Bitcoin Forum

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization


Thoughts?


~BCX~

Gavin was crazy to try to hard fork by using his weight in the bitcoin ecosystem. It completely backfired.
I think it died because XT was labeled as something much different than core when it was actually very similar.
I tried both and I went back to core after a few days. There can only be one bitcoin, and if there cannot be a clear consensus towards a change then classic bitcoin it is. This was a good test of the strength of a decentralized system. Even with high influence people like Gavin and Mike they could not change bitcoin. There must be an overwhelming majority to make the switch, and we didn't have that with XT.

i agree on both points 1 and 2 gavin coin will never be a reality

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full ;)

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

And barring a stock market collapse I don't think we're going to see blocks full on average then.  ;)

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

Decisions in Bitcoin (and in FOSS projects in general) are taken through consensus among the community. Not through some kind of democratic voting. So all the polls we see here and there, even for the ones using proof of stake mechanisms, are irrelevant.

 Nice news,i even didnt know that,why by my opinion it was done to disturb btc
Died becouse oposition against that fork,i hope XTdevs will not comeback with his next shit

I don't think "lets argue to see if XT is still bad once we get to the point we're unable to process all TX's as the blocks all start getting full" is a sound concept, because even though XT did include a block size change, changing the block size is not "Bitcoin XT".

As we probably all know, there are others suggested solution to this problem, while myself i think BIP100 is a solid concept for a solution, more options will arise.

I think Bitcoin XT is just a failed project that prove that trying to strongarm the Bitcoin scene into changing to their wallet is not going to work. IMO it just felt like they wanted to become the "Core devs of Bitcoin" somehow. Trying to turn Bitcoin into what they want, affecting Control over it.

XT has died/has low number of blocks/low number of nodes probably because it isn't called Core and because it represents change, a new idea.


Yes, either that or when/if a better idea than XT comes, or there's a compromise between ideas and BIP's.

XT was a huge success in helping a proper debate blossom.  Whether it becomes widely used as a client doesn't really matter.

There has been a ongoing "proper debate" about scaling Bitcoin for the last five years.

XT only succeeded in turning that debate into a civil war, at the cost of ~$1,000,000,000 of our market cap.

XT is an other client to connect to Bitcoin network.
Like other SPV wallet ...

the thing is that not really all member have read the changelog of this software.
special tuning is attend and work better than STOCK version.

like the MOD in the emule environment.

XT was a replacement for Core, not a SPV wallet that run on the current block chain. They wanted to make change that would require a hard fork and that is no way anything similar to "just another SPV wallet".

not now ... but, if you have free hand, it's more easy to "build".
hard fork is only the head ... you loose easly the main goal : alternative "client".

...and in five years no scalability got accomplished.  


takes two sides to have a war.  couldn't have been one unless a huge number of people felt there was merit to their position.  

Don't be ridiculous. We would have lost that anyway.

That's only true if you are a disingenuous troll completely ignorant of the extent of work that had been put in the last 5 years to get Bitcoin to where it is now.

Yes, I'm talking about you

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

The market cap dropped like a rock the instant Gavin confirmed the coup had his full support.

In five years, Bitcoin has been scaled from nothing to 1MB.  You silly hyper-entitled children have no idea how hard that was, and just demand more in an 'are we at the moon yet' refrain.

A civil war can be started by one belligerent party, whether or not the other is aggressive.  (Yes, I know you Gavinistas redefined doing nothing as doing something.  ::))

Rhetorical flourish is fun. But what would happen if a mass of people (just say) wanted to adopt Bitcoin as a 'means of exchange'? Their welcome wagon would be crippled by transactions.

