I'm interested in how the anti-XT crowd feel about a BIP100 implementation that could very well facilitate 8MB blocks even sooner? Its pure speculation I know - I'm used to the other board in this respect  - but I suspect a lot of people went XT on the 8MB blocks issue (its the only reason I switched). If in fact XT is being 'rekt' are people overlooking the fact that there is still large support for 8MB blocks amongst those 'rekkers'. With regards short term block size increase, it may be that the only difference between BIP100 and BIP101 is that the latter requires 75% on XT (or xt-compatible) whereas the former requires 80% of miner votes to be 8MB. I wonder if the anti-XT crowd may end up being the ones that get the block size increase implemented even sooner! That would be ironic  Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority": 5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority. http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.htmlAs quoted above, it is pretty unlikely miners would arrive at a 8MB vote in any near future as some are outright opposed to it. So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions! |
|
|
|
It's not fully over yet. The big spam attack still has to happen in september, it may cause panic again and get some random newbies that are clueless supporting XT or BIP101. Only after the spam attacks are over we will be able to say the hijacking attempt is over and buried, until then lets keep our eyes open.
It is over. A majority of the mining network is now backing BIP100 and a certain significant portion are outright against 8MB increase. |
|
|
|
Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status Why do so many people paint this situation as "XT vs the status quo?" That's part of the problem. There are other solutions than BIP 101 (let alone XT), so what's with this perpetual misinformed characterization? BIP 100 came before BIP 101, ya know.... The question is: Why change at all when it works? The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet Have you tried to make a transactions during that stress test? Mines got back logged 1-2h before getting a confirmation with standard fee. Increasing the fees doesn't adds up capacity btw. No, but in the event of a spam attack increasing your fee enough to be well above the attackers' transactions your relieve you of any problem. |
|
|
|
Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.
They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.
There is now a recurring theme of cripplecoiners just reusing arguments levelled against them. What you wrote is pretty much exactly what has been said about those who would block development in the area of block size increase (the dictators) and those on the forums who tirelessly post anti XT rhetoric to try and convince everyone that Mike and Gavin are the enemy. Then hilariously you suggest they should be allowed release code that stands on its own. Which is exactly what has been said about lightning. Cut and paste designed to muddy the waters. You are a relentless poster, unnaturally so IMHO. So tell me is this propaganda? "XT has already lost" Yes. Trolls on reddit did confuse careful considerations of block increase as somehow dictatorial and ill-advised "blocking" of such development. Reddit is kind of retarded in its own right... what else is new? Surely an educated person like you could not possibly observe the events unfolding and judge that to be true? Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did. Yes, XT has already lost: "We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov
|
|
|
|
Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.
They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.
Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin. Sure. Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money. It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds. Are you seriously trying to beat turtlehuricane for his champion position? You're doing a good job so far. Except you missed one key part: while you're repeating like a parrot, you need to keep reflect any counter points by telling them to look in the code. Its hundreds thousands lines of code. Pretend like you're actually a kickass coder and you read the code yourself. Seriously, you will make all these "shills" so focusing in on what line of codes they're supposed to look at, while the noobs would just take your statement as facts. Thats the only way you can go for 2x pages until everyone agrees you're just a waste of bandwidth.  Sorry I have fed enough trolls for today. Ignored. |
|
|
|
Has it not been made clear enough that they stand to lose absolutely nothing by increasing the block size?
There are days that Adam on twitter is saying that if blocks need to be bigger it needs to be done as slow as possible to give space to the develop of the lightning network technology (so paying his salary)  https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633157354515664896@joe_ekine a sensible & safe proposal. my money's on flexcap or pragmatic 2MB step then 4, 8MB over 4 years to have space for lightning r&d Well obviously you can try to spin Adam's word to support your own agenda here but what he says is clearly : let's increase block size so that we have room before Lightning is ready. So essentially he supports block size increase... I'm sorry your point was? |
|
|
|
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?  Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand: A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place I disagree. What I see is demand building for bigger blocks, Gavin and Mike providing a solution, and people moving towards that solution. This is the free market at work. If we had several more competing implementations this "consensus process" would be more efficient. #2. The only talking point the small block side has left is "big blocks = centralization" (which I disagree with but can't prove it). What I find ironic is that they simultaneously fight hard to keep centralization in the most heavily centralized aspect of Bitcoin: development! If we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized then we've already lost. Let's increase the block size and decrease centralization by showing our support for a wider variety of Bitcoin implementations! 1. The very fact that practically no one is actually moving towards that solution should tell you all you need to know about the morality and quality of it. A very bad solution is not much better than no solution at all. Especially as it creates dissent and enormous loss of productive time within the developer community. 2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"? The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus. |
|
|
|
Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.
