I don't know why there still so much war against XT.
XT is a falied project from beginning, even the minted blocks almost have no more BIP101 acceptance, the XT fork will never happen.
No, Hearn is a dictator and says you must run XT. BIP101 will be introduced as a new law in Congress in 2016, applying globally. Yes, even places like Antartica and the Moon. PS. I also heard Hearn's behind fluoridation. LOL Y U SO MAD BRO? Is it because XT was a failed project from the beginning?  |
|
|
|
As it appears that XT is inevitable it would be nice get a better understanding of the migration path to XT or effects of staying firm with the core... anyone care to make some rough projections?
XT is being run by a few hobbyists who dream of a State-sanctioned utopian PanoptiCoin, free transactions and ice-cream forever ... it will always be niche belief system but not accepted by the mainstream. Throwing around insults to get people to listen to you - how's that been working so far? MoA is stating facts, not "throwing around insults." He has put his finger precisely on the crux of the matter. And (TYVM for asking) so far that's been working great!  In Hearn's (google.mil inspired) vision, Bitcoin PanoptiCoin is free to use because we consumers are the product. Just like GMail, GMaps, GSearch, etc. But Bitcoin was born as a rejection of the Fiat Empire's ' We Want Your Soul' paradigm. That's why the cypherpunk preference is for cheap nodes + expensive tx, while the corporatists/statists prefer expensive nodes + cheap tx. |
|
|
|
Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.
The only pool producing XT blocks is apparently doing exactly that - just marking them as "XT version" and no more. See slush's comments about his pool. But more importantly, no pool in their right mind would be running the XT code yet. The XT code has been severely lacking in testing compared to normal Core code changes. Fair enough. No pool in mid-January 2016 will be marking XT blocks but not actually running BIP 101 compatible blocksize code. As a troll I admire how, upon being proven completely wrong at present, you unhesitatingly and unflinchingly move the goalposts from ~now to Jan '16.  Given the utter failure of XT/101, do you still think anyone will GAS about them 3 months from now? I said I'd be a good loser if XT won. Are you going to likewise be a good sport now that XT/101 has been #R3KT and tossed into the rubbish tip of history? Knock it off with the FUD. ~9 exchanges/merchants signed on for BIP101 support and some miners who have been DDoSed supported BIP101 as well, namely Slush and P2P. You know very well that big blocks are far from being decided.
I think that the next interesting advancement is whether or not merchants want BIP101 vs BIP100 or if they just want consensus & big blocks and don't care how it happens.
ZOMG STOP THE PRESSES - MBA FRAT BOY VCS LIKE MONEY AND WILL SAY WHATEVER THEY THINK WILL GET THEM MORE!!!11!1! So much for my hope you would not be a sore loser.  Nobody Cares ® that Hearn's Gang of Nine made supportive noises about 101. It's not like they're going to accept XTcoins! Fuck Circle, Goldman, and all the rest of those wannabe gatekeepers. They and the rest of you Gavinistas are going to have to deal with the fact the socioeconomic majority favors BIP100, which is functionally a vote for Don't-Do-Anything-Anytime-Soon TM. Your sense of false urgency had a shelf life of Two Weeks. Too bad the Stress Tests backfired by conclusively demonstrating Bitcoin will function as it was designed to, that is with an ambient backlog due to cosmic background spam, regulated by fee markets.  |
|
|
|
So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's Satoshi's or Mike's?
FixtItForU  |
|
|
|
The voting implantation was so laughably simplistic that the attack practically suggested itself. If that is the design quality of XT under Hearn's benevolent dictatorship, heaven state sponsored judicial system help you guys.
