbitrary restriction in the block size that will make transacting on the main chain prohibitively expensive for most people. Essentially turning Bitcoin into a clearing house for banks, large corporations and payment processors.

It would be better if everyone could use the Bitcoin blockchain directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses. It would 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 help Bitcoins survival into the future. I do think however that there should 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. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house, would necessarily 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 blockchain.

You might ask why the urgency? Well what concerns me is that if we did have a spike in adoption possibly after some global event, then the network would become overloaded. the consequences of this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception. Some transaction might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need to get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin. It would also be much more problematic if we attempted to do a hard fork at short notice when this does become a problem since that would lead to a situation that would be much more chaotic and confusing to most people which, when attempting to do a hard fork would not be a good thing. It is better to have as much time as possible to prepare for a hard fork, which makes it more likely that we will be able to reach consensus before these types of problems start to occur.

Maybe we must split, maybe that is one of the lessons we should learn from this experiment. I hope that is not the case but it might be how this will have to play out. There is certainly disagreement within the Core development team that is fundamental enough to justify this. It is however the economic majority that can and should decide what path to take. This is the mechanism that serves as a check against the possibility of centralization of power within a development team. Since the choice between Core and BIP101 represent two very different potential futures for bitcoin with a very different underlying vision. I hope to allow people to see that increasing the block size is more likely to lead to increased adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom compared to leaving the restriction in place.

It is worth pointing out at this point, that the original vision of bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto himself was that we should have big blocks. I will now quote Satoshi Nakamoto, he said:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

So to support bigger blocks is more in line with the original vision of Bitcoin. You could argue that Bitcoin should stay true to its original vision, since not increasing the block size can be seen as breaking the social contract to a certain extend. Since it would change the underlying vision and promise of what Bitcoin should become. To leave the blocksize where it is now is therefore a radical change in another direction, and wanting to increase the blocksize can be considered the more conservative position. Even though it might not seem this way to many people.

This is because the status quo so to speak is opposed to the increase. This actually highlights part of the problem, to think that the status quo should in terms of development carry so much weight in terms of the importance of their opinions is to a certain extend in conflict with Bitcoins decentralized nature. There should not be a “official” client, there should be many competing clients, this is of political necessity, since as I have pointed out before such thinking leads to a centralization of power within the Core development team. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory. These are fundamental questions of who is in charge of Bitcoin, and how do we, and how should we reach consensus decisions. This question is as important as the block size debate itself, this question is more political in nature then it is technical, which is why I think we need to compromise some of our technical ideals in favor of political goals.

If there was a third option that would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would support that instead. However the reality is that right now we only have these two choices.

However a third option could represent the synthesis of a Hegelian dialectic which is a philosophical method used to find solutions or truths. Core would represents the thesis, XT would therefore represents the antithesis. From these two opposing positions the hypothetical third option would represent the synthesis of these ideas, which could possibly be a better solution for the evolution of Bitcoin.

I do think that Bitcoin will solve many problems in the world, but it will also introduce new ones. To think that Bitcoin is perfect is unrealistic, however by adopting Bitcoin in our lives we do more good in the world in comparison to the alternative. Cryptocurrency has given us the choice, this underlying philosophy of volunteerism is important, which is in part why I think we should embrace alternative implementations of the Bitcoin Core client and allow the free market and the economic majority to decide.

Everyone should remember that it does not matter who you like more or even what you think of these people or what their motivations are. What matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that collectively we will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational, use reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

Regardless of what you believe I do hope that this plays out in such a way that we all end up being on the same side of the fork, that would be a good outcome in my opinion.

I don't suppose we could hope for a sticky here?  If everyone would read and understand this single post, we could actually have a rational discussion on the proposals' merits.  Cue Aerosmith.

BIP101 is meant as the simplest and most elegant solution to a technical scalability issue (it is incomplete still). However there are many mature adult (apparently) intelligent people that are unable to observe the world around them and it's constant evolution. While loudmouth people suffering from dementia, lack of imagination or mathematical abilities is nothing new, someone proposed BIP100 for them. Instead of a progressive technical solution in BIP101 we are presented with a political convoluted and possibly corrupt BIP100. Even though most economical, biological, chemical, physical and informational processes can be mapped on a curve that describes a time-space relationship, we must instead feel that growth is something we can dictate to happen or not. No longer do we need to attend and protect a transparent plan (like the block reward curve), we must instead dictate reality.

