Bitcoin Forum

Question:    Will you support Gavin's recent block size hard fork proposal of 20MB by March 1, 2016?
yes    31 (66%)
no    16 (34%)

Total Voters: 47

Chief Coders: Implement the following draconian changes.
Miners: We no like, so we will fork.
Chief Coders: Your call! Implement, and we all win; Fork, and we all lose.
Miners: You're fuckin' lucky we're ONLY in this for the money, damning any ideals.
Chief Coders: Nice, miners. Here's a bone.

Fire up them sock-puppets boys!

Did you set the poll to disallow votes from new members?
...

Bump

Thanks for saving me the effort.

Poll seems biased.

Ummm...no shit. :)

Do you support increasing the block size so that larger miners gain an advantage over smaller miners and which will cause relatively larger delays in confirmation for transactions when ever a smaller miner wins a block, especially impacting lower valued transactions which pay a lower transaction fee?

Frustration?

May I suggest a more accurate poll.


If the other side isn't going to explain all the issues, then why be 100% fair in the way you explain it. The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

Actually the solution you desire to have 100% censorship-free transfer is the same solution that makes the TPS scale to any level.

Your mistake is thinking these are duals, whereas in fact they are the same network design. You just haven't seen that design yet.

Much will change...

...believe me your assumptions are wrong because you haven't seen what you can not see.

I'll be impressed if your solution can operate with less than 100% degradation under a situation where all global (and regional) internet infrastructure providers are highly incentivized to attack it to oblivion and do so with vigor.  A related assumption is that the U.S. NSA or a like replacement 'owns the net' and their analytical abilities of traffic down to the individual packet level are very high.

Your (or A) solution does not need to perform in such an extreme environment indefinitely but it must have a realistic potential to hold out for a period of years.

These threats are not at all far fetched to my way of thinking.  A solution which cannot deal with them is simply not very interesting of valuable to me.  If we don't see such an environment it means that mainstream solutions continue to work more or less as they do now, and to me they work just fine.  I'm interested in how to deal with a world in which they do not.

If you assume that, then just stop now and shoot yourself. Game over. We will sink into a Dark Age and everything will be expropriated.

I assume mankind wants to fight when given the tools to do so.

The system the bastards rely on doesn't run without the knowledge capitalists. We run their system.

If even a few % of us start working on an ecosystem of solutions, they are toast.

They must obscure any takedown as DDoS or hackers, because if they simply filter data on the internet backbones, this will be a clear signal to the hackers that we've entered a war of totalitarianism. If they overtly declare war on hackerdom, they will lose and they know it.

So instead it will be proxy battle.

It's not an Alt. And won't survive as one.

Every incompatible protocol difference is an 'alternative'.  This includes the so-called 'core'.  If something doesn't survive it loses the 'alt' label.

I like the origin Bitcoin principles embodied in my preferred alt master Blockchain.  
i cant change my vote this time is that by design?

Bingo!

I wish you had added an option for "support block size increase but only by consensus BIP". Many of the yes votes are conflated into that.

you know, you two should just move here and stay here.  then you can circle jerk one another.

you were made for each other.

Question:    Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes    64 (69.6%)
2.  no    28 (30.4%)
Total Voters: 92

Question:    Will you support switching Bitcoin over to Hearn's XT alt with it's exponential bloat by the first of the year 2016?
Fuck No!    9 (39.1%)
Hell Yeah!    14 (60.9%)
Total Voters: 23

Checkpoint update (Tue Jun 23 10:06:41 PDT 2015):

 - Cypherdorc:

 - Here:

If you had used the exact same wording as Cypherdoc, this would have actually been an interesting experiment.  Would the polls have had statistically-significant differences?

With that wording, you don't seriously think he's interested in running an experiment here do you?

Could be more of a 'probe' or even a 'honeypot'.  Hard to know.

Cypherdoc's poll seems to have gotten a recent infusion of  interest on the XT side of things not reflected in mine.  Just a bump to remind the interested to make 'their' thoughts known as widely as possible.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.

the way it would need to happen in normal circumstances is for the scBTC to be mined back to BTC, by reversing the proof, most likely via merge mining.  since the most common cause of a failure is likely to come from a 51% of the SC since it is inherently less secure (<100% MM'd) by definition being able to get mined back is not going to happen.  after all, that would be the purpose for the attack; to kill off everyone's scBTC while simultaneously shorting scBTC on an exchange while going long BTC on the MC.

that would be a fun attack.

good point. i would vote for that one for sure

TPTB this is saying you would only vote yes if it were centrally controlled by gate keepers!

6 months from now is not compatible with the BIP process, development, testing, etc.  Hearn is completely aware of this and had dropped all pretenses of 'consensus' in lobbying for a 'benevolent dictator' codebase management framework for Bitcoin.

Thus, as it stands, I believe my choices are a fairly accurate reflection of the realistic options which map to the real world.

I'll try to update my poll in conjunction with cypherdoc's going forward.  This one was put together without much time for thought but I'll try to be more a bit more thoughtful on the next one.

Cypherdorc (blew a fuse and) locked his thread, so we must continue the discussion over here...

The movement of coin assets from one chain to other can't realistically be done piecemeal at a moment's notice via the SPV (as you point out far too much risk to allow that), instead atomic swaps should be used.

The SPV proofs should only be used for those willing to accede to very long contest period, say 30 days or so.

Speculators are not going to do this for free. Thus rapidly moving assets between side chains is going to be lossy, i.e. you won't get 1 BTC for the 1 BTC you swapped (when demand exceeds supply) but going the other direction you will get more than 1 BTC (when supply exceeds demand) unless of course you accede to the long contest period.

