These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin. The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that? We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done.  Relax, the stress tests backfired, showing Bitcoin will indeed work the way it was designed to (ie under full load, with no actual congestion). All it took was a few more sprinklings of crypto-magic in the forms of RBF, smart-wallets, less dumb pools/mines, etc.  |
|
|
|
the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already  They have made moves, in the form of BIPs 100-104 and Lightning/Sidechains/Treechains. Project Apollo was not built in a day. We need to listen to the engineer and researcher Dilberts and Wallys, not the pointy-haired/headed bosses. Or this might happen again. somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size Core dev dudes have no power to force Bitcoin's multi-year, multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic majority to do anything. Especially not a contentious (ie potentially disastrous) hard fork (ie catastrophic consensus failure). I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff  Ah yes, the contemporary classic 'Zomg, Bitcoin WILL LITERALLY DIEEE if it does not immediately conform to my preferences' conceit.  Please, fuck off back to /r/bitcoin_unsensored, or /v/bitcoinxt, or whatever vapid social media site you prefer. |
|
|
|
Increase the BlockSize on Core.
It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!
But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.
The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.
As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.
You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size. Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility. GLWT. You gonna get rekt son.  Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow. And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted.  |
|
|
|
There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top." Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins. If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."  Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger. As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said: Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see. That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan TM. Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan TM. You can't even see yourself. Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect? I hope not!  Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend. I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself. I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam. If XT wins, I will admit defeat. May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell? |
|
|
|
... well ... will be interesting over the next few days to see how many pools start putting /BIP100/ in their sigs No, that's boring (because talk is cheap, anyone may bluff). The actually "interesting" part comes when/if we find out who was faking and who genuinely supported bloated Gavinblocks. |
|
|
|
The miners will decide the larger chain. The exchanges and merchants will follow the larger chain. End of story.
Wrong. The users decide the chain. Will miners mine coins on a chain with no users? A chain with no users is a coin with a $0.00 exchange rate. SPV wallets go to the longest chain. Probably XT wallets too. If you don't want this you'll have to stay with Core and wait for the next < 1 MB block being validated. If the Core isn't the longest chain, and > 1 MB block are frequently, this can take ages for confirmations because of the drop of the hashrate in Core. Yes, "SPV wallets go to the longest chain" whether that chain is valid or not. Sucks to be them! That's why we keep saying "if you're not running a full node, you're not really (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin." I'm not worried about "ages for confirmations because of the drop of the hashrate in Core." My faith in the antifragility of Bitcoin (EG, trollish might of MPEX  ) precludes such considerations. Do you really think MPEX is taking a late summer vacation, ignoring all this XT drama-llama-rama, and failing to plan accordingly? |
|
|
|
Why is everyone freaking out?
What's wrong with a little bit of control, policing and over sight?
Just don't do anything wrong or piss off the wrong people and you'll be fine.
Exactly! Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from Heam's checkpoints and "final call." |
|
|
|
Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?
XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture. This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over. Via the Peter Principle, Gavin reached his level of incompetence when he stopped writing code and started mingling with TPTB in smoke filled back rooms at the CIA, Pentagon, A16's SandHillRoad HQ, etc. He's old and busted. Blockstream is the new hotness. Upward and outward!  |
|
|
|
Please tell me guys this XT crap will go away and die.
I dont want to see my money evaporating because some morons that want to divide & conquer , sabotage, bitcoin.
I hope the rest of the devs and supporters figure it out that this XT will just destroy bitcoin.
This XT crap will go away and die. It's already dead (or, thanks to NotXT, in a Schroedinger superposition of dead-alive) but hasn't stopped moving yet. Enjoy the lulz this zombie fork provides while it lasts. We'll look back and laugh at the XT Menace, someday. |
|
|
|
As far as I can see the argument is already over if the anti-XT crowd feels it is so certain to lose any fair contest that it will resort to tactics like this. If these tactics affect the contest, the contest didn't have fairness built in. Back to the drawing board for the mercantile mercenaries. CRYddit knows that, he's just ATM too butthurt to concede such a fair (and obvious) point of fact. |
|
|
|
This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes. It has already reached over 1000 nodes (presently 1101). It is now the second most popular implementation:  I know misleading the public is your favorite hobby, but could you please disclose the XT node count includes those spoofed by NotXT and Pseudonode? Or is honesty asking too much of a Gavinista dead-ender? |
|
|
|
Just been an explosion. Now the nodes are nearly 1100.
