Seek help. I am feeling increasingly sorry for you people, doing this must be no fun at all. How you got roped in, I do not know, but you all have my sympathies.
Ditto....my eyes are bleeding from reading the drivel in this thread. What was that you said about engaging people who are happy to present willfully dishonest arguments? I think I've lost the energy to fight the good fight.... I know, you're right. I just couldn't stand by and watch the people of this forum inflicted with blanket condemnation from these characters as a part of their arguments. I've been very pleased to see you marky, as well as others, taking the shills on, you've done a better job than I could have wished for. I'm tired of this too, but I think we've won an important victory. XT and BIP100 have been discredited, no-one except the corporations are interested in either, and they have a combined hashrate of zero. Even despite the fact we could have been arguing with troll-bots the whole time  (no wonder they're more relentless than the Seventh Day Adventists  ) And probably only a meager amount of BTC. Because that's what the lunatic in this thread doesn't seem to realize. Fiat interests have no control over the Bitcoin world. That's the whole point of the thing. It doesn't matter if these corporations have billions of dollars behind them unless they become investors in Bitcoin and have a BTC balance to back up their claims. Exact. When I'm talking about the industry I'm talking about the bitcoin industry, those who have put money building infrastructures on top of bitcoin. Those who have big stack in that matter. Not those who are in control of fiat that have indeed no influence of what can happen in the bitcoin world.  You are one dense person The "bitcoin industry" and their "infrastructure" other than the miners have little influence over these decisions. Now the exchanges might have some pull but wallet services or payment processor opinions really have no "weight" unless they have Bitcoin themselves to support it. You don't get special status for being "in the industry". The "big pockets" you refer to are nothing but fiat interests with absolutely abysmal leverage over what will happen in the Bitcoin economy. It should be evident by now that these companies "reflections" on the issue have not moved the economic consensus balance by an inch. They got behind an half-baked solution that grows irrelevant by the day. Stop being obtuse and accept the situation for what it is: You and your handlers have lost and we, the Bitcoiners, were not fooled. |
|
|
|
I'm really neutral in which way I want the market to go. I'm still over 90% long, but I want the cripplecoiners to get the message that coins on a throttled network are not as valuable.
Retail is not buying in.
Why are you so excited about scaling transactions for retail demand that doesn't exist? |
|
|
|
Seek help. I am feeling increasingly sorry for you people, doing this must be no fun at all. How you got roped in, I do not know, but you all have my sympathies.
Ditto....my eyes are bleeding from reading the drivel in this thread. What was that you said about engaging people who are happy to present willfully dishonest arguments? I think I've lost the energy to fight the good fight.... I know, you're right. I just couldn't stand by and watch the people of this forum inflicted with blanket condemnation from these characters as a part of their arguments. I've been very pleased to see you marky, as well as others, taking the shills on, you've done a better job than I could have wished for. I'm tired of this too, but I think we've won an important victory. XT and BIP100 have been discredited, no-one except the corporations are interested in either, and they have a combined hashrate of zero. Even despite the fact we could have been arguing with troll-bots the whole time (no wonder they're more relentless than the Seventh Day Adventists ) And probably only a meager amount of BTC. Because that's what the lunatic in this thread doesn't seem to realize. Fiat interests have no control over the Bitcoin world. That's the whole point of the thing. It doesn't matter if these corporations have billions of dollars behind them unless they become investors in Bitcoin and have a BTC balance to back up their claims. |
|
|
|
Because a year ago, the average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.
Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again? Because of precisely what I said in the OP. Greg wants us to literally run out space before doing anything. He and the other core devs don't want to act. And Gavin doesn't agree. Nor does Mike, Jeff, a handful of major companies, and an increasing majority of miners. I am 90% certain XT will end up being just another altcoin. Have fun supporting it. Hey, I like a lot of altcoins. Nothing wrong with that. But pretending it will replace bitcoin anytime in the next 3 years is fanciful thinking. I've never held an alt where I thought that would be the case. Gavin should have at least had the courtesy to come up with his own name instead of riding bitcoin's coat tails. Well I'm 90% sure you're wrong and misinformed. You are misinformed.
XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.
The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.
Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin. That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized. The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.
If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.
Why are we still talking about XT like it actually has a chance? Number of (fake) nodes already going down. Absolutely no support from miners... Face it, it was dead on arrival. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't need governance: Bitcoin is governance.
PS: Ph0rk you Gavin!
Lessons in propaganda: teaching the controversy. "This is not about the block size but really about Bitcoin governance. It doesn't suit populist interests and we should change it!" |
|
|
|
The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands. They clearly have only their own pockets in mind. Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ? These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors. Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus. This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence. Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks. yea, our money. not them parasites VCs straight from the printers BS money. decentralized consensus: not gonna happen. You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later. Bitcoin is not more your money than their money. How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality? BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin. It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves. |
|
|
|
The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands. They clearly have only their own pockets in mind. Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ? These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors. Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus. This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence. |
|
|
|
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free? One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money. Paying the market price for a scarce unit is not censorship. You wanna make it free we get it but that's just not possible. "Trade offs" Maybe we stop wasting everyone's time and you recognize increasing the block size is not how Bitcoin is going to scale. Behaving like an imbecile arguing to ignorance has certain limits. You are crossing them. Bitcoin is about censorship free money. For everything else there's Mastercard. |
|
|
|
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?