Side chains which enforce a longer minimum contest period will have more lossy atomic swaps, but gain confidence.

I am going to notify Adam and Gregory that they need to be more realistic and incorporate this into their whitepaper.

Edit: reorganizations can also impact atomic swaps, but the losses are localized to only the parties to the swap, thus no run on the coin in general. Swap participants should set timelocks with duration appropriate to the risks they want to take.

I personally am fixated on keeping activity on the 'mainchain' as minimal as possible.  This to keep it super lite and the entire support infrastructure distributable mostly in terms of messenging bandwidth.  I want to minimize transactions.

Economically, I feel that if an on-chain transaction represents thousands of off-chain transactions, very generous fees can be paid to core infrastructure supporters while end-users continue to pay a tiny fee (if any) for their coffee purchases.  We then have a win/win.

"universal payments" is both a laudable goal and a
shopworn bitcoin marketing slogan.

The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design. (http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/)

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

Let me preface my remarks by stating that I personally am fixated on keeping activity on the 'mainchain' as minimal as possible.  This to keep it super lite and the entire support infrastructure distributable mostly in terms of messenging bandwidth.  I want to minimize transactions.

Economically, I feel that if an on-chain transaction represents thousands of off-chain transactions, very generous fees can be paid to core infrastructure supporters while end-users continue to pay a tiny fee (if any) for their coffee purchases.

I don't really understand your atomic swap ideas with out more context.  Specifically, swap what for what?  I suppose BTC for sidecoin?

If so, this is still activity on the mainchain which I wish to avoid.

With enough 'lossyness', I can imagine some efficiency, and I suppose that this is where your 30-day figures come from.  Fine, but it still seems as kludgy as anything I could come up with in my early attempts.


Speculators are the last people I would give much of a shit about (although I am one myself and intend to continue to be.)

...

I have always had a high respect for the efficiencies that lossy systems can achieve.  This from my experience in engineering.  I would say that most parties playing in the reserve currency sphere are able and willing to play under a lossy paradigmn.  It's just standard risk management which they are competent to do.  The main thing they need is transparency.

...

I've claimed to you before that this is not necessary because the consensus design that solves the dilemma facing us now has none of the tradeoffs that cause you to wish for that. Your wish does not solve the dilemma. Please review the following post I just made today:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11713418#msg11713418

...

Tangential skim.  From this note the above (and other things) my sense is that your ideas, priorities, etc, and mine are not well aligned in certain ways (which is fine.)

What you want is exactly what I am driving towards. You perhaps think I won't play nice in open source for the greater good, but that is incorrect. My retention has to do with making sure that capital is focused where it needs to be in order get things done, e.g. Blockstream's technology would not have been brought to market timely without $21 million in funding (well probably could have been achieved with much less but you get my point any way).

If the only thing that needed to be accomplished was to release a side chain with my new consensus algorithm, then I could just approach Blockstream and hope to get hired (virtually because I won't move). But there are other very important open source initiatives that need to be funded, which are not within Blockstream's business model scope.

Again, the solidity of a sidechain is obtained through it's Bitcoin backing.

Until and iff all (or most?) of the BTC has moved out of Bitcoin Core to the superior consensus mechanism side chain. I don't know how likely that is or is not to happen. Just saying.

P.S. If one released an altcoin with such an important improvement, one might think Blockstream could just duplicate it in side chain and suck all the momentum out of the altcoin. They'd be wrong to assume that is necessarily the outcome. There is an ace up the sleeve.

Do it quick because altcoin's glory day may be coming to an end.

I would rephrase that — altcoins that are not simultaneously pegged BTC side chains glory days may be coming to an end.
...

My bank charges me $10 for international transfer.

$1 per transaction ( 250 bytes )  is $4,000 per 1 MB block.
 - 6 * $4,000 =>  $24,000 per hour
 - 24 * $24,000 => $576,000 fee/day

Just a quick bump.  It's worth note that poor cypherdoc is treading water mightily to keep above the 70%/30% rate now.  Hee Hee.

Are the transfer nodes getting rewarded? The poll seems biased in itself. Somewhere down the line , if we see ,why does the poll even consist the option of a "No". Since people are at false impression of the consequences of a "YES".

Question:    Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes    267 (71.2%)
2.  no    108 (28.8%)
Total Voters: 375

Question:    Will you support switching Bitcoin over to Hearn's XT alt with it's exponential bloat by the first of the year 2016?
Fuck No!    20 (42.6%)
Hell Yeah!    27 (57.4%)
Total Voters: 47

Something went wrong with cypherdoc's thread and his poll.  I thought I'd ping my sister thread at this juncture.  Here's the standing of the now-locked thread at fail time:


And, for logging purpose, here's there real poll of this thread:


I pointed out years ago that cypherdoc was acting a lot like Hearn's little ho-bitch.  Probably in association with one of Hearn's multiple attempts to insert tainting into Bitcoin Core.  Cypherdoc bristled at the time.  Now with the XT attack this reality couldn't be more clear.

Just a quick question (still need my fix as I'm having withdrawal) is you "crack" pure and un-moderate like the stuff I used to get over at the other place befor the authorities shut it down?

Your text is a bit difficult to parse, but I would say: 'Yes, kicking your crack habit would be advisable if you can do it.'

you mean leave bitcointalk?

Great,

so apart from the last 2 pages of posts that were deleted this is where we left off:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12175430#msg12175430

My little creation that I am espeically proud of fell victim to the censors:

what do you mean its still here?

he locked his thread?

