So much for respecting the precautionary principle ("the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"). Isn't that the one which - if it had been around as of the mid-1960s - would have nixed the Apollo moon-landing program? No, it's the one of the good engineering practices that made Apollo a success. I had a hunch that you'd move the goal posts... ...Anyhoo, this is the cryptocurrency frontier: I won't get captious over whatever principle you use to keep your own boat afloat. It's just that in the wide wide world of Big-Government Realville, the "precautionary principle" devolves quite easily into the "Nervous Nellie Principle" and/or the "EPA Shenanigan Principle." But as I stipulated, this observation ain't pertinent to the cryptocurrency frontier. I would never resort to moving goal posts. What an offensive suggestion! If anything, I am the Goal Post Police, and enforce the rules of rational debate upon this den of cybernetic inequity. The source of your confusion and consequent aggression is your mistaken conflation of the "do no harm" deontological philosophic principle with a practical engineering heuristic (the precautionary principle). Granted, the involved abstruse distinctions are nuanced and probably quite beyond your ken (IE education and aptitude) so you have every right to expect and demand an accounting on your own clumsy, ham-fisted terms. Sorry about that!  |
|
|
|
I'm unsubscribed, so I guess no - I don't GAF about r/bitcoin. The real question is why Theymos gives such a damn about people wanting to discuss things that impact, oh, Bitcoin.
Thank you for avoiding the obnoxious performative contradiction of continued participation in a subreddit to which you ostensibly object. I appreciate the logical consistency, even if it is lost on most of your fellow Gavincoiners and/or anti-thermosists.  Let us for the moment ignore the unpleasant implications of your continued participation in this (formerly?) esteemed venue, because I would would miss your company more than I would enjoy pressing that uncomfortable point. Nevertheless, you have intentionally mischaracterized what Theymos does and does not give "such a damn about." The issue is *HOW* some things impact Bitcoin, not merely the neutral fact of an impact and unavoidably ensuing discussion. Theymos has already, on multiple occasions, explained with clarity the distinction he finds, in his prerogative as moderator, important: Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.
The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Please consider taking this locally definitive advisory into account in your future posts. If you cannot, or do not, I may have to escalate the matter of your (perhaps intentional) oversight, and refer you to his subsequent admonishment.  |
|
|
|
THERE IS AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO REACH CONSENSUS NO MATTER THE OUTCOME.
BITCOIN ALREADY HAS A MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-BILLION $$$$$ CONSENSUS, AND ANYONE "BRAVE" AND "COURAGEOUS" ENOUGH TO BE THE FIRST TO DEFECT FROM IT IS GOING TO HAVE A BAD TIME. ESPECIALLY NOW, WITH NOTXT AND PSEUDONODE ADDING TO THE FUN! UNTIL SOMEONE IS WILLING TO SELL THEIR BULLION FOR MY XTCOINS, AN ALTERNATIVE XT ECONOMIC MAJORITY IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL AND REMAINS BOUND TO THE REALM OF PURE SPECULATION. /ZOMG ALLCAPS!!1! |
|
|
|
This kind of spoofing will just drive away further Bitcoiners. If a fork is prematurely deployed, it will be even bigger chaos than it already is. More harm done with these fake nodes.
I think that's the point though. Why risk switching to XT and the potential chaos, even if you support it or it's features? This is kind of a crucial point that's not been made enough: if Mike and Gavin tried to start a real alt coin, not one that relies on Bitcoin's infrastructure, they would fall flat on their faces (and they've not done much better than that otherwise). There is little to no demand for alts, people want bitcoin. If any brave soul was previously considering being the first to defect from Bitcoin's economic majority to begin the process of forming an alternative XT economic majority, they now have to account for the even greater risks due to the uncertainty introduced by spoofed version stamps and NotXT sybil nodes. No business could possibly justify such a risky move, for no potential gain other than the good feeling of winning an obscure internet nerd fight. Now its up to some very courageous individuals to jump-start XT's economy, by doing such things as selling me their bullion and coins in exchange for XTcoins. I was sure smoothie would be XT's one crazy dancer guy who starts a party but he chickened out. Apparently his support, being limited to running an XT node as a 'fuck you' to Team Core, is a mile wide and an inch deep. |
|
|
|
So basically XT is meant to be the "rich man's bitcoin" whereas bitcoin the original will now have a better chance at being utilized on a global scale.
I'm telling you guys, the entire reason crypto was interesting in the first place is because of its cost-cutting mechanisms. Digital money transfer has been around for a long, long time. It was just inordinately expensive and middle-manned to the max.
If its now cheaper to work with fiat (Facebook thinks it is) and you need a 1 Terabyte hard drive just to store your coin's blockchain, the coin no longer works to the benefit of those it was meant to help in the first place and is therefore useless.