Having said that, politically XT is a planned disaster waiting to happen, documented from the start, it is a one man show with less focus on technology, and more focus on human weakness (egotism, corruption, collusion, dictatorship).

Philosophically, the XT mandate is to replace the mythical absent spiritual leader Satoshi Nakamoto, which gave us his interpretation of true modern, efficient and unrestricted money with that of the Pope Mike Hearn (https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved).

Institutionalizing an idea such as this is against it's core. Remember that in order to do a 50% attack, a miner needs 200M USD in equipment and more than 1M USD daily to sustain. Instead Pope Mike Hearn can do a 100% attack whenever he wants, the whole point of centralized trust is that the sole agent might be AGAINST your interest and there's no recourse.

I appreciate the contributions made by Mike Hearn and the care Gavin Andresen had for this project through hard times. I also appreciate their efforts to force the core devs to realize that they had their noses stuck up their asses and they were failing as maintainers when they couldn't deliver the adoption course in due time (block size uncap vs lighting vs sidechains). I also appreciate all the core devs, including Blockstream shills.

What I wanted to say, NOBODY at this forum, reddit, chat channels, mailing lists, Satoshi Nakamoto residence, nobody is able to fully comprehend the technical, economical and political implications of the Bitcoin project and it's future implications. Everyone will intentionally or ignorantly leave one aspect out and declare contradicting truths about what they comprehend, no matter how smart they are.

Simple problem requires simple solution.

Never choose a complex solution that can open up for many exploitation (BIP100)

Put it simply, BIP101 gives predictable room for growth to the market while putting miners in a technical competitive environment. 

Bunch of nonsense. Its not an attack if he cant control it.

If you believe he control bitcoin after bitcoinxt succeeds, i think you should delete your "legendary" account because apparently, you dont understand jack about the distributed network.

A coder who codes an implementation in no way shape or form has control. You can pull the political bullshit  all day long, but this forum is already sick of this.

Maybe you should delete your account because you can't read...

https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

If you don't understand that, we can't continue our discussion. Have a nice evening.

And what about this?


https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0

What is so hard to understand about, that nobody can force you to install a new update of BitcoinXT, just because you installed it once?
What is so hard to understand about, that everybody could just make a new client and convince people to use it?

I second meono: I am sick of this bullshit.

How will you continue to use BitcoinXT then?

Because bitcoinXT is Mikes client. If you want to change something that Mike doesnt like, fork his client. Go on githup and its as simple as clicking a button.

But nah.... You like fictional story that scares children tho.

You don't. That't the point.

Hey legendary, i gave you a benefit of doubt. Was this account bought?

Are you aware that many bitcoins users still use bitcoin 0.10?

very nice article, some good points

If you want precise number, look here:
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/

Just 37.24% use the newest version of Core. So, anybody wants to tell me, that the rest can not use Bitcoin?

Is your argument composed only from insults?! Is this how you manage to discuss your peers?

You guys don't get it. If Bitcoin forks to XT, any time Mike decides to add a feature or change that prevents older clients from participating, you will be left out of Bitcoin. You are forced to update if you want to use Bitcoin (should it fork to XT).

There is no "fork it from github" or "stop using XT anytime" option after this...

Any feature that would prevent older clients from running would require a hard fork. In this case Mike would have to convince the entire Bitcoin community or at least the majority, including the miners to switch over to his fork. I could even release a Bitcoin client myself, which could have all sorts of changes in it but this does not grant me any control over the network itself since I would still need to convince other people to start using it as well. That is why Bitcoin XT would not give Mike any type of dictatorial control, since people would still need to choose to adopt it in the first place. Having many competing clients for the Bitcoin protocol is very important, it is actually of political necessity, since this is the mechanism that gives people the choice. It helps to ensure that Bitcoin remains free and decentralized.

