http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlhoax? real? you decide bitcoin-dev Bitcoin XT Fork
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
|
|
|
|
hoax? real? you decide Bitcoin XT Fork
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto |
|
|
|
found this and thought it was funny:  |
|
|
|
That's some funny shit! ROFL!  |
|
|
|
Hang on, do we actually have two competing chains right now? Or is this just a heads up that there is going to be a fork in the future?
AFAIK there is no fork yet. The fork will come when the conditions of "consensus" are reached to create a > 1 MB block while the core clients create blocks 1 MB or less...that is when the fork starts. |
|
|
|
This means nothing until a hard fork happens and we are still lightyears away from the nodes needed for the hard fork to actually occur, so Bitcoin is still the same.
How are you justifying your time claim "lightyears" away? Do you always wait until your bank account hits $0 or EUR or whatever before getting a job to pay your bills? It's called being proactive. |
|
|
|
you can't bait and switch me with xt. try and trick me to use a client because you are currently using my blockchain then switch to your own blockchain and expect to keep me using the client. anything that is scheduled to become an altcoin in the future is already an altcoin. xt is not bitcoin.
using your logic then that means the current bitcoin (core) is an altcoin as it is vastly different than the original bitcoin satoshi released in 2009.  Logic fail. LOL! Therefore Bitcoin core is not Bitcoin right? |
|
|
|
... Those of us who are not programmers or otherwise professionals re BTC can get a reasonably good overview of the debate re block size and related topics here (new piece by Mike Hearn): https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1I cannot confirm how valid the piece is, but non-tekkies ought to at least have an option of reading commentary like this which is in more-or-less plain English. Note that Hearn himself wrote in the email to the mailing list that this is not supposed to be neutral. So you have to see it as one side of the discussion (i. e., his opinion). I actually don't hear many good arguments as to why the block size should not increase and why a select few have decided to remain static for as long as possible in a supposedly ground breaking and growing technology. |
|
|
|
the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT. Classic controlled demolition.
Excellent (and blessedly succinct) argument by analogy. "Hostile/malicious fork" descriptive power just doesn't have the same je ne sais quoi as "controlled demolition." Does not convince many. Not here and not there. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.60Bitcoin is explicitly non-democratic. Populism has no power here. Yes, the populism of the 1MBers has no power, neither in the threads of the elite nor anywhere else. That's why the limit will be raised within the next 12 month. The "populism of the 1MBers" is not your concern. Your concern is the multi-year duration and multi-billion-dollar magnitude of Bitcoin's current economic majority. Are you going to be the first brave fellow to defect from that imposing majority by accepting Gavin-tainted XTcoins? No? Then you are just a poser. In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process. Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers? Before you answer, please take into account that nodes by default prioritize tx moving older coins, and the Royalty of La Serenissima possesses, in great quantities, very old coins. What will you do when the limit isn't raised within the next 12 months? Continue to cry wolf? Self harm? Or admit being wrong?  You know iCE, I also am concerned by the idea of a hostile fork, but reading your propaganda it just dawned on me that the only hostilities are coming from people like you. Everyone of any worth agrees we need to increase the block size, it's just there is a hostile minority who feel they are in power who are wanting to pick a fight. Accommodating bigger blocks over a 12 month period given Bitcoin's exponential growth is not a hostile act, it's not rushing in a controversial change, it's a practical prudent approach. You are part of the minority who are making it controversial and calling it hostile. I just don't see why you're opposed to letting Bitcoin grow free of manipulation and control. Well said, Adrian. Ice seems to have some issues with change (i guess). |
|
|
|
No matter if Windows 10 is spyware or not, I don't think Microsoft has an incentive to steal an user's wallet but once when you're storing the wallet in the cloud unencrypted by your own, an employee could snatch the private key without you having any proof.
Since Windows 8, a paradigm change was introduced in a subtle way which is more than just spying around. It's the fact that Windows 8 and Windows 10 imports the well-accepted "app" concept for smartphones to the desktop, which includes mandatory phone-home and enforced signatures (it means: not being able to install arbitrary (unsigned) programs called "apps").
Despite the ability to turn off enforced signatures for apps in Windows 10 for now (it's called "developer mode"), Microsoft could take the next step soon, trying to apply the enforced signature concept to classic programs once it's widely accepted as well on desktop PCs.
Once when 99% of the users doesn't want to being able to run unsigned software, Microsoft could do the final step in removing the opt-out option for enforced signatures without having to deal with complaints, requiring you to jailbreak your own desktop PC in order to run unapproved software.
This concept could be enforced even on Linux if the future hardware components are forcing you to use TPM (Trusted Computing Module) - hopefully this will never happen.
This ^ times 21,000,000 Any data collected by Windows 10 and sent to MS servers can be filtered to find private keys that are typed in or passwords to wallets (online or not). MS employee does a data analysis and takes the data the matches what they are looking for and can steal a users bitcoins or other crypto coins. |
|
|
|
i am glad that i am using raspberry pi to type this post.
the nearby is my really old PC, but they are so much better than upgrading the windows 10.