That was just me, spinning up more NotXT and Pseudo nodes. Thanks to Amazon's EC2 (+ VPNs), we can deploy unlimited numbers of FakeXT nodes with the click of a mouse! |
|
|
|
Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.'
No I didn't. The longest chain composed exclusively of valid transactions is "Bitcoin." Read the last full sentence in the image below: "Nodes always consider the longest chain as the correct one and will keep working on extending it."  There is no mention of a block size limit in the Bitcoin white paper. Anyone can easily make a longer chain, were validity not an issue. The "last full sentence in the image below" never mentions (the obviously implied) constraint of (prerequisite) validity to "the longest chain." The Holy Whitepaper is a red herring here. There are many things in the spec/implementation (speclementation?) which the brief/terse whitepaper does not mention. Theory != practice. |
|
|
|
I fully agree, Theymos is taking an odd position. Being inconsistent like this harms his reputation, and doesn't help the issue he favours, as the XT threads he leaves in Discussion are attracting more attention this way. Even though it's his forum and he can do as he likes, and that's my overriding attitude to the issue, I really wish it wasn't like this. Can't have it all I suppose. Lighten up Francis! Let us have our fun with the Gavinistas, while it lasts. Letting the XT vermin infest Discussion not only makes for productive lolcows, it also belies their histrionic claims of "censorship" and threats of Streisand Effect. Don't expect the exact same rules here as on /r/. Thermos is doing an excellent job of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. |
|
|
|
Flyover country? Way off. I can disclose you meddling kids should be looking in UTC-9. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions. If BIP101 (whether through XT, Core or some other implementation) gains 75% of hash power support, it will become the longest chain and thus it will empirically be "Bitcoin." The other chain--assuming it doesn't die very quickly--would IMO become largely irrelevant.
Amazing, so if I create DelekCoin using the same blockchain than Bitcoin but processing transactions like: Inputs are outputs, satoshis value are multiplied by 3.1415962 and every address starting with 1DELEK gets all fees from every transaction it will be part of Bitcoin?, AMAZING. I will do that. Ooooppss, but I will not have consensus  Bingo, that's what is happening with altcoin-Bitcoin XT!!!!!!!!! Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.' Like Frap.doc, he's decided to double down and picked XT as the hill on which he wishes to die. Good. I told both of them XT would be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell, and that's what happened (20MB blocks were Gavin's Baratheon's opening gambit disastrous Battle of the Blackwater). I also told Frap.doc " he'll be buried soon" and that's also exactly what happened: After months of Frap.doc calling me "greedy" (despite the fact I'm the only one who thinks he deserves to keep his LeBron coins), revenge is a dish best served iCE cold: |
|
|
|
icebreaker, just to be clear on your position, are you advocating leaving the 1mb in place ?
Yes, until such time as the network experiences Actual Congestion ® (competitive fees failing to properly prioritize their transactions). The 'stress tests' were supposed to cause that, but backfired spectacularly as consequent improvements (EG RBF) to nodes/pools/wallets/miners strengthened the network. That's what happens when you attack an antifragile system. When (and only when) faced with adversity, Bitcoin gains in resiliency. Please note XT displays no such antifragile attributes, and is stagnating/shrinking under the weight of revelations about its suspiciously hidden anti-Tor/privacy invading/blacklisting/centralized "final call" features.  |
|
|
|
Increased public awareness of XT's hidden privacy-invading 'features' has stopped its growth. Given that NotXT/Pseudo nodes may be replacing XT attrition, RealXT nodes may even be declining. |
|
|
|
forking is bad, we should all remain on the same chain, either as XT or as core, DEVS GET YOUR FCKIN ASSES TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH A SYNTHESIS!
Do you know what does forking even mean? Bitcoin cannot evolve without forks. XT is the same chain, and the trigger mechanism of BIP101 secures that a split is pretty much impossible. So why is everypony selling their bitcoins then if there is nothing to worry about  Because everypony with a brain realizes NotXT can be used to mine, thus prematurely activating XT's trigger mechanism. So a split is very much possible, and in the worst possible (weaponized signals, fog of war) contentious circumstances. Fuck Heam, the core dev he rode in on, and everyone who has been enabling his anti-cypherpunk agenda. |
|
|
|
xpost relevant to op: Oh goody...here comes more of the wildfire I promised weeks ago:   So Gavinista shitlords, how do you like stress tests now? #REKTFuck Heam, the core dev he rode in on, and everyone who has been enabling his anti-cypherpunk agenda. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