The BIP66 voting was inept too. It was the ineptitude of the Core devs, not dishonest miners, that caused the two "forks of July" (6-block and 3-block long, respectively) and required broadcasting to all clients the embarrassing alert "everybody had better wait for 30 confirmations for a while". The BIP100 voting scheme is a joke. I think that blcokchain voting in general is a stupid idea, but the 75% of the BIP101 voting is not bad. Any brat can set up NotXT nodes to falsify the node statistics; miners, however, will not want to play games with their revenue. If they are against BIP101, their interest is to vote against it, to prevent the 75% trigger to happen. Why would they want to trigger a messy fork and then have it collapse? That is the sort of puerile "cut the nose to spite the face" reprisal that only a Blockstream worker would find amusing... If Adam had never been born I would have fought hard against a hostile takeover and especially one instigated by Mike Hearn.
If Adam had not been born, BitcoinCore would probably have lifted the block size limit years ago... Absent Adam Backamoto there would be no HashCash, and thus no Bitcoin. It's not like some 3rd rate CS prof at a 3rd rate school in a Turd World country would ever invent the former, much less the latter. Sounds like a certain underpaid public employee is a little jealous of Dr. Back's myriad world-changing accomplishments and fat private-sector paycheck.  Pools will "play games" to increase their hashpower/revenue. EG Slush, in order to shore up its falling user base, used the XT/101 drama to offer defectors the chance to make their (tiny, insignificant) voices heard. Slush wasn't actually running XT/101, he just spoofed the version string to stroke the high-maintenance egos of the Gavinista insurgents. |
|
|
|
 Cartoons and graphics sometimes say more than thousand words. Today I found the truth table in the cyberspace.  How's that "truth" of community support for BIP101 working out for you? Oh wait, not a single BIP101 block was ever mined. After the tremendous noise/drama/chaos over XT, all Team Gavin got were some spoofed blocks (and cartoons). Meanwhile most of the hashing power supports the unfinished BIP100 as a giant FUCK YOU to BIP101. |
|
|
|
It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling. For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are. Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself.
Last I heard, Todd has nothing to do with Blockstream other than he throws rocks at them as is his nature. Philosophically, I like his treechains idea better but I see it as at best impractical and maybe impossible. As I see it, what I had in 2011 called 'subordinate chains' have a wide and diverse set of advantages. You've quasi-listed a few. As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care, It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain.
One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team. Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints.
According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it. I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin.
As I see it, the 'chain' part of 'sidechains' would be a bit of a misnomer. I'd imagine all sidecoins to have a chain to use as an interface layer but not necessarily as a back-end. I would hope that it is close to true to say that there is not much which 'cannot' be a sidecoin. I've argued (sort of) to Adam that a token back-end makes more sense for a lot of use-cases than a '(now)classic' chain-based system. Of course I'm limited in what I can 'teach' Dr. Back about...well...almost anything. As for Blockstream's 'design, implementation, and management', I've seen nothing which indicates that it will differ from any other open-source project and nothing to be threatened by (unless you have a burning need to feel threatened of course.) If that changes, so will my stance toward Blockstream. And, I expect, so will many of those who are currently organized under that tent. Blockstream either said straight-out or I inferred that that intend to produce an open-source reference implementation for sidechains. In that case, anyone could pick up the ball and run with it. As for LN, I have not followed it that closely. My impression is that it is subtly different from how I envision sidechains, but very interesting technology which will be valuable to develop and experiment with if nothing else.
The LN is very different from sidechains. It executed payments by means of "bitcoin IOUs" that are guaranteed by actual bitcoins that were locked by users for a predetermined time. While sidechains are too unconstrained, the LN is too constrained. From all that I know, it has some formidable practical problems, like requiring that users lock in advance all the bitcoins that they intend to spend for the next 6 months into bank-like entities. I have asked about these problems directly to Adam Back, Luke Jr, and a few other developers, including Joseph Poon, one of the LN inventors. The dialogue always ends at that point. The thing about LN that really impressed me was the 'slack'. Once in a while I pull the keys out of my pocket and a quarter comes with them and falls in a gutter. That does not stop me from using coins and having pocket change. From an engineering perspective there is a huge amount to be gained by having a little room for error. That the designers were cognizant of this impressed me...although it is rather obvious to anyone who has done systems work. I'll not speak for the LN developers, but as a general design goal a fraud-proofing perspective, the most critical thing is to not allow an operator to profit from fraud. This will almost completely evaporate many forms of fraud from even being attempted. A distant second priority would be how long it takes me to get my value back in the event of a failure (which I would expect to be an uncommon event and one I may never see.) Well, right now, if they control Blockstream, they control the future of Bitcoin...