Convince the community? No. It doesn't matter if random 100 people are using it, or not. It can not function without the miners.
I'm pretty sure it will be very hard to make people upgrade with an emergency alert key (e.g. :"Bitcoin compromised, update imminently"). So instead of sticking with the safer version, you plan on going with Hearn. Let's see what happens right?

Tl;dr version of OP?

VeritasSapere

This user is currently ignored.

1st ever!

You are essentially saying that people can not be trusted with this freedom. That is why people should not have the choice? This is the same type argument that a dictator or tyrant would use. Which if your ideology does not include freedom and decentralization is fine. However from the political ideology of freedom and decentralization this is certainly not the case.

I'm not saying that. No. I'm saying that a dictator can not be trusted. After hearing of his ideas of a 'Bitcoin dictator' I would rather stay away from XT completely than go with it and risk it. For the record again, I do not support small blocks. I've actually waited yesterday for a single confirm 6 blocks (standard fee, for testing purposes).
We need blocks that are changing. No predictions, no fixed limits.

So, it is not about convincing the community, but convincing the miners.
I am not sure, what your point is.
If there would really be a 75% XT/25% Core-fork. There is no reason, why the XT miners would just accept every hardfork change from Hearn, just because they accepted BIP101 after months of discussing. Hearn wouldn't get magic powers, just because he convinced them once.

You do not need to trust Mike, you do not need to trust any dictator. You do not need to trust anyone. Bitcoin is a trustless protocol.

So? That is not even remotely close to my point. Do you think that I do not know that? Bitcoin essentially works as a trust-less protocol. However, you can not argue that such a potential scandal (Hearn or whoever trying to push something bad) would not hurt the price/adoption.
I would rather avoid more bad news (as media misinterprets stuff), than to deal with it again. The debate has caused more than enough.

This is a misrepresentation of the event. Not only did Mike & Gavin's proposal not obtain consensus it achieved a majority opposition. We're not talking about an outlier forcing his veto against consensus but a team of diverse developers concluding that their approach was not appropriate and lacked legitimate technical backing.

It is not intrinsically wrong to fork away from the core development. It is wrong though to go against the technical opinion of a majority of experts in the field to propose a schism fork that divide the existing consensus and use populist tactics and propaganda to fool masses into blindly supporting an illegitimate fork on the basis of "inclusion". This is evidently an attempt by Mike Hearn to wrestle away the control over the reference code from core developers. Don't you find it  hypocritical that somehow the XT team propose to fork away from core development team and arbitrarily install themselves into the driver seat?


The core team has several block increase implementation being worked out as we speak. This is again a disingenuous representation of reality.


Bitcoin is not a democracy. "Political realism"  :D I seriously almost barfed. You are entertaining very dangerous thoughts gentleman


Absolutely wrong once again. This is an outright lie that is either intentional or demonstrate your ignorance of the events unfolding.


Miss me with your "political and economics perspective". This is absolutely an engineering problem. Competent engineers are telling you these are the cards you have been dealt and no amount of political posturing and complaining can change facts.

I will stop there because frankly your essay is quite boring, full of fallacies and absent of any insights. It appears you like writing a lot but you should maybe pay more attention and educate yourself a bit more about the dynamics at stake. Also, get your head out of this political/philosophical cloud because it is inferring with your judgment.


No one is ever going to take you seriously writing that type of bs.

Have a good day  :)

The success of Bitcoin XT is not relevant to what I was saying, and can you tell me what I am misrepresenting specifically?

Can you see the contradiction in what you are saying here? Who decides whom these majority of experts are? Is the majority of the Core development team considered to be the technical majority? Since that would be tantamount to centralization of power. You did understand that I argued that from a technical standpoint they might be correct, however that from a political standpoint they are not. Therefore the technical majority should not be the group that decides or whose perspective should be considered the most important, on this issue the economic majority should and will decide for themselves. Having more options and choices for people so that the market can decide is a good thing and supports freedom and decentralization.

Do you know what the "majority of experts" believed in Germany in 1938? The "majority of experts" are not always correct.