That wouldn't be unlike proposing a mass of people wanted to adopt gold as a "means of exchange"

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978) (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately. 

are you trying to influence public opinion here or do you just want to be right?
both of us want higher prices but I don't think claiming to win the debate is
going to accomplish that.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978) (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately.  

it's not so much XT per say

it's this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits in two, BIP100 Vs BIP106,  silly silly - sell everything


for sure all this crap has and continues to hold price below 300, but honestly i'm surprised we are at roughly the same price as in April, which seems to indicate some kind of price floor. best way to play this IMO is to buy now speculating it will get resolved and then a bull market will finally start be sure to be holding for the longest time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG1qooBzE2w

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said? :P

"[people] find out bitcoin is not the limitless 'money of the future' they thought it was" <--- What do you mean?  Don't most people think the opposite?

He means Bitcoiners. I think.

understand most people trading bitcoin (  alot of big whales too ) don't really have the bigger vision there just trading charts and sorta following current events.
point is FUD is plentiful so price is down.
if you know better you're buying

no bitcoiner KNOW bitcoin is the money of the future, we understand it going to take time to work out the detials.


tarders != bitcoiners.

They scare me :-\

think about it who is crazy enough to go all in and all out with their BTC, definitely not "bitcoiners", it's mostly semi-clueless traders only here to make a buck on the market, and so the market moves based on Their perceptions

Sure, go ahead and "challenge gatekeepers" with your TOR blacklists and awesome ~0% of network mining power.   ;D

To the proposal of "XT?" the community overwhelmingly responded "NACK" (cite: xtnodes.com).  So regardless of your fact-free preference-tailored extreme minority opinion, the debate is over, and was won on inherency take-outs + presumption (not to mention solvency and the a priori 'FUCK HEARN AND THE CORE DEV HE RODE IN ON' deontological imperative).

"Shackles of the BIP?"

Oh right, the 1MB cap is exactly like slavery days.  Got it.  That's not offensive at all.  And neither are your first world armchair claims of resistance against censorship.  You and your exorbitantly privileged critique of theymos' moderation wouldn't last a day in China, where real censorship exists.

Could you possibly be anymore self-righteous and self-regarding, while simultaneously self-pitying?   ::)

For very good reasons, XT got #REKT, and all the pretentious undergraduate Marxist pomo jargon in the universe won't help it be anything but a colossal failure.

You're funny . . . and wholly non-responsive.  Edit: The community can't respond to the XT proposal when ideas and information about it can't be talked about in the main online discussion groups.

That being said, I wrote all that to be sorta funny - thought I was making a slick inside joke to a fellow policy debater (a type of debate I was involved with for a long time a long time ago) by using certain words and making certain arguments that would have been responsive way back when I was in college. Backfired, I guess.  

I stopped reading here  :D

Do you pride yourself in being a sheep?

bigger blocks are coming. deal with it.

You're cute  :-*

Yah, I got all that.  Your post is a good send-up of the Gavinista's goalpost-moving and hand-waving so I responded in-kind.  IOW, I was exquisitely responsive.   ;)

Let's write a paper for the new Ledger journal about the Grand Schism from the perspective of critical theory.

Working title, "Satoshi and the Spectacle of the Scaffold."   :D

XT got censored our of existence on forums like that but far from dead on free ones. Also nodes are under DDOS attacked all the time but we are getting better DDOS protection. Even Slush was DDOS until they stopped producing BIP101 so if you think it is dead or dead in a water you are just on wrong forums. It will be back when it is time for that. There is no rush. There is time. But when time will came it will be much batter because of all innovation we are forced to make then QT.

And that is pretty much all I' ready to write(or it might even be the last think I will be able to write) on this centrally controlled forum. Have fun with you masters playing there game...

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

10,3 % of all nodes is not very "dead" isnt it  :D ?

http://up.picr.de/23145685kk.jpg

This:
http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

I have completely opposite view of what is beneficial to Bitcoin (Hint: open discussion and inclusiveness). After reading above I think it's better for me to move elsewhere, where it's possible to discuss openly without a big brother actively warping discussion to his own ends. (Which theymos proudly admits here)

Have fun in your little North Korea.