Considering that most of the Bitcoin 'core developers' who are worth a shit are involved, that would be true with or without the Blockstream umbrella. The fact that sidechains and Blockstream has you (Stolfi) running scared is one of the best indicators yet that the may live up to the hopes I have for them. So you don't mind having the bitcoin network literally owned by one company, which intends to make it unusable for its original purpose and to reuse it as an internal component of their nonsensical project... It makes me very hopeful that bitcoin will collapse -- not under external attacks, as bitcoiners always feared, but from the greed and mistakes of its defenders. It will be fun to watch... Blatant and bogus propaganda on several levels: - Open source means that they not only welcome competition but foster it. So down goes the 'one company' BS. Blockstream only need to do it better, and that is highly likely given the makeup of the entity. - Nothing about sidechains in any way detracts from the ability for individuals to use native Bitcoin except perhaps that they won't be subsidized and will thus have to pay transaction fees proportional to the cost of operating a secure system. - Given the level of talent who were induced to work on this project, you should think a little bit about who looks like a clown when you label it as 'nonsensical'. I do sense that you are deeply hopeful that Bitcoin will collapse. Again, I suspect that this is why Blockstream and sidechains bothers you so much. Blockchains are the new hotness in compsci and fintech. That a compsci professor still views them with skepticism at this point (five years on) indicates Stolfi is either letting his political objections color his technical analysis, or he's just too proud to admit being wrong and upset he didn't buy in earlier. Or he's an idiot of the 'those who can't do X, teach X' variety. Stolfi's (now infamous) "I think XT will win" opinion indicates he is spectacularly unreliable as a source of valid predictions (despite his ostensible qualifications). That's a shame, because the community can always use insightful critics to keep our groupthink in check. Unfortunately, Stolfi has now demonstrated his positions originate from technical incompetence and/or bad faith. |
|
|
|
Core 0.11.0 has flattened moar and before. Perhaps because they are implementing customized core + BIP101.
LOL, there is zero chance of BIP101 being implemented in Core. You are so gullible that you lived for weeks in a fantasy world where BIP101/XT are viable options with significant socioeconomic support. How does it feel to see your precious illusions turn to ash in the light of reality? Did you learn anything? |
|
|
|
To be sure, Mike's patch had logic along the lines of:
1> Get list of Tor exit nodes from trusted third-party.
2> Running out of nodes. Must be DDoS. I bet Tor is behind it. So, I'll just "lower the priority" of Tor, effectively refusing Tor connections until this DDoS stops.
Besides the obvious trust issue in #1, #2 has these issues:
- Effectively bans Tor connections even if Tor is not the source of the DDoS.
- Even if Tor was the source, even Mike admitted it will prevent innocent Tor users from reaching the nodes.
Add to this the many reasons stated on bitcoin-dev why DDoS are far more likely to come from non-Tor sources, and this unduly punishes Tor users (and Bitcoin) with virtually no benefit to the nodes or Bitcoin.
In fact, with this in place on a majority of Nodes, anyone could cripple Tor users by launching a DDoS attack on the Bitcoin nodes without even using Tor to launch the attack!
Either Mike is incredibly lacking in intelligence, or he wants to intentionally cripple Tor. Given his redlists proposal and his propensity for proposing introducing centralized trust to Bitcoin, the latter is very possible.
Heam@sigint.google.mil isn't trying to break Bitcoin, he's trying to integrate levers into it which give his MiB buddies discretionary control. Fuck him and the former core dev he rode in on, as well as their astroturf mob of redditurds.  |
|
|
|
For what it's worth as one of the VIPs here. Further, due to recent censorship regarding BitcoinXT and discussion on using larger blocks on /r/Bitcoin I suggest users start using https://voat.co/v/bitcoinActions by Mods on Voat are free for everyone to see. So OP, how's that BitcoinXT support working out for you?