Anyone know why?

thread was locked by the admins for being off-topic.

I don't necessarily agree but I'm having a big laugh at how cypherdoc must be fuming right now. His life's work, all gone  :D

thread was locked by the admins for being off-topic.

I don't necessarily agree but I'm having a big laugh at how cypherdoc must be fuming right now. His life's work, all gone  :D

oh the admins locked it?

interesting.

So instead of moving it let's lock it?

thread was locked by the admins for being off-topic.

I don't necessarily agree but I'm having a big laugh at how cypherdoc must be fuming right now. His life's work, all gone  :D

Privacy backdoor in XT code? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hixp5/uhoh_privacy_backdoor_in_the_new_fork (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hixp5/uhoh_privacy_backdoor_in_the_new_fork)

(note how XT supporters wanted to get this banned from r/bitcoin)

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hil8h/bitcoindev_bitcoin_xts_tor_ip_blacklist (https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hil8h/bitcoindev_bitcoin_xts_tor_ip_blacklist) Peter Todd peeing truthiness in the r/bitcoinXT punchbowl.

You guys cheering thermos' censoring of the thread is just sad.

You do understand that just because you silence others that does not make their ideas magically go away, and it does not make you right.

But you always had a losing argument, must feel nice to have the thread censored to get you off the hook of having to continue to defend obvious nonsense.

You guys pulled the nuclear option and deleted/sanitized all discussion you disagree with from /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org. If you have to resort to that it always means you are on the wrong side.

So bask in your assumed victory now that there is no one left to question you. It's going to be a short lived one.

Nobody I can think of advocated censoring or sterilizing anything.  For all we know cypherdoc himself picked up his ball and went home.

I'll bet that cypherdoc locked it himself when the laundry-mark that is XT started to really be exposed. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0)

The nice thing about allowing attackers to use a forum is that it becomes possible to pin people who have put in a lot of effort.  Looking through the now-locked thread, I identify some of the primary petites taches de merde as so:

 - cypherdoc
 - justusranvier
 - peter r
 - solex
 - erdogan
 - zarathustra
 - smooth/rocks
 - majamalu
 - stolfi (honorable mention - still as active as ever elsewhere.)

Some of them have really put in some effort over the years.  Others not mentioned are more likely to simply have been duped.  Interestingly, when I was doing a quick skim to make this list I noticed that most of these folks went dark within a stretch of hours of when cypherdoc did.

And the list of some of the people who were especially tenacious at fighting the good fight:

 - iCEBREAKER
 - brg444
 - hdbuck
 - Marcus_of_Augustus
 - tvbcof (me)
 - odalv
 
and lots of people who chimed in letting people know that they have not been fooled.  It's hard to gauge how many people's eyes were opened to the hostile takeover attempt but I'll bet it was a lot.

You're  still as stupid ever and willing to throw loose  allegations around like vomit.

You're still going to lose because of all your unethical tactics.

... and here comes the compromised shill to lecture others on ethics. Have you no shame?

To get some perspective on the logic I want to promote, first read theymos's Reddit sticky post (he is the moderator or r/bitcoin and also one of the owners of Bitcointalk.org):

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

You can also read the very respected Bitcoin research Meni Rosenfeld's comment:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

I also note this hostile new "feature" (a.k.a. trojan horse) in Bitcoin XT (a.k.a. GavinCoin):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0


But let me attempt to remove my subjective opinion from the objective logic I want to present.

A hard fork if it succeeds is a majority attack against the minority. Thus it is technically a 51% attack where the adversary that has greater than 50% of the hashrate can always win the longest chain of proof-of-work and thus can dictate to the minority (that is unless the minority can distinguish which blocks are being produced by the adversary and decide to never mine on them, thus maintaining their minority hashrate chain as distinct).

For example, afaics the change to Bitcoin XT to blacklist the Tor exit node IP addresses does not make the blocks produced by Bitcoin XT miners distinguishable from those blocks mined by those running Bitcoin Core full nodes.

Of course once Bitcoin XT nodes begin producing blocks greater than 1 MB in size, these blocks would be distinguished as not being produced by Bitcoin Core miners. However, note that one of the characteristics of a 51% attack is that it can indeed change the protocol. Of course the minority can refuse to mine on the new protocol, but given that network hashrate is so crucial for security in Bitcoin's design, it is doubtful that a minority block chain could survive because the network hashrate of the majority (especially a significant majority) could be diverted to execute large double-spends on the minority chain wrecking havoc. Just the threat of that possibility is probably enough to cause significant HODLers to sell their coins on the minority fork causing it's price to diverge downwards.

Thus, network hashrate political wars are attempts to make 51% attacks. They are adversarial.

All of this could be avoided with two improvements to crypto-currency technology:

• Side-chains so HODLers can move their Bitcoin value to the protocol of their choice.
• A way to filter 51% attacks, so that network hashrate is not a weapon of mass destruction, and so the principle of side-chains can work correctly.

Blockstream is implementing the first improvement. I am implementing (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12175683#msg12175683) the second improvement.

Note there are some issues with side-chains that have to be dealt with carefully. The movement of coins between chains needs to have long lock up times to insure that reorganizations due to orphaned chains can't create a chaotic mixed up outcome (namely duplicate copies of coins) that can't be restored. Speculators can help users move their coins faster between chains for a fee which covers their opportunity cost and risks in the lock up.

It is time we put an end to this nonsense, by using technology to do so.