"Full blocks on average" is impossible unless every block is full.

Ledger might be a good vehicle for debates a la Federalist Papers.  Reminds me of a quote from John Adams:

"Tis impossible to judge with much Prcision of the true Motives and Qualities of human Actions, or of the Propriety of Rules contrived to govern them, without considering with like Attention, all the Passions, Appetites, Affections in Nature from which they flow. An intimate Knowledge therefore of the intellectual and moral World is the sole foundation on which a stable structure of Knowledge can be erected."  – Ltr to J. Sewall, 1759

btw, what does IOW mean (serious question, I don't know a lot of the message board abbreviations and whatnot)?

Not being proactive and not allowing growth predictability is the greatest way to kill investment in the space.

sell sell sell

That's a sad reality then, because only when people start "losing money" that they will band together and be motivated to make a change to resume "making money". Proactive is not something that can be applied to any form of "big" society or group.

I think realizing the Potential of BTC require a different mindset than the standard "trader option" mind, because lets face it, the only common ground between stock and BTC is the perspective both come from a human's mind. The inner working of BTC is not comparable.

The dead-ender Gavinistas over at https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3le3dg/discussion_on_forum_stating_that_xt_is_a_failure/ are pouting because this thread exists.   :D

They've now achieved a complete break from consensus reality, and believe XT  "won already."   :D

Nevermind the fact XT may have achieved the opposite of its goal, by cementing 1MB into place for all time.


#R3KT

All this debate has shown, is the censorship of information.
One person having way too much to say on reddit and here. Decentralization much?
The same person who, after many years and funds, still hasn't managed to make a new forum.

Not very re-assuring, and embarrassing.

I thought for a while it was officially dead. But I see that it just did not have the response they expected. There has been a lot of debate however, and I think that is good.

True, but that’s the way humans work, if I tell someone that a tsunami is coming with 100% certainty , let’s say in 20 years, do you think that person will do something about it? Most likely no, but if in the news there’s a headline that for some reason there’s going to be a shortage of toilet paper by tomorrow, what do you think it will happen? There’ll very long lines in order to get toilet paper.

At least it proves one thing that it needs to consensus of the majority to implement a change. But thinking of it, could it be true because if a miner by a single person who controls most of the hash power, then that is only one vote compared to the majority of people who holds less.

That's prohibited by the electricity/hardware cost, but sure if some super genius made a sure quantum, sub-space computer in his basement that would run SHA256d he would not only be able to overtake the majority but just the fact that existing would destroy bitcoin in itself.

If that person was wise as well as genius, then he would just keep his super machine at progressively more hashrate until it reach about 20%~ of the network. Then hopefully would not dump everything :)

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

That is just not true. The one person that control the hash is the pool operator. For instance the owner of Bitmain own Antpool. 18%
The owner of F2Pool, another 18%. Slush 8%, etc.

The "one person" thing is subjective, its whoever person that ultimately has ownership or control over the hashrate.

If for instance Antpool merged with F2P, they would have plenty of hash power to successfully attack or deny blocks. So i would strongly disagree with "Hash rate is properly decentralized".

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

lol come on what do you think would happen to all the users of Antpool and F2P?
they'd loss all the miners and likely never come back. Antpool and F2P would lose their business and reputation in order to 51% attack the network for a grand total of 5 mins?

Rather succint, I'd say. The XT redditard army being the loudest voices and their inability to act like adults clearly altered some people's perceptions of it.

Adults don't use censorship  ::)

Indeed, it's not called censorship, but moderation  :)

I still fail to see how theymos censored anything. BitcoinXT isn't official bitcoin, so admin had every right to remove such posts as "off-topic".

Any derp can make a subreddit, and simply go and discuss it there with like-minded individuals. r/bitcoin certainly isn't the end-all authority on bitcoin.

still don't get why people are raging against the machine with this topic.
Its pretty funny actually.