Exactly. XT offers cheaper tx, but trustless fully contributing (access+verify+amplify) nodes only for the rich. Bitcoin's tx are (slightly) more expensive, but it fits in a modest footprint attainable by Joe Sixcoins and his DSL in Florida/Africa/Venezuela. In an emergency, Bitcoin's configuration maintains the fallback option of using hosts of last resort, located far out on the edges. That keeps the system diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient. As its requirements rise, XT excludes more actual and potential full contributors, leaving it increasingly at the mercy of centralized data centers' good wishes and SLA fulfillment abilities. Now, who would want to not kill Bitcoin at the moment (because messy Striesand/Hydra Effects), yet make sure it can be killed without having to root it out of every low-bandwidth data haven in every jungle/warehouse/basement/office/coffeeshop in the world? |
|
|
|
More than 2 weeks has passed...
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increaseGavininsta hopes of 20MB blocks are a thing of the past. Its only success was shifting the Overton Window such that 8MB doesn't seem as crazy. Every core dev and his cat are submitting contradictory/incompatible/confusing BIPs. I told you GavinCoin would get r3kt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what has happened. Try not to be such a poor sport about it, old chap. The already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.   |
|
|
|
The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.
Stupidity is pretending that "adoption" and "growth" is all about users & transactions. Probably one of your more stupid posts. brg444 is correct. EG:  |
|
|
|
So much for respecting the precautionary principle ("the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action"). Isn't that the one which - if it had been around as of the mid-1960s - would have nixed the Apollo moon-landing program? No, it's the one of the good engineering practices that made Apollo a success. |
|
|
|
Dear iCEBREAKER,
I am your biggest fan and want to write your biography.
OK, you can buy the book rights for 100 BTC (paid in Monero). |
|
|
|
It's sad to see, how this whole debate brought out the worst in so many people and they don't even realize it. I don't think, a lot of them have reflected about, if what they are doing is ethically right.
You just see all the stupid propaganda that you see in politics. So, far about Bitcoin will overthrow all that evil politics.
This debate started years ago. If it "brought out the worst in so many people and they don't even realize it" that happened a long time ago, before you got here. So how would you be able to tell the difference, having never known most of us before "this whole debate" mutated us into neckbearded C.H.U.D.? The answer is, you can't and are simply making stuff up. You're just upset because feeling very strongly in favor of XT is not enough to magically raise the block size limit. So here you are, pouting again. In the wrong sub, no less. Telling the sysop how to run his board. And you're getting away with it. Here, you can even say stuff like "WTF MILLIONS FOR YET ANOTHER FUCKING FORUM AND PENNIES FOR DDOS PROTECTION, HOW MUCH ARE YOU EMBEZZLING THERMOS?!" and it's cool. Thermos doesn't GAF. Watch this: Seriously, WHAT GOOD IS A FANCY NEW FORUM IF ITS FUCKING DOWN ALL THE TIME!!!1! See? It's fine. Happens all the time! Whatever.  You can even mention altcoins on Bitcoin threads (we frequently mention Monero on Frap.doc's thread, just to piss him off, LOL). All you have to do is follow the rules about keeping (altcoin) posts in the proper (altcoin) subs. Once you stop pouting, it's pretty easy. It's hard to find a more chill admin than thermos. That's why he was Chosen by Satoshi to run the place. If you think you can do a better job moderating, https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt could really use your help! |
|
|
|
Insuring against government is typically illegal.
That's nice. Could it be done, perhaps using Monero-funded smart contracts on Ethereum? |
|
|
|
Either most of the XT followers here are not aware of these things or are being stubborn and ignorant at the same time. You have no idea how easy it is to manipulate the members of this forum. While the main story is related to the block size, this is what XT currently consists of: - Automatic blacklisting controlled by the Tor project (AFAIK without their consent).
- Buggy block size validation.
- Lighthouse slave support.
- Incomplete/buggy double spend detection.
If this was a Hearn vs theymos thread, I'd have to question the sanity of everyone on Hearns side. Theymos did nothing wrong. This is a privately owned forum (i.e. theymos is letting you play in his backyard), and you're just lucky that some stricter person isn't calling the shots (else most XT supporters would be banned by now for constantly breaking the rules). Can you imagine if Hearn was the sysop here instead of thermos? I would be banhammered into the next galaxy! Thermos is so chill, it makes the "zomg censorship what's next, book burnings and lists?" hyperbole way too funny. |
|
|
|
that was very funny. I'm surprised you didn't quote it.
It's been a long, popcorn-and-comedy-filled day. And I'm still looking forward to even more lulz in the responses to Luv Khemani's [bitcoin-dev] "Miners are struggling with blocks far smaller than 750KB blocks and resorting to SPV mining" post! Uh-oh, it looks like the good ship Gavincoin is on a collision course with wackiness! Although flattering, that other thing wasn't even in the top 10 of the funniest stuff I saw in the Great Gavinista Massacre's preamble, execution, and aftermath. On a lulzy buttrage scale of 1 to 10, it rates about 1.5 Frap.docs. It looks to me, that the bigger blocksize group tries to find a consensus in an open debate, while the 1MB group is absolutely fine with censorship and dividing(splitting) the community in 2 camps.