Actually it is not hypocritical, especially since Mike has described himself as the dictator of Bitcoin XT lol. Fortunately however we do not need to trust him or any other developer. Bitcoin is a trust less open source protocol. That is why there can not be a dictator of Bitcoin unless the economic majority places their trust in them, which they would not do, especially the miners since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin.

Just because there are proposals it does not mean that they will be implemented, and they most certainly have not been implemented now. Right now the only way to increase the blocksize is by using BIP101. Which has not been implemented in Core. Since none of the proposals have been implemented in Core and no definitive plans have been made to implement any block size increase in Core. I can therefore say that I have not represented the reality disingenuously.

Bitcoin is a type of democracy where the economic majority have the most influence. Similarly to how our democracies function today lol. You are correct that these are very dangerous thoughts, but these are the foundations of much political thinking. When faced with only two choices we must choose even if the options are imperfect. Just like government, it is a compromise, a moral dilemma. We cannot just ignore the dilemma, that is why this is a case of "political realism".

I can provide a source: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion (https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion), 39:50.
He clearly argues in this podcast that he thinks we should not increase the block size any time soon and that a "fee market" should develop instead, which according to him would "incentive" other market solutions like lighting network, sidechains and other types of "off chain transactions". Granted he did say that in the long term we should maybe increase the blocksize, however he definitely does think that the blocks should fill up. Therefore it is not incorrect to say that there is a fundamental disagreement within the core development team.

You have failed to point out any fallacies. The purpose of philosophy among other reasons is to improve a persons judgment. I think that it is good that philosophy is inferring with my judgment. The definition of infer being to "deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.".

Thank you for deconstructing his ridiculous post. As I was reading his post I was getting more and more motivated to do the same, but decided to first see if someone had already done so.



LOL! Why the hell would you want to "justify the existence of the state", especially in these terms, unless you are a proud, ultra-dogmatic, foaming-at-the-mouth slave?

I read OP and I have a question.

What % of the Blockchain 'size' is from orphaned blocks? Dose anyone know?
Dose the blockchain store all orphaned blocks forever?
As block size grows so dose the rate of orphan chains. My fear is the size of all the orphan chains will grow at a faster rate then the main chain.  

 ???

Orphaned blocks are not stored....

'Orphaned blocks are stored in blkxxxx.dat files forever, though each node will know about different orphaned blocks.'

Is this not true?

this is not relevant to the main thread being about spreading misinformation and promoting a scam of a bip.

Well OP created a thread about why he/she supports a thing and I"m saying why I don't support said thing. I'm asking for more info on the topic of the OP I think my post and question is relevant to this topic.

Yes Bitcoin is indeed a trustless protocol.

Bitcoin XT and BIP101 are not.

I would love to see the mathematical equation that solves for blacklisting, enhanced tracking, reversible transactions and easily implemented central control as being "trustless".

Bitcoin XT is basically a crypto version of Paypal in which you must trust in Gavin and Mike.


Nice try for a rebound but Bitcoin XT is dead.

Time to move on.


~BCX~

If bitcoin wants to survice as a dominant ledger/blockchain system increasing max block size is a must!
Why all people who want to run a full node can get proper hdd http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00TJUXCA2
and what trace mayer says here is  very true http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk
who wants to pay for Bitcoin network use?
If you can build in private transaction at a higher miner cost! say 1% / 5% depending on blocksize people will pay for that why?
Transactions will be PRIVATE as a option.
that's what paying customers want , and that's where you can make money with the bitcoin system.
Morality was never a issue in the banking system , so its better to have this  feature avalible in bitcoin so privacy is a future otion for everybody and not only the Elite bankers :)
And to build in this extra option we need a bigger blocksize.
Bitcoin needs to gròw up.

Blacklisting bitcoins is useless why , every bitcoin blacklisted is one less to be never be replaced! so I cant see how you can effectively blacklist a BTC :) , sorry!

Read up on Gavin and Hearn's philosophy and find out how.

It's in Bitcoin XT.

Also just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's impossible.