They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.
Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin. Sure. Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money. It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds. |
|
|
|
A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives
From the other part of view we have a group of people that want to hijacking the consensus by forcing users/market on going only on something new and untested (as lightening networks) and it is behind financial motives. I wonder who that would be Are you trolls not tired of resorting to the ol' Blockstream boggeyman to justify your arguments? Has it not been made clear enough that they stand to lose absolutely nothing by increasing the block size? I know disingenuity is par for the course for XT supporters but don't you have anything better than conjecture and ignorance to back up your position? |
|
|
|
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand: A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives It IS a proposition. No one is being forced into it. Are you? Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor. They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign. |
|
|
|
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand: A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place |
|
|
|
Care to back up the "sheer incompetence" statement with facts? Or do you usually like to pull stuff out of your ass? Bitcoin XT being DOA is proof enough of their incompetence. Misleading? Again pulling statements our of your ass because in my view a "misleading" move would be to say that they blocks will grow to 8MB, but instead they grow to 100MB. That is misleading! But good thing that we have the open source and that everyone can check on the code so the misleading statement is impossible! Misleading is creating false urgency and engineering spam attacks in the background. Dangerous? Who are you to decide what's the best interest of other people?
Dangerous : Bitcoin XT https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj |
|
|
|
I can actually tell you right now  Fees will be raised ! Yes, I'm sure about this. And then you will hear users screaming around because they are paying up to 1$ or more (some thinks that it's ok to pay 20$) to get confirmations. For some, the confirmation will arrive after hours or days. What do you think that will happen after this? Do you think that users will continue to use Bitcoin or just one of the other 500 alternatives? (and there are some that are pointing to take the place of Bitcoin) Less users = higher price? I think NOT Some of you have no clue about all of this (or are in bad faith, maybe you just own other coins ...) Where did you get the impression that transactions was all the rage in Bitcoin? An important majority of coins are actually sitting pretty in cold storage/paper wallets some untouched for several years already. We're a long way from 1$ fees anyway. Do you think that more users = necessarily higher price? Maybe, just maybe you're not thinking this through properly? |
|
|
|
Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan
Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin. I'm with you on that! |
|
|
|
Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?
1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support. 2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1. The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing. If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free. This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them. |
|
|
|
The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".
We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached ... I hope that this will happen soon.
I can actually tell you right now Fees will be raised ! |
|
|
|
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going. Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary. Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system. This hypothetical, highly experimental not yet delivered solution gives nothing to removes uncertainties. There is absolutely a balance to find between technical uncertainties and market uncertainties. The last one being neglected up to date. Offchain solutions exist now. I believe transactions between Coinbase users for example are not recorded on the blockchain. Do we need improvement on that front? Absolutely. Is it coming? You bet is! |
|
|
|
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going. Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary. Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system. |
|
|
|
The interesting thing is that the only pool that originally support BIP101 (slush pool) dropped their support code in the block and now no one is supporting BIP 101 anymore. BTCchina pool, once support BIP 100, also dropped their code and back to core
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
Interestingly the big payment processors made a firm stance for BIP101, even gave a deadline date, and are still on that position. They have a lot of weight as they are the one giving the coins themselves the most value. We'll see how it goes. That's absolutely false. Bitcoin holders are the one giving Bitcoin value. Payment processor are selling Bitcoin for fiat everyday, if anything they are depreciating Bitcoin's value. |
|
|
|
As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such. But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud. As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example: Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch. However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains Also you are clearly wrong about the blockstream guys too with this quote: (Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable. As Napoleon would say...) They do understand bitcoin more than you will ever do, but the difference between them and Gavin is that they want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin. Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