For most people who want bigger blocks, it was never about XT.
XT just happenes to implement bip 101.

  

BitcoinXT is as much bitcoin as bitcoin core. Using censorship is a behaviour for panicked children.

No, moderation is a tool to get rid of propaganda. Worked exceptionally well  :)

Worked well for the other propagandists yeah. Not very reassuring honestly.

sell sell sell

you first  :)

Watching from the outside, this whole thing seemed rather stupid.

XT was not a well founded attack, but an attempt to force the changes that the XT crowd wanted WHETHER OR NOT it had merit. On the other side, the Core people pretty much responded in the same manner.

What I failed to see on either side was much in the way of sane discussion. I am of the opinion that blocksize needs to increase. Not infinitely, and not with a shitload of other changes that *appear* to be designed to monitor bitcoin. Whether or not that appearance is reality is hard to tell within all of the poorly constructed strawmen, ad-hominem attacks, slippery slopes, red herrings... Hell, I don't think there's a logical fallacy that hasn't been employed in this debate.

What we were short on from day one was facts. The abysmal responses on both sides pretty much turned a technical argument into a political one, and that solved precisely nothing. If this is the way that changes or evolution to Bitcoin are handled by the current team(s), then neither side has any business making those decisions. Further, if this sort of spectacle continues, some people will quietly go to work and subvert and surpass bitcoin. It's first mover advantage will not and cannot last forever. BTC currently couldn't replace 5% of VISA's daily average, and that is a valid concern. But it's also not something catastrophic unless a major nation makes bitcoin it's legal currency. There is time for reasonable debate. Now we just need some.

EDIT: Why is reddit, with it's basically unreadable format circa BBS's of the 1970's, so damned important anyway?

Already done a few days ago.

Great!

When are you leaving us as well  ???

I always saw Bitcoin XT as an attempt of kidnapping Bitcoin, even if Gavin and Mike had the reason and were right in all that they claimed(and they were far from right).

If they have succeeded this would just set the precedent in my opinion. And then we would see other changes coming into Bitcoin, whether the community wanted them or not. This was a real danger in my eyes and that's why I never gave my vote for the XT.

Not until bitcoin goes to 0. There is still money to be made with short selling you know?  8)

To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)?

https://i.imgur.com/zivHJvY.gif

If Bitcoin XT would wreck their BIP101 project everyone would be fine with it. Sure, if someone wants to run blacklists and what not on their nodes who are we to stop them  :)

But right now they're trying to fork the protocol, that's a big no-no  >:(

What are you going to do when another implementation will try to fork the protocol with 50% subsidy instead of 75%? Or no subsidy at all, Just an aggressive fork by the big players that needs big blocks?

Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready.
It will be a good show for sure.

You mean create an altcoin?

You do realize you little XT coup didn't succeed in garnering anything more than 10% nodes support? (if that)

Yeah good luck with that  :D The big players (no I'm not talking about the vulture capitalists and banking parasites) are perfectly fine with Bitcoin as it stands  ;)

Call it an altcoin as much as you like. But what are you going to do when the major economic players will call their altcoin "bitcoin" to their mainstream customers?

Can't wait for your answer.

BTW who are those "big" players that aren't vulture capitalists and banking parasites as you call them?

The only positive thing about this is that some cancerous elements may just have been severely undermined. But populist politics are pretty much alive.

 :o

Mainstream customers don't give a fuck about Bitcoin already  :D You think that's gonna change because a couple of banks get together and start promoting it?

"Here's FIATcoin, it's just like cash but we can trace it anywhere and seize it at our convenience. In exchange for whatever economic freedom you had left we'll give you.....ermm free transactions?"

You know this thing exists already right? It's called Ripple. It hasn't fared so well

Goddamn you're a genius aren't ya  :D

TIL brg444 thinks bitcoin will be a world reserve currency that the mainstream won’t care and the vulture capitalists and banking parasites will stay away. Somehow he manage to think bitcoin will go to the moon.

lol k.