~BCX~

You cant! why it will leave no bitcoin whitelisted since bitcoins cant be replaced , within 24 hours all bicoins will be blacklisted!
So be logical! it cant work! , if it is in XT nobody will use it anymore when active so this can only be bullshit its simple deduction!
because there will be no whitelisted BTC left!
It is simple it can not be done!
but if you inc the blocksite to 8MB or more you can build in privacy at extra cost!
as explained here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk then you can create plausible deniebility in the system , so parties Bitpay can saveley except all transactions under what ever law.
But Iam sure Blacklisting can not work , because whitin hours there will be no BTC left to blacklist!

That is retarded... it's just math equations, where's the trust issue?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6341/files

This is correct. BIP101 does not compromise the trustless nature of the protocol whatsoever.

That might be true, though as far as I understand it, old orphaned blocks are not stored in the main Bitcoin blockchain, so when a new node comes online the orphans will not be included when the blockchain is downloaded, someone please correct me if I am wrong. However pruning will be coming as well, though even without pruning, bandwidth is still the primary limitation of our technology that we need to consider in regards to the blocksize.

I found this article very insightful and valuable in explaining why keeping the blocksize at one megabyte would not be good for Bitcoin, I am tempted to include it in the OP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0)

I agree with raising the blocksize, but not by such a large increment.  If BIP101 was simply altered to curtail the increases it would be much more likely to gain support.  Chances are, most people are going to get behind a 2-4-8 increase, which seems far more prudent than 8-16-32.  Personally, I'd still like to see dynamic, smaller adjustments on a more frequent basis, like every week or two if required, but the idea doesn't seem to be gaining much momentum.  If I could code, I'd start an altcoin to test this idea out (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12438841#msg12438841).  Would love to see it in action (with or without the voting part).  I guess it's more complicated that way, so less appealing as a result.  People seem to like whole numbers and simple concepts, so we'll probably end up with static limits.  Such strict rigidity worries me a little, but being stable and predictable is important too.

I actually agree with you, I only support BIP101 until a better alternative is implemented. It would indeed be good to have BIP101 itself curtailed I would absolutely support such a change, I also think that this would help with gaining support overall.

How does that explain why you've been using dozens of demonstrably false arguments in favour of BIP101? Or that 2-4-8 is a vastly different proposition (being as it stops at 8MB), that will invoke highly significant changes in the characteristics of the network dynamics that you claim to be a student of?

Does it?  I figured 12 or 16 came after 8 if it was deemed necessary (but obviously not anytime soon).  Going through all this hard fork rigmarole again later if the LN or subchains plans don't materialise just doesn't strike me as sensible.  Surely the more pragmatic approach would be to see what the average connection and bandwidth availability is later when we're approaching 8MB and have the option to keep going if it's safe to do so?  If we don't hit 8MB for another 5-10 years (or possibly longer), home internet packages might be vastly different to now and full nodes might be able to handle much more activity.  We might even have an "internet of things" where the toaster and the kettle have a full copy of the blockchain, heh.  If raising the cap too quickly is irresponsible because no one knows what the future holds, then a permanent fixed cap, by the same logic, is equally irresponsible.  Nothing should be set in stone.  It'll only cause potential headaches later.

I agree, but that's baked into a 2-4-8 cake anyway. If 8MB was reached as you say, then the option still exists via hard forking again. Except if you're running a post-fork XT network; the hard forking mechanism can't be used once Mike's proposed blockchain checkpoints get introduced.

(another mindless XT argument debunked; they constantly claim that hard forks are possible using the proposed XT codebase, when XT has been re-designed to prevent any further hard forks)

Well i didnt read all info about it ,those xt option feature all that had made till the moment were divide the community and the result is the value lost its bust off the 300 dollars mark and looks not going to raise or dump on the next days.

My arguments have been completely consistent. If you can find contradiction in what I have said please point it out to me and I will thank you for it. I have always said that I would most likely support a third alternative implementation especially if it strikes a middle ground between these two extreme choices we have today.

Saying that we can not hard fork again after XT is complete conjecture, it is absolutely just not true. If that was true I would instantly become an opponent of XT lol. I have listened to the interview where he discusses checkpoints, you are just completely taking what he said out of context.