P.S. note I am formerly the username AnonyMint (and numerous usernames hence), which I abandoned last year to try to encourage myself to stop wasting so much time posting in forums. When I first joined this forum as AnonyMint in Spring 2013, I wrote an article "Bitcoin : The Digital Kill Switch" which Google will confirm to you was published around the web a bit. My real name is on that article.

Hope everyone has collected their free money...

... and here comes the compromised shill to lecture others on ethics. Have you no shame?

 :D

If that's your new twist I'm gonna have to get on board with you.

He's always welcome on my thread even if he is the kind of pansy who messed up his own and tried to blame others for it.  Cypherdoc is his own worst enemy when he flaps his gums in the presence of people smart enough and informed enough to matter.

BTW, cypherdoc:  Gold up, Bitcoin collapsing...thanks in no small part to your own efforts.

Notice how your thread is totally devoid of any intellectual content or insight. That's because you're the OP. it will never amount to anything because you have nothing of intellectual value to offer . Just thuggery. That list of guys you put yourself in can and will  enjoy each other's circle jerk.

He's always welcome on my thread even if he is the kind of pansy who messed up his own and tried to blame others for it.  Cypherdoc is his own worst enemy when he flaps his gums in the presence of people smart enough and informed enough to matter.

BTW, cypherdoc:  Gold up, Bitcoin collapsing...thanks in no small part to your own efforts.

Bro, your fork, it's broken: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0

I'm saving all the code here just in case they decide to hide it. We need a skilled programmer to go through this and see just how bad it is, there's so much code itd be easy to hide some malicious stuff in here.

Keep in mind this code is all for the IP logger and blacklist, they worked hard on this! I would just post it here but it is an absolutely immense amount of code.

There's both a whitelist and a blacklist, like Coinbase. From what I can tell it is NOT all objective, they can subjectively put people on the lists. This would give them complete control of anyone who uses Bitcoin.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharing

The nice thing about allowing attackers to use a forum is that it becomes possible to pin people who have put in a lot of effort.  Looking through the now-locked thread, I identify some of the primary petites taches de merde as so:

 - cypherdoc
 - justusranvier
 - peter r
 - solex
 - erdogan
 - zarathustra
 - smooth/rocks
 - majamalu
 - stolfi (honorable mention - still as active as ever elsewhere.)

If you're suggesting smooth and rocks are the same, can you please explain why?

He's always welcome on my thread even if he is the kind of pansy who messed up his own and tried to blame others for it.  Cypherdoc is his own worst enemy when he flaps his gums in the presence of people smart enough and informed enough to matter.

BTW, cypherdoc:  Gold up, Bitcoin collapsing...thanks in no small part to your own efforts.

....in cypherdoc's thread... attract those thinkers.

they hid a sophisticated program which logs your ip even if you're on proxy or tor, and they add IPs to a blacklist and whitelist. It's not all objective, they can add people at will too. This is much worse than I ever thought, they can control every bitcoin user if they got their fork. It would end bitcoin as we know it. It's a horrible and disgusting abuse of Bitcoin

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharing

Fools will waste their life discussing something which is soon to be an outdated non-issue.

While you all were busy circle jerking, I was solving the problem.

Keep in mind this code was reviewed and given stamp of approval by your very own Gavin.

Cypher I told you you will get #REKT...

You're the one getting rekt and don't even know it, lol.
.
XT continuing to ramp. 848!

You're the one getting rekt and don't even know it, lol.
.
XT continuing to ramp. 848!

You're the one getting rekt and don't even know it, lol.

your powers of projection are becoming insanely good, almost as good as your infomercial shilling skills.
http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641 (http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641)

your powers of projection are becoming insanely good, almost as good as your infomercial shilling skills.
http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641 (http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641)

your powers of projection are becoming insanely good, almost as good as your infomercial shilling skills.
http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641 (http://www.econotimes.com/Federal-Judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-HashFast-77641)

Wha Happened....to the original thread?

Wha Happened....to the original thread?

theymos via BadBear locked the thread purportedly for being "off topic".  really it was b/c we were talking about XT.

note how this thread is similarly off topic in that no one talks about gold for the most part.  it's all about pushing the Core agenda and the mods don't have any problem with that.

i thought forum policy is to move off-topic threads to their appropriate section.

Not lock it.

theymos via BadBear locked the thread purportedly for being "off topic".  really it was b/c we were talking about XT.

note how this thread is similarly off topic in that no one talks about gold for the most part.  it's all about pushing the Core agenda and the mods don't have any problem with that.

I wasn't aware there was such a thing as "off topic" in any thread on BTT. What a bunch of horse shit.

The thread shouldn't have been hijacked in the first place, what a mess. The thread is mostly about XT now, and the only graphs posted are XT related.

It would be a lot of work to split or delete all the XT posts. Splitting is not easy to do in SMF, especially with large threads, and many posts to be split. So that isn't an option.

It could stay in speculation since the majority of the thread is relevant, but all XT chat from here on out to be moderated.

Might be better to just lock the thread since it's so far off track at this point.

 

i just went back and looked at every post in this thread.

not one post about gold.

off topic ---> lock.

I haven't been posting much here because I'm not sure what the new rules are.  

Questions:

1.  Are we allowed to talk about non Bitcoin Core implementations of the protocol?

2.  Are we allowed to criticize the moderators?

3.  Can I post /u/raisethelimit's lasted comic?  [lol it involves a CONSENS-A-TRON^TM]

theymos via BadBear locked the thread purportedly for being "off topic".  really it was b/c we were talking about XT.

note how this thread is similarly off topic in that no one talks about gold for the most part.  it's all about pushing the Core agenda and the mods don't have any problem with that.