The block size limit. What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?
You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would. Of course you are not actually addressing any of my questions. How do you describe his inaction? Can you provide a detailed outlook of his work in the last 3 months? Have you been reading bitcoin-wizards, the dev list or the entirety of his posts on reddit?  Everyone sees through you. You're a sham Talk is cheap. Blocks are still at 1 mb. 400kb actually |
|
|
|
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?
The block size limit. What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?
You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would. Of course you are not actually addressing any of my questions. How do you describe his inaction? Can you provide a detailed outlook of his work in the last 3 months? Have you been reading bitcoin-wizards, the dev list or the entirety of his posts on reddit? Everyone sees through you. You're a sham |
|
|
|
Regardless of the conflict of interest, just looking at Greg's arguments at face value,
they don't strike me as compelling.
Can you explain the backlog comment? It's context and what it entails? You're quoting a couple of lines out of a dozen paragraphs and expect us to take and judge these comments at face value? |
|
|
|
You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.
1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.
2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.
Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?
Maybe you are right but their inaction speaks louder than any argument they could make at the moment. It's up to them to prove they don't have ill intention even if they are in such position. So far so good they have done nothing to prove it. Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly? What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!? You're a clown. |
|
|
|
These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?
It's a wonder they don't accuse Satoshi of authoritarianism for not having people vote for what should've gotten into Bitcoin. "DEVELOPER CENTRALIZATIONSS!!!!" |
|
|
|
How is it determining which nodes are XT and the total nodes? Can we independently verify?
What is the definition of a node in total nodes? The number seems a bit low.
What would it take to launch 1,000 nodes if one wanted to skew the numbers?
https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes are easily spoofed, their numbers shouldn't tell you much |
|
|
|
Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.
I think Linux has managed quite well with huge number of contributors (thousands?). Linus has been it's benevolent dictator from the day one (although he has been delegating his work to trusted "leutenants" more and more). It seems that large software projects need to have clear hierarchy in order to move things forward (someone has to have the final say on what patches get accepted). Obiviously some people will sometimes disagree in direction taken and it will result in a fork. But the impression I get from Core is that it has no direction (no one has the final say in what should be done), just bunch of devs with different ideas on what should be done. Bitcoin development is quite unlike any other open source software. You are not the first one to bring up the Linux parallel. Unfortunately it doesn't apply. |
|
|
|
Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.
BIP101 disincentives full nodes also. How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less) Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.
I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. All that is sent to the miners is the hash or the cryptographic problem that must be solved. This can be done across a 56K dial up connection, even if we had 8gig blocks, It would make no difference for the miners whatsoever. Since the pools can be setup in data centers with high bandwidth connections and favorable block propagation. Miners are free to point their mining power to whatever pool they want. The pools in this way function similarly to a Representative democracy. Since a free market of pools can exist and the miners would never be incentivized to allow one pool to grow so big that it would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin. This is why I think that increasing the block size would not lead to increased mining centralization. I have written about this in more detail here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0History shows this simply isn't true. |
|
|
|
One way to compromise would be if Core would review BIP 101 again or if that's not possible, agree to simply bump blocksize limit to 8 MB and make further adjustments possible by soft fork.
I'm pretty sure that in such case XT would lose it's following and all businesses that now support BIP 101 would be happy with Core. Most Bitcoin XT/BIP 101 supporters simply want a blocksize limit increase that gives bitcoin enough room to grow and currently XT is the only client that offers it.
XT has virtually no support anyway, most of the BIP101/XT supporters are using such transparently dishonest argumentative tactics (every classic is on display) that it's unlikely that they're just everyday users. And what is this obsession with 8MB, or any static limit? The people who are so attached to such arbitrary numbers are those that need to review the design, not the developers who understand the issues in more depth than most others. Gavin & Mike settled on it because it's a chinese lucky number for "prosperity". True story! |
|
|
|
The most concerning outcome would be large miners staying in the industry only to maintain control of the hashrate.
That doesn't sound half wrong to me. That's the Silicon Valley motto no? "Lose money, gain users!"  I find it incredibly unconvincing that Google, for instance, have ever turned a profit. They've amassed alot of useful information though. I foresee a similar future for Gavincoin service providers! |
|
|
|
What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison. We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution. "Bitcoin is a social contract" "Consensus is a form of democracy" Have we officially gone full retard? Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya? So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6ENo, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be. Bitcoin says no. |
|
|
|
Semantic quibbling aside, let's address what alani clearly meant:
Why would anyone want to force the blocksize limit expanding at pre-set dates. Now, give a sensible reply to what was intended. Let's start simple. Can you give a rational argument against immediately raising the block size cap to 8MB? In short, an 8Mb block limit could: - Have devastating effects on the fee market
Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead. - Bring nodes offline and make pools/miners less reliable
Mining basically becomes less and less economically viable over time under BIP101. Mining would need subsidising somehow, and so only those that can afford to do that will mine (i.e. losing money). The most concerning outcome would be large miners staying in the industry only to maintain control of the hashrate. That doesn't sound half wrong to me. That's the Silicon Valley motto no? "Lose money, gain users!" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