Moderation is not censorship. Your social engineering attack has failed. The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better. |
|
|
|
I appreciate a good debate, but this is getting old very quickly.  The blocksize debate has been going on for years. If it was going to get old "very quickly" that happened a long time ago. Or did the debate not begin to age until *YOU* recently discovered it exists, then grew impatient with the impasse after a few hours of deep research skimming reddit and passionately downvoting mod and core dev posts you disagree with? Your problem is that you are new here and have no clue about what's happening or what's at stake. Fretting about the debate "getting old very quickly" wont help XT, and only demonstrates you are a noob with a very limited attention span. |
|
|
|
Theymos or any other mod: What is wrong with you? Who do you think you are?
The new dictators of every Bitcoin discussion. Do you really think, that is what Satoshi wanted?OK Ms. First World Problem Lady, what you need to understand is...  Source: |
|
|
|
Source:
FYI:
PseudoNode is already a type of p2p proxy. You can download it from here and spoof an XT node directly from a console:
pseudonode --stealth --coin=bitcoin-xt or for Windows users: PseudoNode.exe --stealth --coin=bitcoin-xt from a CMD console. Next go to getaddr.bitnodes.io and if everything is working your IP will show up an an XT node and be counted towards the total (if not, then probably port 8333 is blocked). Alternatively, you can pretend to be Bitcoin-core (Satoshi:0.11.0): For those wondering: a PseudoNode is a type of cryptocurrency network node that uses network heuristics (rather than the normal validation method) to validate data. To the network, a pseudo node appears to be the same as a normal full node, (a pseudonode will relay blocks and transactions just like a regular full node). However, unlike a normal node, a pseudo node is very fast, and will "sync" with the network within seconds (no lengthy blockchain download is required). For more information about what PseudoNode is, see here and here. For those wondering: the network heuristics used by PseudoNode are quite strong in practice -- it is non-trivial to "trick" PseudoNode into relaying invalid data -- although it is theoretically possible.
The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless. It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost. This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.
That all said, for obvious reasons it is better to run proper validating nodes (e.g. even Not Bitcoin XT) rather than pseudo nodes. My post is provided for information reasons only...and This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".
This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.
This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.
Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.
It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable. https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xtXTnodes.com? Don't believe the hype! |
|
|
|
The data actually paints a very grim picture of the current bandwidth/validating capacity of the global mining network.
We have preceding blocks as small as 50KB with 30s passing and the miner continues to mine empty blocks via SPV mining.
The most glaring case is Block 370057 where despite 73s elapsing and the preceding block being a mere 131KB, the miner is unable to download/validate fast enough to include transactions in his block.
This is a cause for great concern, because if miners are SPV mining for a whole minute for <750KB blocks, at 8MB blocks, the network will just fall apart as a significant portion of the hashing power SPV mines throughout.
Yes, these pools deserve to lose money but the impact of reorgs and many block orphans for anyone not running a full node could be disastrous, especially more so in the XT world where Mike wants everyone to be running SPV nodes. I simply don't see the XT fork having any chance of surviving if SPV nodes are unreliable.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010283.htmlComedy fest continues How long until the XT hype dies off? comedy? Popcorn supplies...running dangerously low... This season of All My Bitcoins is hotting up nicely! A surprise Satoshi cameo? Or was it!? Are the rumors of an All My Blockchains spin-off true?! The XT hype died as soon as thermos logged into his subreddit and killed it. Ye Olde Banhammer made short work of the Gavinista Liberation Front. Well to be fair, Szaboshi did put a full clip of high caliber tweets into it earlier in the day. But it was still twitching and making annoying moaning/gurgling/bitching noises. Then the emergence of weaponized version stamps in NotBitcoinXT and PseudoNode made any further discussion pointless guesswork.  " the impact of reorgs and many block orphans for anyone not running a full node could be disastrous" "Really using Bitcoin" means doing the full Mulder & Scully: Trust No One. How many times do we have to say it?
IF YOU ARE NOT RUNNING A FULL NODE, YOU ARE NOT REALLY USING BITCOIN.smooth keeps hyping SPV, and he's right that most people will use it. But that does not imply it is not critically important to preserve for most people the option to access/verify/amplify the Blockchain in a trustless, self-sufficient manner. The network depends on a high enough percentage of 'most people' being able to maintain contributing nodes. In an emergency (Bitcoin banned by international treaty) or catastrophe (cyberwar goes kinetic; datacenters gone), Bitcoin might become more important than ever, and needs to be small enough to thrive in hosts-of-last-resort like the rural towns of Côte d'Ivoire |
|
|
|
Working on it now.... [started over] All MN upgraded fine. All OK for me boss! Edit 17.5% now, come on guys... Enforcement is coming Maybe they don't want to pay the 15% dev tax for a release that failed to deliver the promised masternode blinding. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