You're the one getting rekt and don't even know it, lol.
.
XT + NotXT continuing to ramp. 848!

R3KT

FTFY.

Pretending 100% of self-reported node versions are genuine instead of spoofed shows us how dishonest Gavincoiners are.

Is there anything you won't do to mislead the public?

BTW:

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

...
BTW:

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

Before cypherdoc locked his thread and tried to blame the mods

I haven't been posting much here because I'm not sure what the new rules are. 

Questions:

1.  Are we allowed to talk about non Bitcoin Core implementations of the protocol?

2.  Are we allowed to criticize the moderators?

3.  Can I post /u/raisethelimit's lasted comic?  [lol it involves a CONSENS-A-TRON^TM]

You're just upset because feeling very strongly in favor of XT is not enough to magically raise the block size limit.

So here you are, pouting again.

Here, you can even say stuff like "WTF MILLIONS FOR YET ANOTHER FUCKING FORUM AND PENNIES FOR DDOS PROTECTION, HOW MUCH ARE YOU EMBEZZLING THERMOS?!" and it's cool.  Thermos doesn't GAF.  Watch this:


See?  It's fine.  Happens all the time!  Whatever.   8)

You can even mention altcoins on Bitcoin threads (we frequently mention Monero on Frap.doc's thread, just to piss him off, LOL). 

All you have to do is follow the rules about keeping (altcoin) posts in the proper (altcoin) subs.  Once you stop pouting, it's pretty easy.

It's hard to find a more chill admin than thermos.  That's why he was Chosen by Satoshi to run the place.

If you think you can do a better job moderating, https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt could really use your help!

if you're gonna flat out lie like this, you could at least try a little harder to obfuscate.  this one is so far from the truth for all to see, you're now just making an ass of yourself.  as you've always done.

i wasn't either; esp when it was my thread to begin with.  but maybe that's their problem; me being the OP.  plus, any moved thread normally leaves a courtesy notice for a day or so with the clear moniker [MOVED] attached with a link.  not this time at_all.  just vanished.  and note how pages are disappearing from the locked thread as they go thru and censor parts they don't want read.  

and just what is off topic in a thread that's lasted 4 years and has 1.45M views and 31K posts?  for the several days right before it got locked it was racking up about 7000 views per day.  that's how popular it was.  but that's the pt isn't it?  stop the popularity before it gets out of hand.

just look at the bullshit from BadBear:

<snip>
...
insert stupid attempt at comeback and other stupid attempts at being smarmy
...
</snip>

thanks for posting that.

the fact that your supposed great Szabo would retweet a stupid tweet like that by btcdrak says alot.

880!

Cypherdoc's stalkers are still 'alive' ...
While nobody is upgrading to core 0.11.0

Your first and most obvious mistake is always assuming all nodes are equal.

903 nodes now.

and this threads #gold posts = 0

903 nodes now.

903 nodes now.

Your old ass might have never heard of "Don't hate the player, hate the game"  did ya?

A dangerous, unwarranted and most definitely not authorized attack on the network. Yes authorized as in these two balloon blowers don't have the authority to fork under political opinions and organize a veritable PR attack, appealing to their fraudulent identity and to the system's creator vision. A weak, shameless attempt to rip apart the consensus, NOT create a new one.

https://github.com/basil00/PseudoNode

pseudonode --coin=bitcoin-xt

That young ass never heard that anyone has the authority to code a client in an open source environment.

no XT'ers are using that.  it was designed by and for the Cripplecoiner's as another tool in their deceptive war tactics.  let them use it and pay the price.

Yes, but never the moral authority to force it through everyone's throat through a campaign of coordinated PR hack jobs.

Yes, but never the moral authority to force it through everyone's throat with a campaign of coordinated PR hack jobs painted with all the fallacious arguments in the dictum.

that's funny.  the only force i see is the censorship.

Orwellian speak of the cheerleaders of the censors.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Censorship is liberalism.

theymos via BadBear locked the thread purportedly for being "off topic".  really it was b/c we were talking about XT.

note how this thread is similarly off topic in that no one talks about gold for the most part.  it's all about pushing the Core agenda and the mods don't have any problem with that.

Orwellian speak of the cheerleaders of the censors.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Censorship is liberalism.

Before cypherdoc locked his thread and tried to blame the mods,

Using censorship to silence any individual or groups of individuals is fundamentally one of the most horrible things that can be done to a human being.

You know that claim is nonsense, but join in the attack to silence others.

You are simply a horrible person, you think you are funny but you are not. Welcome to my permanent ignore list.

Gavinistas have been censoring people on reddit for months. Stop being an hypocrite. I'm not endorsing any censorship but this attempt from your side at claiming moral high ground is deceitful and unwarranted.

Using censorship to silence any individual or groups of individuals is fundamentally one of the most horrible things that can be done to a human being.

...

You are simply a horrible person, you think you are funny but you are not. Welcome to my permanent ignore list.

You know that claim is nonsense, but join in the attack to silence others.

Just like you 'Free Shit Nation' people who think that the world owes you free crypto-currency transactions, you also seem to think that the world owes you a free place to shill for whatever you want. 

and just what is off topic in a thread that's lasted 4 years and has 1.45M views and 31K posts?  for the several days right before it got locked it was racking up about 7000 views per day.  that's how popular it was.  but that's the pt isn't it?  stop the popularity before it gets out of hand.

Yeah you proved you could stir up the worst trait in men: their ego (Bitcointalk "fix") addiction to circle jerking argument festivals where productivity falls into a black hole and no on the outside dares read lest they fall into the same pit.

