And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing, but hey just blacklist all SPV-clients.
Why is the "but you don't have to enable it"-argument valid in this case?
It is NOT blacklisting all SPV clients. It is implementing an extra bit which indicates whether the node supports bloom filters or not. They are also adding an option in Bitcoin Core to disable bloom filters should the operator wish to do so. It has bloom filters enabled by default. You sound exactly like the people, who defended the evil "drop Tor-Nodes if you are DDOSed"-feature in BitcoinXT  But to get serious again: Is that a problem for SPV-clients or not? Can they implement bloom-filters without a blockchain of their own? |
|
|
|
|
And there I thought blacklisting is a bad thing, but hey just blacklist all SPV-clients.
Why is the "but you don't have to enable it"-argument valid in this case?
|
|
|
|
Is there any particular reason why you recommend a newbie Bitcoin XT? I gave him 2 choices which are pretty similar to what he is currently using. What is the problem? Don't you like choices? |
|
|
|
Insulting is sometimes allowed if it has a context of some sort, in that case he is only insulting without really providing any valuable information so if you report it im sure it will get deleted
Like I said: I already reported two posts and nothing happened at all, I even asked to look at the other posts from this person, since there are many and I don't want to report them all. You could argue, that I just haven't waited long enough, but I already saw moderators moving threads away from Bitcoin Discussion, so, some mods seem to be around, but just don't care. nothing against insulting people on the forum, free speech and all. you could argue that the post is insubstantial and off topic though. however, this is the internet, and youre more than just likely to run into hotheads and trolls here. learn to deal with it and grow a thicker skin. There are still rules ...
1. No zero or low value, pointless or uninteresting posts or threads. [1][e]
2. No off-topic posts.
3. No trolling.
...
A while back, I had 1-2 posts removed, because I also thought there were no rules. They were right about that, even though, they were less insulting than what hdbuck posts nowadays. |
|
|
|
XT is already starting to die I think. They took the graphs off from xtnodes.com to not show the downtrend im sure it's not a coincidence that the graphs disappeared when it started to fall.
xtnodes.com just gets attacked a lot recently. Seeing that as an indicator, that it already started to fail is absurd. You still can look at the node-count here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ |
|
|
|
Insulting is sometimes allowed if it has a context of some sort, in that case he is only insulting without really providing any valuable information so if you report it im sure it will get deleted
Like I said: I already reported two posts and nothing happened at all, I even asked to look at the other posts from this person, since there are many and I don't want to report them all. You could argue, that I just haven't waited long enough, but I already saw moderators moving threads away from Bitcoin Discussion, so, some mods seem to be around, but just don't care. |
|
|
|
I reported two posts today, since coming back to the whole XT vs. Core discussion and seeing that hdbuck, resolved to mostly just insulting people, which he even admits to be his new "strategy", was no fun anymore ...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.
i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin. so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs. and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too. so rage is on. So, what did the mods do? Nothing at all. Does that means, that posts like ^fuck you noob/troll/shill.
are okay now? Or does that only apply if I am a XT-Basher? (Awaiting which cry-meme icebreaker will choose this time) |
|
|
|
What are the proofs of the statement that you say?
how can you see they are virtual servers?
I have the same questions. I guess you can see if it is a virtual server, when you just look at the IP-address. turtlehurrican isn't known for providing proof, but claiming he made some research and just publish the "results". If it is really a free trial can not be proven, unless either the trial runs out, or somebody admits to have done it, which already happened from people who thought they could prove a point with that(the only point I see proven is, that they have too many spare time) |
|
|
|
So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.
Have you seen this? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJNow, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.
Wow, seriously? Was there a response from the Core Devs? That seems like a big allegation too me. So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.
Has anybody actually analyzed the code or are we still talking about some comments in BitcoinXT, which are also in Bitcoin Core?
There some who already inspected the code and "may" have found out that there are some codes in there that may be harmful to the end user in case XT is favored by the majority of the bitcoin users. I am not a pro in codes, but upon reading this thread, I don't know what version of bitcoin should I choose: core or XT. I'll remain neutral until this commotion is settled, but as I see it, I doubt it will get resolved sooner. Could you maybe point me to it? All I have seen so far, was about comments, variable names, code that is never executed and code that is also in Bitcoin Core. I don't get, what is so hard, to just show the bad scenario that could happen. Somebody could just describe, which functions calls which and what the result would be in the end and someone like me, who is a programmer, but not that deep into Bitcoin Core/XT, could easily verify it for them self. Unless it is just not there and people prefer to spread FUD. |
|
|
|
|
So, I was away for 3 days and it seems like nothing has changed.
Has anybody actually analyzed the code or are we still talking about some comments in BitcoinXT, which are also in Bitcoin Core?
|
|
|
|
We always had leaders in Bitcoin. Saying something else is just romantic BS.
The current problem is: We don't agree on who our leader is.
Decentralization/consensus is a nice wet dream, but in the end it just can't work.
Say we need 90% of the mining power to make a change: That means a charismatic leader, who influences 11% of the mining network, can block every change.
That's the whole point in my humble opinion: I supposed that we did not need any of this crap since BTC was "backed by mathematics" But we have people here who want to play with mathematics. And eventually we might end up like the crappy Wall Street world: when they started to play with mathematics introducing the latest high tech finance we all know where we went. By the way, thanks to who replied: this always helps to shed some light on the matter. This whole "backed by mathematics"-business is also just romantic BS. It's obvious, that with technology like Bitcoin, which could be a real game changer, that there will be political decisions, eventually. And you just can't solve a political question with mathematics. |
|
|
|
Increasing block size is necessary thing, but XT schism is harmful for the whole bitcoin ecosystem.