This is ridiculous, Windows is not storing logs and logs of forum post in a database somewhere, it just wouldn't make sense. They are looking for keywords for ads like google does when you use their browsers. There is far too much paranoia that you are using a slow arm pc instead of a standard computer. All a sys admin at microsoft needs to do is cherry pick the data collected from their enormous user base to find bitcoin (crypto) related passwords. Steal coins and there is 0 recourse for the owner of the coins (well, the original owner ) |
|
|
|
I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.
this is true. between now and when this whole block size issue is resolved...there will be a ton of volatility. |
|
|
|
Here are a few gems I found: Why do you guys even think bitcoin will recover?
The media destroyed it, bubble pops, everybody is looking for the new virtual currency that 'solves the many problems with bitcoin', and ripple and litecoin are often named (not that that makes any sense...).
It doesn't matter what a small community like ours wants or thinks, media declared bitcoin pretty much dead, i expect to see single digits soon.
I was very optimistic long-term too, but i think the confidence is too damaged now because of the media hype and panic sells.
Honestly i hope i'm completely wrong about it...!
and Well we're in a huge bubble now, expect to see single digits within a few weeks.
Now, can we move this topic to speculation?
|
|
|
|
...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure.  You are a master at decorating a plot with arbitrary fluff as though it means something. I still LOL at the color one you did and how you 'updated' it. It still blows my mind that there were so many mouth-breathers panicing because 'we are so close to the red'. In this plot, the trends are mildly non-linear _against_ the point you are trying (probably successfully) to make. And there was no particular block size pressure at the arbitrary point where you choose to point the arrow. Let me propose a different read. I currently own way more BTC than I would buy if I were taking a position at this point in time. They are left over from when the price was lower and there is a fair amount of risk and cost in balancing so I sit tight. If I needed a place to sink a windfall in cash, it would certainly be favorably distributed toward PM's and that is much more the case because you guys are trying to destroy Bitcoin in the way that it is valuable to me. Unclear if you will succeed, but it's a very large risk point. Anyway, I'll bet that there are many many other people in my situation. We can expect the trend to continue until a balance between Bitcoin's fairly high inflation rate and the desire to hodl Bitcoin match. Of course all manner of factors can shift the 'propensity to hodl' so it is not going to be some sort of stable point for a long long time and maybe never. If you Bloatchainers were designing aircraft, the 747 would have 1/2 inch cable attached directly from the pilot's yoke to the elevator just like the ultralight were such a thing works quite well. The idea of a trim-tab would never have been thought of. Nor would the aircraft be able to be controlled. I think that about the only bloatcoiner smart enough to see this clearly is Mike Hearn, and that is exactly why he has put in the effort to make XT. Classic controlled demolition. Sounds like a bearish bitcoin post. Am I right? |
|
|
|
|
Any updates on this recently?
|
|
|
|
Opinion != act let alone drama queen act. Oh noes IceBaby gonna make memes ...lol Go right ahead see if I give a shit. |
|
|
|
I have 100 bitcoins on my XT client. I will sell them for $50 each. But I guess since its just a altcoin nobody here would be interested?
Get real. $25 for the lot and I'll take them off your hands. Assuming this is a real offer and they are using the current stable xt client I would buy them all. |
|
|
|
I have 100 bitcoins on my XT client. I will sell them for $50 each. But I guess since its just a altcoin nobody here would be interested?
Really? Pretty sure there has been no fork yet. |
|
|
|
Until the 'C' word is reached, there's no change. I wonder if you call 75% of miners a consensus. Because it's not, it's ridiculous. You should be thankful we didn't need a hard fork to introduce the 1MB cap in the first place, otherwise there's a possibility it might still be 32MB (or was it 33.5MB?). I suppose you think Bitcoin would have broken and died by now if the 1MB cap hadn't happened? There's a high probability it can possibly go wrong with this approach, I simply detest it. You can detest it all you like, but if you use Bitcoin, this is what you're signing up for. Bitcoin can fork at any time for any reason if enough users want it to. If you can't handle that, there are plenty of closed-source projects that might suit you better. You have a vote if you choose to use it, but that's all. Either go with the flow or go somewhere else. It's up to you. Imagine if I came up with a new IP protocol (for argument's sake we'll call it IPvXT ) that added support for new features for the internet but only if the majority of the internet used it. Until then it remains fully compatible with the current IPv4 or IPv6 implementations and you argued that using it means you aren't using the internet anymore. You're using an altnet. It just sounds farcical. The analogy is flawed, because internet is not a consensus-critical network. There can be any number of protocols in use, e.g. IPv4 and IPv6 currently. Internet is not defined by a single universal protocol, Bitcoin is. I never said it was a good analogy, it's not like there's anything else I can really compare Bitcoin to, is there? Still doesn't make it an altcoin, though. If XT deviates from Bitcoin's blockchain without consensus then I'll be right there with you dismissing it as an altcoin, but until then you either sound like you're calling it an altcoin out of ignorance or malice. I honestly can't decide which it is. Oh ok, so I'm either ignorant or malicious. The possibility of yourself being wrong is not even considered, I guess. I'm not one of those people who are too stubborn to admit when they're wrong (as per my previous post). If you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll concede. It's not my fault you're doing a really bad job of convincing me. Not. An. Altcoin. Omg the last paragraph made me laugh ahaha! Oh the free entertainment from the Bitcoin community. Priceless! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