Luckily I had the self-discipline to just tune out. Well I haven't watched TV for decades, don't drink alcohol, don't even eat carbohydrates, nor drink anything other than water. So I guess it must require a supernatural self-discipline to avoid your spell.

I feel pity for those here who continue wasting their time posting here. Don't these people have anything productive to do with their lives!

What a crying shame.

If the thread died with my post, that would be an amazing feat of humanity. I would be flabbergast. It won't.

Dude, you have posted 2,300 messages in 4 months.

Le Bron James got benched?

He's going to be out all season, something about a burn injury.   8)

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

Gavinistas have been censoring people on reddit for months. Stop being an hypocrite. I'm not endorsing any censorship but this attempt from your side at claiming moral high ground is deceitful and unwarranted.

...

...

You too, you know this statement is nonsense. Gavin and others have done nothing of the sort. The only one supporting censorship is you.

Look in the mirror and know that you are a truly horrible person that supports violating people's rights and jokes and laughs about it. It is no joking matter.

Wow, you still show your face around here? ::)

He's gone dark for a while.  He's probably working on some title for a new mega-thread.  Gold seems to strike a cord and get such threads going.  How about: 'Gold.  I smell a Frapp.'

And yet new threads that may be both NARROW in scope and ON topic, but completely REDUNDANT, INNANE, and ZERO LASTING DISCUSSION VALUE because they essentially ask the SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, are allowed be created daily over and over and over again for YEARS, and live on forever with no removal, culling or censorship whatsover.

Such threads have titles like :

Why the drop in price?

Why is the price rising?

Why the rebound?

New low?

New high?

New bubble!!

New crash!!

New dump!!

Where you you think the price will be in <2 minutes/1 hours/5 days/2 weeks/4 months/next year/in 5 years/ in 10 years/etc, etc.>?

And almost ever single one of these new threads is created by a throwaway troll account with 0 activity.  EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The irony on this sub forum is sickening...

And yet new threads that may be both NARROW in scope and ON topic, but completely REDUNDANT, INNANE, and ZERO LASTING DISCUSSION VALUE because they essentially ask the SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, are allowed be created daily over and over and over again for YEARS, and live on forever with no removal, culling or censorship whatsover.

The fear emotion is inherited from the primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer time period when mortal danger was omnipresent. Fear stimulates a fight-or-flight adrenaline spike in response to extreme stress. Adrenaline rushes are thrilling and addictive, especially when the threat is low-grade, not thoroughly exhausting, and thus repeatable because it only exists in the imagination. Adrenaline (plus cortisol) shuts down rational thought in the pre-frontal cortex. Production of the steriod cortisol spikes to redistribute more energy to the muscles and nerves, depleting energy from the immune system, digestion, and toxic waste processing necessary to maintain health.

It is unbelievable but true. Idiocy prevails. This stalker thread is still unlocked.

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”----Bertrand Russell,1953

Looks like "the sort of character" the leaderships in all Western countries (at least) want would be a society of borederline retarded sexually confused zombie sheep.  Exactly the kind of people who would become Heardresen worshiping XT drones.  Wouldn't you say so?

Ah, there you are.  I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6E

If there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there.  I mean we've got plenty of similar problems over here on this side of the pond, but it does seem like you guys are leading the pack.

Bertrand Russel says that in 'scientific societies':


Looks like "the sort of character" the leaderships in all Western countries (at least) want would be a society of borederline retarded sexually confused zombie sheep.  Exactly the kind of people who would become Heardresen worshiping XT drones.  Wouldn't you say so?

Gold holding up nicely.  Cypherdoc MIA like the sorry pussified little no-trust-having sissy that he is.  Frappuccino poisoning I suppose.

I miss the doc's mega thread.  it was a convenient catch-all without most of the wall observer micro-minds.  So where to lurk now  ???

just be thankful you have been unplugged from a matrix of FUD and disinformation ...

replaced with your own brand?

Ah, there you are.  I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6E

If there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there.  

Switzerland is the one and only Direct Democracy.

just be thankful you have been unplugged from a matrix of FUD and disinformation ...

Switzerland is the one and only Direct Democracy. The country can be glad seeing people with your mentality (stalking/hating direct voting/applauding censorship) leaving.

Can't you see the replacement has already surpassed that silly formerly existing thread in terms of intellectual engagement? So much more comprehensive and enlightening without all the FUD.

It's like "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP." with forged pistons, an iron block, aggressive cams, fully computer controlled direct fuel injection, AND nitrous oxide injection! Take off your beer hat and look at it, would you just look at it?

Can't you see the replacement has already surpassed that silly formerly existing thread in terms of intellectual engagement? So much more comprehensive and enlightening without all the FUD.

It's like "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP." with forged pistons, an iron block, aggressive cams, fully computer controlled direct fuel injection, AND nitrous oxide injection! Take off your beer hat and look at it, would you just look at it?

Your leaderships are clearly seeking to hybridize the herd with gene-stock from various far flung regions in addition to converting the native stock into people who are to sexually confused to reproduce on their own.  I can guess the types of policies the populous is going to prefer for the betterment of society through the 'direct democracy' that you are so proud of in the next generation.

You were given a chance to explain where these new sidechain altcoins are going to derive their value.

(still waiting)

Ya, Ya.  I'm getting to it.  In the mean time, you should brush up on some of the work the Blockstream guys are doing and why their motto is 'trust everyone'.  They are focused on crypto-based solutions which would allow one to balance risk.  So, instead of giving the bank all of your money (or BTC) which technically and legally becomes their property to do with as they please, there are things like time-locks.  If you take or fail to take certain actions on a certain schedule, the value of your deposit can revert back to your control.  These crypto 'primitives' allow a much more robust cyrpto-currency ecosystem and cut the (unreliable and expensive) state sponsored legal system out of the loop leaning instead on pure mathematics which is much more reliable.