Mainstream consumer: "bu...bbbbut..but we had that already  ???"

Mainstream don't care about gold yet it's a trillion dollar asset. Explain that you smartass.

Don't get me wrong, you and your consumers buddies will use bitcoins, just not the Bitcoin blockchain. Since you don't care about decentralization and censorship-resistance it won't matter anyway.

Lookahere, the banks are already setting up fancy little Bitcoin banks for you : www.circle.com ; www.coinbase.com.

Gold is a trillion dollar asset because banking parasites hedge their worthless fiat with it.

You know very well that I do care about decentralization and censorship-resistance of bitcoin but I also do believe the free market will keep it that way even with big blocks.

Small blocks and off chain solution is the best way to allow your banking parasites to use bitcoin off-chain with all the censorship you dislike while making the usage of the decentralized blockchain so expensive that you and me will not be able to use it. At that point, will you run a cheap node for them so they can settle their off-chain interbank transactions?

Oh yes sure, the magic of the free market! :D

Let's not stop anyone from cutting down the whole Amazon trees for pastures or w/e, the free-market will take care of it!

No need for big game hunting regulations to protect endangered wildlife either! FREE MARKET!

Environmental regulation? Pollution!? Who told you you could mess with my free market!? It's got this under control  >:(

Seriously  ;D Do you even believe the stuff that you write?

BTW if you weren't stupid enough to have sold your bitcoins you likely would've had enough to use it forever. Don't miss the chance to buy back cause then you might indeed be priced out  ;)

Either way when LN, voting pools and other transactional layers will be up and running I won't think twice about using them. Do you realize how fucking inefficient and clumsy this Bitcoin blockchain is? Such a pity we're stuck with this  :-\ (yes I do mean stuck as in: no, you don't get to change it "to make it more like VISA")

Thanks to the banking and petroleum lobbies and their petrodollar. Do you really think cartels = free market?

K.

This only highlights your poor understanding of how things actually work in this low world. Are you 12?





TIL brg444 thinks that a decentralized and censorship-resistant system can work while pretending the free market doesn't and censoring information surrounding such system is a good thing.

The amount if inconsistencies and contradictions that come out of your mouth is astonishing. Do you really think we should take you seriously?  You even go as far as relying on vaporware systems that still need bigger blocks to operate.

Way to pick and choose the examples at your convenience. Wtf are you trying to say? That without the banking and petroleum lobbies there wouldn't be pollution?

What about the poor wildlife? Who's to blame for their continuing risk of extinction? I thought you said the free market would make sure to preserve them?

Do you not care about the rainforest? Myself I'm afraid if "free market" had its ways there wouldn't be much left of it.

Look I know you like to pretend yourself some kind of fancy libertardians or capitalist or whatever, I do share similar views  :) But if that is going to make you ignore human greed and the inherent drive for profit of these systems that you are one naive little shill.


TIL knight22 watched a couple of Mike Baloney's youtube video and likes to pretend himself a free-market shill while ignoring the costs and risks that come with an ubiquitous free market rule.

Tell me little libertard why then did Satoshi not leave the total coin supply to "the free market". How dare he imposes centrally designed rules!? What about the block time interval? He must be outright stupid right? Why waste so much time figuring this thing out when he could've let it be decided by our god, the free-market?

You are completely confusing everything and you looks mad lol. Not very surprising after all your inconsistencies but yes, the free market works when it comes to find solutions to problems and monetize on it. Just like the technical problems associated with bigger blocks simply because the incentives are well aligned.  

No, I'm making points you cannot answer because you know you are wrong. The analogies I'm making are quite relevant in fact, maybe you just can't grasp them?

The thing that's broken with your logic is that the incentives are NOT aligned except under very specific circumstances. Miners are incentivized for profits, no matter the weight they put on the network. Their incentives are certainly not aligned with the network peers (nodes).