This is just attempt to coup and impose their rules for btc protocol ignoring opinions of the rest of core developers.
In case if XT takes 50% of hashing power, bitcoin will be wasted. Everybody will start dumping btc until the price reaches zero.
Nonsense. If XT reaches 50% of hashing power nothing will happen because it requires at least 75% to fork. If That ever happen, expect the old chain to be abandoned quickly due to several factors. - Difficulty will stay the same but with a 75% drop in hashrate so blocks will be mined every 40 min. - The difficulty readjustment can take up to 6 weeks. - There will be huge backlog of transactions. For these reason the 25% left won't stay on that chain and a complete consensus will occur and bitcoin will just move forward as it always did. But that is only if the hypothetical 75% hashrate on XT is achieved. I also tried to focus on the economical incentive on another thread to keep on the weaker chain. I didn't get an answer(like most of the times) It seems like a lot of people think, that a successful cryptocurrency will still be mainly influenced by ideological reasons, which is absurd. |
|
|
|
|
We always had leaders in Bitcoin. Saying something else is just romantic BS.
The current problem is: We don't agree on who our leader is.
Decentralization/consensus is a nice wet dream, but in the end it just can't work.
Say we need 90% of the mining power to make a change: That means a charismatic leader, who influences 11% of the mining network, can block every change.
It's not, that everyone checks all facts and so the consensus comes to an informed decision.
The last few days showed, that even long-term member on this forum, just read head-lines and come to an conclusion without bothering to read a whole thread.
So, to take influence here, you just have to find a good headline and make a long enough OP, that somehow seems like research. Most people on here, will not really read it, but will tell everybody, that this guy made a good research.
|
|
|
|
Seems like there is even another argument, why node-count is a really bad indicator for XT-success: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3i1dra/psa_its_super_easy_to_manipulate_the_node_count_i/Besides that: Has anybody looked at https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/ recently? There are only 35.8% running the newest version of Bitcoin Core. (0.11.0) And even that is not really guaranteed, since you could easily change what is sent. My guess is, that a lot of full node provider have a customized version, but didn't bother to change this identity-string. That would also be a good indicator, why so many full nodes are not on an up-to-date-version(since merging in a customized version is more work). There could even be people who have merged BIP101 into their customized version, but didn't change the identity-string, since they are not aware, that there are people looking at that. But, how many full node provider might have be in one of this scenarios is purely speculative. |
|
|
|
Okay, obviously people do not understand this. The number of nodes that XT has is really irrelevant. Most of them were made using trial accounts (cloud solutions). Neither is a single website important.
Although it is worth noting that the manipulation was clearly shown yesterday. The number of nodes spiked to ~1250 before going down to 877 within the same day.
How was it shown? Have I missed a thread? |
|
|
|
Updated: LiteCoinGuy
Ok, that's it. You even put LiteCoinGuy on that list, but not me? That is outrageous, I am out. |
|
|
|
Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor.
First of all, I don't agree with OP. There are more choices. But, even if you make a good point, this is the worst axiom you could choose. You have to proof(or make a logical argument, if you prefer that terminology) , that there is code, that makes it hard to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. An axiom should be something, that can't be proven, not something, you are just too lazy to proof. Also attacking an axiom is nothing that is somehow forbidden(otherwise I could just take absurd axioms like "the sky is red") as a "logician" you should know that. |
|
|
|
So my question is basically .; What's going to happen exactly in case Gavin & Mike hearn fails to implent BitcoinXT , with other words in case they don't have the 75% hashing power before 11 January 2016 What are their plans exactly and why 11 January and not another date ?
If 11 January means anything , does it mean if they fail now they will try on January 2017 once again ?
You misunderstood If 75% does not reach before Jan 11 2016, it will keep continues counting the XT blocks. As long as 750 or the last 1000 blocks reach, it will fork within 2 weeks to let the minority to merge. The date is not a finish line, its a starting line. Lol ? So basically the only way to stop all the panic going on right now is to follow them ? Satoshi should think seriously on stepping up with a PGP signed message this time ... BitcoinXT wins then , nodes are increasing daily (maybe free hosting trials yeah) but they are having blocks mined aswell and there is no way to stop that  Thank you for the answer ! 3 BIP101-blocks is far from winning. There are so many things that could happen in the mean time(before Jan 2016) The next interesting event, will be when Core developers decide, which BIP they want to implement. |
|
|
|
ad 3. You are buying overpriced Bitcoin, because they are "special". Oh, yes, that is really sane
You don't need to buy a whole bitcoin, few satoshi is enough. You won't notice this purchase even if you pay 1000-fold. ad 4. What if, there are just small unknown exchanged, that work with the weaker chain? How long does it take to register there?
Ever heard of off-exchanges trades? ad 5. Selling your Bitcoin is always risky, especial if you exchange them for another cryptocurrency.
Selling your Bitcoin is always risky? Not for fiat, last year clearly showed that those who sold did a smart move. I hope you won't try to argue that keeping bitcoins during a panic is a smart move."There is no free lunch", if someone tells you otherwise, he has no idea, what he is talking about or is trying to scam you.
Agree on that. I argue, that you might miss the price increase and have to buy Bitcoin at a much higher price--> there is just a too big risk in there. Yes just keeping your Bitcoin is a much smarter move, instead of playing casino with them. Off-exchange trades don't change anything about, that you have to find such people. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