Stop fudging the issue.

 I'm well aware of what blockstream does.  And I also know what it needs before a bank would have any interest in using it. I just want that penny to drop with you, or at least hear your attempt to explain it.

I've never run across an XT shill who is even dimly aware of 'what Blockstream does', or if I are, they have made no attempts to demonstrate this knowledge.  In fact relatively few of said shills seem to have even a modest grasp on Bitcoin itself.  You are no exception.

Nobody I have any respect for wants banks in the common sense of the word to have anything to do with crypto-currencies.  They are obsolete with a properly functioning crypto like Bitcoin.

The primitives which Blockstream are working on would allow a lot more flexibility in distributing value to sidecoins and managing risk in doing so.  Also, by providing robust reference implementations and being available to audit (for a fee I suspect) they provide a very valuable service to end-users (like me) who are trying to judge these risks.

Sidestep. Skip. Dodge.  You move better than Mohammed Ali.

They are only primitives because they haven't got a working solution. They grabbed on to LN like a man in the bottom of a well grabs onto a ladder lowered down to him. I'd say they are under some pressure, no?

Anyway, you still havent explained how valuable transactions will be catered for in terms of liquidity and credit risk. Lets say its not a bank, lets say instead its Daddy Warbucks from Annie!

Your leaderships are clearly seeking to hybridize the herd with gene-stock from various far flung regions in addition to converting the native stock into people who are to sexually confused to reproduce on their own.  I can guess the types of policies the populous is going to prefer for the betterment of society through the 'direct democracy' that you are so proud of in the next generation.

satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

I forget that not everyone is familiar with systems development.  A 'primitive' is a generic and basic function though they are often fairly cutting edge.  For a system which is more than trivial, a competent developer will start out by building 'primitives' (unless someone else has already done so which is common.)  Upon these one can build a system to solve specific problems and also build other systems to solve other problems.

What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc.  This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

he is really disgusting ...

Everybody only wants to discuss me
So this must mean I'm disgusting

Stop talking gobbledygook.


"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands.  I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially.  Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.

Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively.  I would expect them to do so indefinitely.  Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use.  Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts.  In that case they would just choose something else.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.'  The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you.  The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying.  Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto.  (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms.  To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action.  We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now.  Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.

...

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6

Excellent post with much needed enlightenment around the crucial aspect which tends to be forgotten within the blocksize debate, namely, how should the "base money" of the internet be structured?
In this discussion, I would like to raise a few clarifying points:
1) Distributed asset ledgers are the first protocol instance of where the stakeholder to a ledger, and not the ledger operator, has control over the ledger assets (the importance of this cannot be overstated - it is the most crucial aspect of Satoshis discovery). Up until now, technological developments within finance have been limited to digitizing the record of account held with financial institutions. Banks have so far been shielded from disruption as the basic premise, that they are the account operator, has never before been under question.
2) As such, it is the first time that access to "base money", without counterparty risks, is available to everyone - as you mentioned, central banks only allow commercial banks to hold accounts in "base money", everyone else is left holding bank issued credit. Any limitation of this availability will ensure that we are back to the model whereby we need to trust a third party with custody of our assets.
3) Nearly every clearing model is based upon a net deferred settlement cycle, i.e. settlement does not happen until certain time-periods every day when all obligations to deliver are conducted through Delivery vs Payment (DvP) or Payment vs Payment (PvP). This is normal, and will work the same way even with the internet's "base money". When settlement is conducted, it is crucial that the multiple accounts can have a simultaneous discharge of obligations, i.e. the blocksize needs to be large enough to allow for the net settlement between the multitude of accounts/addresses to be included in one block/transaction which may be significantly larger than 1mb, even if the blockchain purely functions as a large value payments system.
In closing, I would like to raise a few points:
I understand that there is a strong desire to maintain the blockchain as trustless and distributed, but is the 1mb blocksize, whereby everyone is forced onto "commercial bank ledgers" - a.k.a. federated chains with one, or several, trusted third party, the way to go?
If we maintain the 1mb limit, will the "commercial banks" or sidechains be able to conduct settlement on a net deferred basis?
It seems to me a low blocksize will guarantee that bitcoin not only has centralized mining, but will also force people onto centrally controlled sidechains that may or may not be operated by a central account operator who can decide when you have access to your assets, under what circumstance you have access to your assets and how you will be able to access them.

 :D

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12170746#msg12170746

But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.

Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."

Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.

This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.

Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."

And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you.....


source (http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-developers-bitcoin-side-chains/)

Seriously, did you just quote your own opinion  to back up your statement??? 

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?

I use Bitcoin for real transactions with some value behind them.  Sounds like a PissAntCoin sidechain would be right up your alley.


Again, you really need to brush up on some of the 'elements' technology that the Blockstream guys are working on.  When you hear terms such as 'timelocks' and multi-party signatures perhaps they will start to mean more to you.  Probably not though...you may simply not have what it takes to conceptualize some of the non-trivial use methods that others have moved on to.

Annnndddd.... you still haven't answered the question. If you wanna play the sidechain game, hand over your bitcoins.  Simple.

All these things are features that either do not work or do not exist now - and implementing them will further increase the size of a transaction. Looks like you are curing blockchain bloat with.... blockchain bloat.  

My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow

Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.

And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works

I'm increasingly convinced you are another one of Lambchamp sock puppet account.