You only made the assumption that I assume the free market works without well aligned incentives and/or strictly enforced rules which I didn't.  

It's not because nodes aren't being paid that there is no incentives to run them, otherwise there would be none ATM. There are incentives for people financially involved to run nodes to keep bitcoin secure and decentralized therefore there are incentives for the market to come up with cheap solutions to run them (as they give no monetary reward).
There are NO incentives for miners to centralized up a certain point (as pointed in the whitepaper and as demonstrated with the Ghash episode) because it would mean bitcoin would lose all of the  trust it gained and trust is fundamental for a currency to have value.

Right...  ::)

I forgot that one, the magic free market at it again turning data center resources into "cheap solutions"...

https://bitseed.org/  ;)

Give it a chance, the crowd knows best. It's not magic, it's the collective knowledge and creativity of market participants.

I think it that while it won't get adapted, it did help to bring awareness to the issues at hand, so in that way it was a success.  This was a conversation that needed to be had and it is nice that the community is now planning for the future.

It will engageenrage noobs who don't understand the problems at hand through populist politics and fabricated crises.

It will engageenrage noobs autistic geeks who don't understand the market problems at hand through populist dictatorship politics and fabricated crises problems.

FTFY

Correct, XTards are clueless about both the technical limitations and the market.

Thankfully things are progressing in the right direction lately.

https://i.imgur.com/mxLfN2n.png

I am wondering if taking what miners think into consideration about what the market needs is not something ever more retarded and autistic...

Thanks to you and all the autistic geeks, bitcoin will soon be added to that list: http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

don't fret, my friend. no need to refer to "thinking people" as "autists" and if you think bitcoin will fail -- don't let the door hit you on the way out. plenty of alt coins out there. go out and have a look.

A better option is to fork bitcoin and leave the "coin that doesn't scale" right in the dust and and then add it to the list. No need for an alt.

i have no problem with forking bitcoin. most altcoins are bitcoin forks. i don't mind.

but i don't agree with your approach. the one that should be left in the dust is the one that can't achieve consensus.

 :D

Bitcoin is not a product you doofus. It doesn't need your "marketing" or any of your stupid and parasitic "corporate sponsorship".

You mean Core? Since there is no consensus for the status quo neither, a split is to be expected at this point. I wouldn't bet on the coin that doesn't scale though.

Right, bitcoin isn't a product, it's magical fairy dust  ::)

No, it's money. You ever seen TV commercials for the dollar, the euro?

At this point I can only think you are trolling us all  :D

actually, by the definition of consensus, the status quo = the consensus. we have one blockchain---that blockchain is "bitcoin". consensus has been achieved. let's see if another fork can achieve consensus, then, shall we?

No need because your fiat is the product of commercial banks that is enforced by the violence of your government. Since bitcoin won’t benefits of such a thing it needs to serve a large market spectrum to become ubiquitous money or it will simply goes down the path of irrelevance and failed commercial products the market don't give a shit about.  

According to who? The CEO of bitcoin? What stop half of the market to split to larger blocks simply because there is a financial incentive to do so and also because a consensus between large amount of people with diametrical views is outright impossible (as shown)?

Why an economic majority should wait for a minority to achieve an impossible consensus to move forward?

how is it impossible? as far as i know, there is only one active fork of the blockchain. that's the point of consensus. what's your definition?

any other past hard forks are long dead. we already have consensus. you are just trying to redefine the word so you can say "it will never work, so let's change bitcoin through politics." sorry, but no.

I'm not redefining the word consensus, I am just saying it has now become impossible to achieve  because the market has became too large for such a thing (or prove me wrong?). Since there is an economic incentives to get larger blocks and a consensus is impossible to achieve, now what do you expect exactly?

sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here. it sounds like you are just throwing around the phrase "impossible to achieve" willy nilly. why, just a few months ago, miners achieved 95% consensus to implement BIP 66. wtf are you talking about?

there is no reason to prove that consensus is impossible; firstly, you can't prove a negative. secondly, previous forks (including one as recently as july) are solid evidence that you are wrong.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=958036.msg11785195#msg11785195

Past indicators do not take consideration of the actual state.  Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) while a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?

to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this.

core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you.