If you can find an accusation of inconsistency in what I have said please point it out to me and I will thank you for it.


No you haven't, but I don't have time to perform such unrewarding tasks as looking through your post history to prove it.

What you have indulged in is the same dishonest tactics as your fellow acolytes (straw man to open this exchange, stay classy), and the clear intent is to behave appallingly while feigning ignorance (and attempt to irirtate the hell out of your mark). You've constantly twisted logic, invented incoherent consequences, and just straight up saying things that are 100% contrary to observable, empirical facts. You literally just make it all up sometimes. How you can be happy behaving this way, I cannot tell.

Yet you are the one presently using ad hominem against me. I did actually say this in the OP. :)

Just so I'm clear on how this 2-4-8 works, obviously we need a hard fork to get the ball rolling.  Then going from 2 to 4 and from 4 to 8 doesn't require a hard fork, but going beyond 8 means we've made a guess about the future now and have drawn a line in the sand based on nothing more than a hunch?  

From the very start of this discussion, people have repeatedly stated that we can't make assumptions about the future, so why are we assuming that 8 is as far as we should go?  People argued that "kicking the can down the road" is the wrong approach, but taking a guess at a future limit and carving it in stone now is precisely that.  We shouldn't view this as a temporary kludge, just in case the other predictions people are making about alternative methods of scaling don't pan out as planned.  There's no sense in creating hurdles for the future when we don't need to.  We should try to keep subsequent hard forks to an absolute minimum where possible.

And the checkpoints thing was an idea.  A bad one, granted, but never implemented (or did I miss something?), so I don't see why it's still being picked at.

I'm not either, it's an assumption. But people don't use expressions like 2-4-8 when they actually mean doubling without limit, so it's a safe assumption.



You're correct: these are arbitrary numbers to some extent. Guesstimate increases that are "not-too-big" and "not-too-small", so not based on any kind of attempt to solve the problem permanently. I take a similar view, which is why I prefer a dynamic limit, but there aren't any proposals like that have attracted any significant consensus so far.



You can choose that chracterisation if you want, but seeing as it's just one more dangerous idea out of many to come from one man, I think the point deserves reiterating. What makes you think that Mike won't bring the idea back (as he does with so many of his ideas that others previously rejected)? Post-fork perhaps?

What, the OP that you wrote the day before yesterday? (did you actually expect me to read it  ::))


More distortion only proves my point:

your claim: "I have always said..."

the reality: "I changed my position to suit my argument (again) a day or two ago"

The OP was written in August. Here are more examples of me saying that I would support a third alternative:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12338718#msg12338718 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12338718#msg12338718)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12331928#msg12331928 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12331928#msg12331928)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12329379#msg12329379 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12329379#msg12329379)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12322269#msg12322269 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12322269#msg12322269)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12286468#msg12286468 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12286468#msg12286468)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12320746#msg12320746 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12320746#msg12320746)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12279062#msg12279062 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12279062#msg12279062)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223373#msg12223373 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223373#msg12223373)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243)

Some of these statements were even made during conversations I had with you. So please stop calling me dishonest unless you back it up with proof.

Well, I hate to have to argue with you, but there is a grand total of 1 post in amongst your submission that is not from either yesterday, or the day before that, so you're laying it on a little too thick.

However, I can concede that you did say you favoured a compromise, once, six weeks ago (in bold). Bearing in mind the sheer mass volume of pro-BIP101 bias you've been raining on the forum since then, is it any wonder that I forgot?  :)

And the reality is still vastly different from "I have always said...", exactly as I claimed.