...2 weeks later.../r/bitcoin: 172,324 readers 446 users here now/v/bitcoin: 4636 subscribers ~28 users here nowSo much for your social engineering attack on thermos and laughably inferior XT socioeconomic minority! It turns out most people know the difference between moderation and censorship. Your demonizing attempt to shame thermos into doing what you want him to (by calling him Hitler, etc) is a giant fail on the scale of XT itself. |
|
|
|
why Russian botnet motherhost attacks Russian XT nodes. What the fuck is going on?
Two trolls named gavin@tla.mit.edu and hearn@signint.google.mil tried to take over Bitcoin with their hostile fork. They had zero effect on the network, but pissed a lot of people off with their social engineering attack ('XT: BECAUSE BLOCKSTREAM IS HITLER'). Then some smart-ass released a spoof version of XT called NotXT. Now, half of the world's Bitcoiners hate XT so much they are setting up fake nodes to trick it into forking before it has sufficient strength, while the other half hate XT so much they are attacking the first half's fake nodes. Russia is just where we all go when this sort of crazy thing happens. |
|
|
|
And the average block is still less than half full.
lol, there were full block all past days I'm sure that you have a lot of altcoin little troll. Yes, there have been some full blocks. And yet, the *AVERAGE* block is still less than half full. Sell your false sense of urgency somewhere else. We aren't buying into the panic over backlogs or the rush to bloat blocks. |
|
|
|
The problem is discussed from the 2013 And the average block is still less than half full. Sell your false sense of urgency somewhere else. We aren't buying into the panic over backlogs or the rush to bloat blocks. |
|
|
|
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it: I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future! Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin. Yeah don't use logic or debate to persuade people to the better fork go ahead and congratulate people who hurt other bitcoiners. You are such an idiot iCEBREAKER. If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core? and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more. There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam. If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly. |
|
|
|
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it: I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future! Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin. Yeah don't use logic or debate to persuade people to the better fork go ahead and congratulate people who hurt other bitcoiners. You are such an idiot iCEBREAKER. If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core? |
|
|
|
Funny that you didn't open a thread when xtnodes.com was DDOSed.
xtnodes being down is comedy, szabo.best.vwh.net being down is tragedy. Calm down, you're being a fanboy , szabo.best.vwh.net doesn't affect everyone just a very small group. If you are concerned about what szabo is up to why not just follow him on twitter or something? Many links from the last ~20 years go there. EG, the classic http://szabo.best.vwh.net/ttps.htmlOh look, it's back! /resumes fanboyism Calm down, you're being a fanboy , szabo.best.vwh.net doesn't affect everyone just a very small group. If you are concerned about what szabo is up to why not just follow him on twitter or something?
Not convinced Szabo actually uses his twitter account anymore, that or he had a personality transplant recently. Szabo has a wicked sense of humor, and will burn fools to ash if their obnoxious assclowning (EG, XT governance coup) disturbs his customary sangfroid. |
|
|
|
Funny that you didn't open a thread when xtnodes.com was DDOSed.
xtnodes being down is comedy, szabo.best.vwh.net being down is tragedy. |
|
|
|
14,2% for XT - not bad.
It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it: I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future! Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
it will take a lot of time until the bitcoin network will have enough adoption to fill 8 MB Blocks.
It won't take a lot of time until DoS 'stress tests' fill up 8 MB blocks. for now this is a non existing problem.
The existing problem is that you don't know WTF you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Could you possibly be any more melodramatic? "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards. Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub. But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board. So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum. Forum Statistics
Discussions: 22
Messages: 148
Members: 70 LOL, so much for Frap.doc's blather about network effects, Metcalfe's Law, and how altcoins are all doooomed because they dare defect from BTC's longstanding all-powerful majority. Serves him right! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