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Rehash: 95% of miners implement BIP66 in July ----> totally impossible in September ;D

It's simple again!

There are multiple ways to change the rules and there is only one way to keep them intact.
Guess which one has more gravity? ;D

The costs of running a node must be preserved over the long periods of time in order for blockchain validation to remain permission-less.
Only when another system with similar properties of decentralization begins to push comparable amounts of transactions, only then Bitcoin needs to jump with its block size limit to counter that. In that case the solution will not be ambiguous as there will be clear targets to reach in order for Bitcoin to stay in the game.

Are you suggesting a consensus with BIP66 will be as easy to achieve than the block size issue?? Way to compare apples and oranges isn't it?

Which Core dev support larger blocks exactly? It there something I missed?


Very insightful  ::) Magical thinking much?

Bitcoin XT still isn't dead. Even though it looks it already is dead the debate will only end later this year:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929659.0

Nevertheless, it seems good old classic BTC was the community choice.

The funniest part with XT is that people are willingly choosing to run the client and support the rules that will prevent them from doing that in the future.
What a concept (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcY090XV284&t=9m45s)!

cool story. so any time an issue sees more controversy, we betray one of the founding principles and security measures of bitcoin in order to force the question? despite technical controversies?

controversy is natural. agreement will never be total. that doesn't mean betraying what bitcoin is and always has been to meet your meaningless definition of what it should be, is acceptable.

Congratulation on your turnaround. It's good to see a couple people are capable of changing opinions once proper facts are presented to them  ;D

Maybe there will be a consensus but I just don't see it happening (maybe you have some insight that I don't?). Since there is a economic incentive to get larger block and there is no consensus for the status quo the market will simply get what it wants regardless of your definition of what bitcoin should be. I don't think the market can betrayed bitcoin as it is a tool for the free market. Nothing less, nothing more. Only people standing on its way would feel betrayed at this point.

Unlike you, the most obtuse person around ::)

Care to explain why XT won't be forkable if implemented? Sounds like nonsense to me.

it seems you take some majoritarian view. there may be some merit to that, however, i don't understand how one can oppose a 51% attack on a technical level and also support a 51% attack on a political level. either we value consensus, or we don't.

there is economic incentive to achieve larger blocks, yes. that's why it will likely eventually happen. but miner incentives, like price discovery, do not play out overnight. scaling cannot be an overnight process.

i am not re-defining bitcoin. bitcoin already is. in order to hard fork the protocol, a new consensus must be achieved. you can't write off the blockchain that miners are currently mining, lol.

if consensus goes from 95-100% --> 75% or 51%, indeed, many will feel betrayed, and we will have a civil war on our hands. those who assume that a simple majority can force the rest of the market into a contentious hard fork put far too much faith into their linear understanding of miner incentives, and are obviously not versed in game theory.

in such a situation, we will have multiple blockchains. whatever view you take on the block size debate, it is of utmost importance that we prevent such a situation. in that case, it's possible that bitcoin will never again comprise a "single" blockchain. security on all chains will be crippled, as will trust in bitcoin.

You aren't seeing things very clearly are you?

The consensus currently IS status quo.

What you describe as "the market" is your own myopic fabrication of a very complex economy.

You like to pretend that consumers and merchants form some kind of economic majority when it's quite apparent they have little leverage over governance decisions.

As long as the Bitcoin holders & the peers (nodes) are not satisfied with the need for an increase or the way to go about it status quo will prevail. No matter of "industry" support is going to change that. Bitcoin exists explicitly to avoid pressure and coercion from these banking parasites. It is an attempt to build an economy OUTSIDE of the existing system and you shill would like us to bend over to their demand? You will eventually get what you deserve for this pathetic display.

