Bitcoin Forum

With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~

Dead?

Nope, my XT node is still up and running.  :)

Like I said, BitcoinXT (GVC) is DEAD.


~BCX~


http://s14.postimg.org/9smgglb75/Screen_Shot_2015_09_14_at_10_47_47_PM.png

So by this logic should we not take seriously all owners of failed pull requests? Logic = 0!

How do you compare a major fork attempt with a pull request? 

It's called grabbing at straws LOL.

Only the hardcore GVC Fanboys are still pretending this isn't a massive fail.


~BCX~

All i know is Bitcoin won't grow with this tiny blocksize and some people here are deliberately hindering this for their own benefit, this bs is keeping bitcoin from mooning where companies like fidelity are trying to build on the blockchain and the thing maxes out, even 8 mb is a joke.

You just do.
You guys are acting like BitcoinXT was something that never happened before. It may not have happened in the Bitcoin world, but it happens all the time in the Open Source World. So, if their proposal is not accepted by an economic majority, they drop it, and start working on other projects. Business as usual. Nothing dramatic about that.
You guys are just a bunch of retarded fanboys, like in all this stupid iPhone vs. Android wars ...

So what do you propose? 1GB blocks?

"Keeping Bitcoin from mooning"  :D

Of course!..... It's increasingly obvious greed is what's keeping the majority of you noobs from seeing things clearly.

I might be wrong, but I believe it was both Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn who came up with the bit ID's concept. That seemed like a really great idea (although I believe it was Hearn who was pushing the concept of using passport RFID tokens as the key for the master account for each chain of ID's, which was admittedly a terrible idea)

Ditto the Payments Protocol, not ideal (I disliked the idea intially), but Hearn and Andresen made convincing arguments about that issue (even though that protocol will probably be replaced by something technically superior before it gets much common use).

So it's fair to say that Hearn and Andresen have both come up with as many good ideas as they have bad ones, those are just the ones I like best of theirs.

XT may be dead now and may die more tomorrow or have a fresh breath... But ideas live on and that's what really matters. If XT fails miserably, they at least achieved something important: people are now talking more seriously about changes in Bitcoin and future disputes will be more softer than this.

XT ideas might end up in Core and others ideas might end up in Core too. We never know tomorrow :)

As for Gavin and Mike, yes, they can still be taken seriously, as they might have really good ideas in future.

It really isn't comparable and if you can't see it then it is likely you are part of the "retarded" gang.

We have to see what will happen with BIP101 (or something better) at the time where the block will be everytime full ;)

Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited:

"In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."

Gavin always wanted the unlimited block, he tried to make some compromises with 20 MB first, and 8 MB then.

I'm sure they'll just continue on as usual, unless they get butthurt and throw a paddy. Personally I don't have any respect for them after this stunt. They went about it completely the wrong way.

^^-- AGREE

He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought.

Why is it not comparable? Please enlighten me.

Because this is a 3B$ economy that depends on trust. Forcing a contentious hard fork for political motives divides the consensus & undermines that trust which puts everyone's money at risk.

Well, Andresen recently retracted statements that the Core dev team had been judged by the Bitcoin community as in need of dismissal from their posts (made in his joint podcast appearance with Adam Back). He's making pretty bizarre statements across the board at the moment.

So, it is the worth of the project?
Linux is worth more and forks happen all the time. That was exactly the kind of fanboy answer, I expected.
and btw. Bitcoin is a trustless system. Please read the whitepaper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

Worth of the project? No, this is an economy based on trust dipshit, hasn't anything to do with "the worth". Moreover their hard fork was not based on technical dissent but political ideologies as they attempted to force their turd down the throat of "the community" using PR tactics, propaganda & fud using their "authority".

No one's investment is directly at risk from a Linux fork. You're a clown  :-\

Yes, since when was Linux a consensus based p2p network?

turvaya is conflating the forking of the code with the forking of the chain, but I would expect nothing less than more nonsense arguments from the BIP101 bible bashers at this stage

When I compare him with you, then I know who's the clown.

1. It is not based on trust. You are not even able to understand a fundamental principle of Bitcoin.
2. It is a open source project, calling it an economy or using other term to make it sound special, just confirms, that I am talking with a fanboy, who doesn't want to see reality.
3. Same with calling it "not technical dissent but political ideologies", just because you don't like the solution, they provided.
4. Yes, a Linux fork, could cause people to lose their investment. Again, nothing unusual here in the Bitcoin World.