I'm therefore not going to waste my time looking for the dozens of reference by Blockstream developers essentially saying that sidechains can hardly scale the transaction processing power of Bitcoin under current block size.

I quoted myself because the content remains valid: SPV Proofs are competing with transactions for space in blocks. Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

Unless the blocksize increase or they become able to reduce the size of these proofs, the scale of side chains might remain limited.

I think that you're frustrated because your understanding ( or at least hopes) around blockstream are flawed.

Since when do the views of employees trump the vision and mission of the boss?

Your last statement tells me you are foundering and speed reading the white paper for a soundbite that might give the impression that you have a deeper understanding than you do.

And finally:


Maybe they should try bitcoinXT?

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

I've read it a dozen times already so, no, I know how this stuff works.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

You will notice that there is not ONE mention of Bitcoin or transaction capacity scaling inside.

Gregory Maxwell, who first proposed two-way pegging, says that it could provide some relief for bitcoin, though:

"I don't think this will remove the need to increase bitcoin's throughput entirely, but if the technology matures fast enough it may allow for a more conservative approach that increases size only when its very clearly safe to do so."

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.

The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.  Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

place in custody or trust of 3rd party until a specified condition has been fulfilled.

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution

Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

https://forum.blockstack.org/t/blockstack-community-thoughts-on-block-size-bitcoin-xt-debate/152

The scaling debate is an open question, but it's now settled that XT is not the answer:

Doing nothing is worse.

Lol no.

Or is it based on the same bs that you extrapolated to get your 500k$ bitcoin?

On piece of advice, when you do not qualify, you STFU.

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

He's right you know.  Relax!  Who knows, you might learn to enjoy it.

A what now?

Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance"

You seem scared. Just relax, let it happen.

I won't bother arguing with you until you understand or have read the white paper. My "escrow" comment was a shortcut for your small brain to grasp.

Concentrate on SPV Proof.

Until then.

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/635882565090607105 ;D ;D ;D

How about decentralization for big transactions and centralization for small ones?

Frap.doc: "any ideas where to rehost "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP"? this is the only 1 i'm aware of: http://bitco.in/forum/"

The cheerleaders of banning and censoring still don't realise that they are the best supporters of their enemies. That's amazing.

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

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  :)

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.

 ;D

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.

 ;D

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Yeah, you truly are handicapped - finally something I agree with you on.   ;D  (joking)

Blocksize is already dynamic. Have a look at the recent block sizes, they vary from 300mb to over 900mb.

However, it will be always limited by whatever max blocksize is set to. Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

And you are right, as max size gets larger, spam attacks are disincentiveised, so not sure why you say that.  ???

Blockstream was never meant to be in competition with Bitcoin and definitely could not pretend to any "unfair advantage". good morning lambtroll :)

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

You mean kilobytes. And it rarely hits 900 kb, its more like between 300-500, and if it rarely hits 1 mb, oh boy, i dont think a little delay will affect people.

Now to make it more performant i think the 4-8 mb block increase should be appropriate now, simultaneously with some internal payment processors, that can do the dust transactions inhouse (without fee, but centralized) while the big ones would go (with fee, but decentralized) on the blockchain.

XAPO,COINBASE,BITPAY, CIRCLE, etc could/should do it....

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

that's a whole load of stuff I did not state. what was the purpose of saying it in reply to my comment?

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

“We do support big blocks if it is implemented in Bitcoin Core. But we believe the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “While the question whether and how to increase the block-size limit is a technical one, the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”

Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.

“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.

 

 :D :D :D :D

BitFury CEO Valery Vavilov told Bitcoin Magazine: “The Bitcoin Blockchain is not an amateur project anymore – it is becoming a platform for the Global Economy of Things. Changing the base rules can affect a lot of things, thus, any changes should be done very carefully, gradually, and with tests.”

He added: “The proposed transition to the alternative client raises some concerns about its security: It is well known that key parts of the default Bitcoin Core client were thoroughly checked and sometimes formally verified, which cannot be said about alternative clients – including Bitcoin XT.”

Aww, sad Frap.doc has a sad.   :-[

You really don't understand the enormous difference between moderation and censorship?

Or are you invoking the specter of authoritarianism in a cheap attempt to rationalize your pouting?

Bitcoin is forking, the forum is forking and the Gold thread as well. This is only a cheap copy of the original thread for haters, stalkers, warriors and censorship lovers. The original thread is alive and well.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#cite_note-1

XT is an alt and thus not on topic in a lot of venues.  Quit being a whiny little cunt.

As I've said before, I don't agree with shutting down cypherdoc's thread, but the action has produced a cornucopia of lulz so I'm at least half glad they did it.

It is also worth note that theymos doesn't run this site for the purposes of giving Bitcoin attackers a platform upon which to do their work.  He is much more tolerant of this when it happens (about 1000 time/day with the XT attack) than most people would be so you should be thanking the guy.

Quit being a whiny little cunt.

XT is an alt and thus not on topic in a lot of venues.  Quit being a whiny little cunt.

I don't agree with shutting down cypherdoc's thread, but the action has produced a cornucopia of lulz so I'm at least half glad they did it.

"Hi, we're Mike & Gavin from the government and we're here to help!"

By doing so, the court would essentially require that Lowe pay back the 3,000 BTC at today’s rate rather than the value, in dollar terms, when he received it in September 2013

mymy coindesk: http://www.coindesk.com/bankrupt-bitcoin-mining-firm-trustee-seeks-return-of-funds-from-former-promoter/



http://ci.memecdn.com/767/5307767.gif