Stop lying to yourself.

Actually, I created this account for the purposes of finding a properly balanced solution
in between the two radical approaches that were floating around at a time (XT-exponent and Core-1MB-forever).
From that perspective my opinion hasn't changed much, only the sense of urgency (which was partly caused by this potential XT-fork) did.

I still believe that jumping to 8MB limit at some point in the future is the best option, as the only threat to Bitcoin comes from similar competing systems (and there isn't much ambiguity in how to proceed in order to counter their current theoretical bandwidth targets), but only if they show themselves worthy to do this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMT4IlYTo7E&t=1m50s).

But, yeah, I did figure out a few interesting things about Bitcoin in those recent debates. ;D

The thing you don't get is that "the industry" and their merchant/consumers are the largest part of the market. Of course they have little leverage over governance decision but they are those giving most value to the coins and they are free to choose whatever system that fits their needs. If developers willingly ignore those needs in their decision making well I'm sorry but bitcoin will just become a commercial failure and another system will prevail (split fork or altcoin) and that system that better fits the needs of the largest market spectrum will become a commercial success. There is absolutely no doubts about that.

If the costs of running a full node jump too high as a result of a hard fork allowing more transactions,
it will create a precedent and a tendency for keeping it going in that direction to the point that running a validator stops being permission-less.

There is no commercial success that would be able to replace that ability in order for Bitcoin to maintain its core value proposition.
No one is capable of running a SWIFT node or VISA node at home today and those systems are tremendously successful commercially.

There is a line that Bitcoin should never cross in order to remember its origins and that line is the cost of running a full validator at home.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You are fucking delusional.

Bitcoin rose to a 3.5B$ market cap without any of these "customers" and corporate parasites.

Get a grip seriously

Nope but from the speculation that they will.  :D

Yes sure people were buying Bitcoin because they were expecting banks and corporations to compromise it and so knight22 and his hobos could buy their Doritos with it  ::)

Maybe you should read more speculation boards and troll box  ::)

Why, you think the big pockets hang there ?  :D :D :D

Here: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/ Maybe you're curious what some group who controls...oh what..? at least 300,000 BTC? think about the future of Bitcoin.

My sides.

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

Its implementation was too abrupt and too combative. It exposed some properly ugly attitudes on all sides and it hasn't done Bitcoin any favours in the eyes of those watching it.

XT won't be BLOCKCHAIN-forkable, because uber-shitlord Hearn@sigint.google.mil has promised to maintain his "final call" via Stalinesque checkpoints.

XT is obviously SOFTWARE-forkable, as already demonstrated by NotXT (and whatever other weaponized versions are floating around unannounced in the darkness of the civil war's strategic non-disclosure fog).

And how these checkpoints works exactly?

Poe's law aside, if endlessly entertaining idiots like knight22 didn't exist, we would have to pick up the fail-gauntlet and emulate them ourselves.   :D

Care to explain how you think a useless thing will retain any value jackass? Maybe I should go buy some bernie babies and tulips instead of bitcoins? No? What da ya think herp derp?

This is where bitcoin will end if it remains crippled and/or too expansive to use http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

http://goldprice.org/spot-gold.html

Then consider Bitcoin is much more useful then gold  :o

Good question!  Checkpoints, in the sense of a centrally-controlled blockchain such as XT aims to create (http://youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0), work as follows.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1797/what-are-checkpoints


The only problem (besides being Stalinesque) with checkpoints is that they require you to trust the entity setting them, thereby defeating the entire purpose of using the unprecedentedly trust-free arrangement of PoW-based Bitcoin-type schema.

For all the worries and the headaches, I must admit the zero percenters also add some comedy value to the community. Not worth it, though.

LOL. I recall that one of the buttcoiners made a subreddit simulator at one point that emulated topics and replies that the average r/bitcoin user would make. I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Damn bots could even formulate more intelligent replies.