@Carlton Banks
and again ad hominem is all you can provide ...

1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
2. Bitcoin = money = economy. As Carlton mentions it relies on consensus much like any form of money does and quite unlike any other open source project.
3. I don't care about the solution. As any open source fork its code should stand on its own. It didn't and so they had to rely to shady tactics to sell it to the sheeps.
4. Painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about

In every thread with BitcoinXT, i always see 3-4 faces of the retards bashing Gavin, and Mike.

LOL, you're fighting so hard huh?

 ::)

Says the guy who's whole sad online persona is based on bashing someone's who's never heard of him.

nothing, i just hope consensus don't follow something worse, like the whole route that give advantage to miners by increasing fees and shit like that

i'm all for dynamic TX limit, which is bip106 apparently

Say the dumbass who thinks he is "bitcoin community"

What the fck you think you are? Some piece of shit traders who spent most his time in speculation section and scamcoins section.

 

LOL let the real community decide the direction of bitcoin, you're fighting an imaginary war, dumbass

It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

I sat around "the real community" the whole weekend and it was quite productive thank you.

You're a troll, what credentials do you have to call out anyone?

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?

True you might have sat around with some key players in bitcoin world, but did you dare to open your mouth like you did on here? you know the shittalks about bitcoinXT, Gavin and Mike?

I bet if you did, you will be looked at like an idiot. But doing it online is fine right? because there are few other retards to join you.

Calling you out on the merits of your posts, i dont need "credentials" for that.

This is not a political game dumbass

Meanwhile we inch closer to the edge of the cliff.  :(

switching to bitcoinxt takes only minutes

if you're too dumb to figure this out, then you should stop posting garbage


hint: its not trust

There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

 ::)

Please enlighten me

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?

There will be more than one design for dynamic limits, I think 106 is the first into the BIP repo though. You could argue BIP100 is dynamic... but voting system is a more apt name for it, which I think was how Garzik described it.

Bitcoin succeed because it has the best developers, the most money invest, the biggest network. It's as simple as that but some people seem to not get it, they think because anyone can fork Bitcoin Bitcoin isn't special or something.

The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

Bitcoin attracted the best developers, the most money and the biggest network because people increasingly trusted it with their wealth.

Bitcoin is money. Money grows with trust. It's really not all that complicated.

Nothing happens, it seems that the XT won't win. But the Pandora's box is open and now there is no turning back (for this I am actually thankful to Gavin, that he has run the alarm).

We will have some other BIP, simple as that. It stays to see which BIP this will be. It's up to the community, miners, devs, and payment processors to decide, but there is no turning back once again. The block sizes will be increased in my opinion.

Maybe Mike will vanish and make his own altcoin.

Because it was the first and because of the network effect. The same reasons other open source projects are very successful.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.

One of Bitcoin's value is permissionlessness. Permissionlessness to use Bitcoin and permissionlessness to contribute. So I expect Mike and Gavin will always be welcomed to contribute to Bitcoin's future, just like before the XT episode.

That being said, it seems clear Mike/Gavin and the other core devs don't share the same Bitcoin vision. Mike/Gavin see Bitcoin as a payment system (SPV, 0-conf, user-experience, ...) while the core devs see Bitcoin as a currency (resilience, censorship-resistance, privacy, ...) on which payment protocols can be build on (Lightning). At this point, it is unclear if the two visions can walk hand in hand in the same direction.

Btw. there's now another fork called Bitcoin Unlimited or (Bitcoin U) with no blocksize limit. I just saw it announced on reddit, but can't find the thread anymore (maybe it got deleted).

lol that argument isn't worth having. Not least because it gives Andresen and Hearn an opportunity to present themselves as the "middle ground" (between lunacy and genocide lol).

Core devs won't agree with each other about the scaling proposals (because they have different goals) and Wladimir doesn't make the choice (if such is against his principles), thus there is an eternal lock-up on the issue and they'll move to work on other more interesting issues.