October
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12608591#msg12608591)
September
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12338718#msg12338718 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12338718#msg12338718)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12331928#msg12331928 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12331928#msg12331928)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12329379#msg12329379 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12329379#msg12329379)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12322269#msg12322269 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12322269#msg12322269)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12506243#msg12506243)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12320746#msg12320746 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1163319.msg12320746#msg12320746)
August
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12286468#msg12286468 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12286468#msg12286468)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12279062#msg12279062 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12279062#msg12279062)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223373#msg12223373 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223373#msg12223373)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156553.msg12188826#msg12188826 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156553.msg12188826#msg12188826)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156553.msg12185816#msg12185816 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156553.msg12185816#msg12185816)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12223115#msg12223115)

Sorry, I read the September ones as all being October for some reason (looked like you posted 12 posts from October and 1 from August). Oh well, I only wasted about 30 seconds looking, so things could be worse  :D

There's still a bit of a balance problem, even in those posts, if you want to actually maintain that a compromise is what you want or what you're promoting. The content of those posts suggests otherwise, and lets be fair, you've written one or two more posts than that in the last 6 weeks.

I have said and I repeat that I will adopt a third alternative as soon as it is implemented. A third alternative has not been implemented yet, therefore my position is not contradictory.

I don't think you mean just any third alternative? Not meaning to split hairs, but it explicates my criticism of what I recall about your position, which was that you thought BIP101 was an acceptable option, for the reason that it was the only alternative proposed at all. 

"Political realism" he called it.

well, it qualifies for that. Political realism has in fact denounced the BIP, however.

We will see what will happen when the blocks are consistently full, the tides might change. To be clear my position is that I would support a third alternative implementation that increases the blocksize especially if it represents a middle ground between these two extreme positions. I would even support Core again if they increased the blocksize, I have said this from the very beginning.

The only thing that will happen after the blocks fill up is a small increase in fees.

This is incorrect, how much of an increase in fees will happen depends on the level of adoption, if there is a huge spike in adoption then fees would become prohibitively expensive. I have already explained in the OP that transactions would also effectively be rendered unreliable. This would most likely conversely lead to decreased adoption and hurt the public perception of Bitcoin. This is the scenario that I would want to avoid by increasing the blocksize before a potential spike in adoption happens.

couldnt we just merge mine Bitcoin with something like Namecoin and then force namecoin to handle the smaller dust transactions?

thought about using it a while ago, but it seems that time has come. So whats up with the core devs? Beeing short over night i made a few coins so is it the right decision to transfer some to the XT client?

Heard about DDos attacks and censurship. Thats not the way we all wanted BTC to go. So if the Core Devs go this way i ll guess they had to go it alone  ;D

One question about the 3 possibole alternitves to keep my BTC (and thats what they are coz they are mine, no need to argue dear devs)...

Sud i use XT or classic or unlimited ?

Thx in advance for some good answers

Use whatever you want.  Looks like you already support XT anyway.  Run your node and campaign for others to do the same.

Good luck.

Said and done. Switch is easy no need to transfer anything just dl the XT client and ur done. Thx and good luck to u and everyone who still believes ;)

Use whatever client you support the most yourself, just like tokeweed said. My personal favorite implementation now is Bitcoin Unlimited, however I also support Bitcoin Classic, since Bitcoin Unlimited is also compatible with the two megabyte increase proposal by Classic. Much has changed since I wrote the OP, it has obvously become somewhat outdated. Check out my more recent posts here on bitcointalk and especially on bitco.in. I will also be writing another article soon relating to the blocksize debate and its more recent manifestations.

You've bumped a dead thread in order to promote BU? Seriously, stop advertising for your stuff everywhere.

Didn't you recently say on bitco.in that you had lost all hope for bitcoin? Maybe you should sell your coins and leave.

First post that I have made in weeks, and you say that I am advertising for BU everywhere?

This is an old thread, and yes I have lost much hope for Bitcoin, it is not over yet though, still waiting to see how it all plays out. I will continue holding BTC, along with a multitude of alternative cryptocurrencies, so I am sufficiently hedged if Bitcoin chooses not to scale. It will simply be overtaken by alternative cryptocurrencies that can scale directly. The origanol vision of Satoshi will survive in the alternative cryptocurrencies regardless of what happens to Bitcoin.

Pretty much the only thing they say in this (BU) thread. I thought you had disproved that already?

ed. with great effort of research it would appear, to answer comments made on a whim.



I look forward to it. Some discussion written like we Wasn't 5

Would you like some valid grammar/diction to go with your irony, sir? ;D

Bye felicia  :'(