The average transaction rate will just level out at about 0.5 MB/block or half of the current blocksize limit (like it did when majority had 250, 500 and 750kB soft limits).  Some players in the economy will just leave to another projects or quit as they lose their confidence in Bitcoin's ability to grow, which in turn causes price to start trending down. There will be other forks as people get uneasy about about profits and growth getting wasted and Bitcoin will survive.

Really? Well.. no one knows.

Funny thing is that Andresen would probably support no limit rather than BIP 101. :)

I don't think, they have different visions of Bitcoin. They just disagree on how Bitcoin reaches it's goal.
I don't think, a (internet) currency, which is not a payment system makes much sense and a payment system, which is not a currency, is not something you would need Bitcoin for.

i think that there were currently 3 blocks mined so far.
But it seems like that Bitcoin XT is going to die in near future.

Well the team avoiding a consensus will result in a damage since community wont be able to know what the developers wanna to do with bitcoin,it can drops several on next announcements of those team,with two visions...just hoping they return work as one otherwise the mess will start.

I agree with that concern and here is a way to mitigate this, quoting Matt Corallo:


Smooth is the key word here. It won't even go from 1-2, providing we do hard fork, but should follow a schedule of smooth increases over-time or according to a cost-based flex cap for X time.

I'm guessing they'd like to throw "the industry" and "the community" a bone while they get to work on building & lobbying for actual scaling systems.

We have no choice, we  must integrate Bitcoin XT into Bitcoin Core and proceed as a double blockchain.
The standard chain is already hitting 50GB, we must embrace the duality.

I guess Gavin and Mike need to go back to their masters and beg for forgiveness for their failure with XT and come up with something the community wants. They will have a much bigger fan base, when they put something on the table with features serving the users interest.

The XT Shills needs to crawl back into the holes they came from and the divided Bitcoin community need to lick their wounds and hold hands and sing <Gumbaja> until we face the next civil war. ^hmf^

Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin, I don't see him recovering respect again from those of us who believe in the core principles of Bitcoin.  He'll probably spend the rest of his life trying to get rich on the sidelines while trying to convince big money overlords he can still deliver.   He can change his name, but he'll have a hard time changing his easy to recognize appearance.

Gavin has a better chance of recouping respect, although it will be a long hard road if he decides to pursue it. 

That is false and you know it.

People are free to choose. Can you explain to me how is that in any way forcing?
If people don't like his code, then fine. They don't run it and that's it.

You fail to see that absolutely anyone is allowed to fork bitcoin. You, me, your neighbours dog. It's not even a question of debate. It's a hard irrefutable fact. The code is there on GitHub, free to fork and in the end its popularity among the network decides if that fork becomes "the Bitcoin".

Why do you guys have to turn everything into some ridicilous ad-hominems. It sounds like some poor tabloid journalism. It's like people discussing if Snowden/Assagne/Manning is naive/narcistic/criminal/gay/rapist or not instead of discussing the data they have presented us with, which is the only thing that matter. It's the same here. Personalities are irrelevant.

The code is the only thing that matters and people can choose, now and forever, like it or not.

Well the product they made just made the community get confused and well the reaction happened ,300 dollars just broken to 200 dollars ... sure some panic sellers made it happen at exchange but well community react to news... making them have to choose is like force you to do something you should need to.

I'll break it down for you...

"attempt to force"

attempt: the time period in which people can still choose... today. 

force: the point where no one can choose... if he were to win the majority of client installs and successfully fork the protocol.

Right now, you have a choice.  Today it is just an attempt.  If he succeeded in his attempt, then it would become force...  due to checkpoints, centralization (black/white/red lists, passports, tainting), a new status quo, etc.  in his own words, "a benevolent dictator". 

You are wrong. If it is a choice today then tomorrow the consequences of that choice will have been derived from that initial decision. The majority of people are not being "forced" to install the client, in fact nobody is.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want, that is where the choice lies. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

The "benevolent dictator" seeks both, and can achieve both IF 75% of nodes adopt XT.  You are assuming that XT will be the same as Core has been in the past.  Based on Hearn's previous proposals, that looks very unlikely.  If he puts his ideas into XT, and 75% of people use it, good luck turning back the clock and undoing the damage.  His ideas are designed to centralize power to ultimately make it impossible to undo.  E.g., if he introduces trusted third-parties through tainted coins, he'll have the power to destroy anyone's bitcoins who oppose him.