I'll be switching over today as well.
I can't wait to buy some of your shiny physical litecoins using XTcoins, while my BTC stay untouched. You will be sticking your neck out and immediately accepting XTcoins, to demonstrate the power of XT's economic majority, right?  |
|
|
|
Gavin: I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where
.
I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of
millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity
for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what
I find interesting. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.htmlI wish Gavin and Hearn good luck with their unicorn project. But if they try to change Bitcoin's social contract (everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash), in order to capture and repurpose Bitcoin as the engine of their utopian altcoin, both projects may be ruined. |
|
|
|
Another reason to do the fork soon, is that after the next reward halving (est.2017) it will be much harder to convince miners to accept low tx fees. Right now fees are a tiny part of their income compared to the 25BTC reward... in effect all BTC holders are currently paying miners via inflation. As new money creation declines, fees will have to pay for the network.
...but it is better for everyone if fees become a major source of income for miners at 50 million users and 1M daily txs than earlier. Scale must come first.
Social media companies (like Twitter and Facebook) that delayed revenue generation until they reached massive scale and network effects are a good example.
We have no idea what the price of Bitcoin (in fiat/gold/energy) will be in 2017, so who knows what part of miners' income will come from tx fees then? Scale cannot come before security, which includes decentralization. And you cannot scale by simply accommodating 8MB of mostly-spam in every block. Scaling entails doing more with less, not more of the same. You scale by adding layers, not by stuffing everything into a bloated Layer 1. TWTR and FB are terrible examples. Bitcoin is fintech, which emphasizes high availability and 100% security. Nobody loses their life savings (or defection fund) if some daft corporation's vapid social media site is down for a week or hacked. |
|
|
|
A $300 laptop and 1mbit downstream is enough to ACCESS and VERIFY even 8MB blocks. It might take 2-3 minutes to download and verify a block, but it should keep up. AMPLIFY - I think that's better left to the so called power user. It's a tradeoff - on the one hand with 1MB blocks perhaps more users can run full nodes. OTOH, with 8MB blocks some users won't be able to run a full node, however, many more users will be able to run an SPV wallet on their phone and be able to afford a low (or no fee) depending upon the priority of their transactions. Not that the US should be the authority on what standards to use, I would point out that the FCC considers 25Mbit download speeds the new minimum for having a 'broadband' connection. http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7932653/fcc-changed-definition-broadband-25mbps It's not unreasonable to think of this as a target for a full node and still expect to have strong security for the network. Those with lower resources can still participate and don't need to turn to Coinbase equivalents as their only alternative. Amplification is a absolutely critical, non-negotiable function of ~everyone who is independently accessing and verifying the blockchain. Run the game theory and see what happens to the health of the distributed quorum system otherwise. " Tit for tat" (IE amplification requirement for participants) is exactly why Bittorrent works so well at optimizing dynamic cooperative configurations. Why are you still going on about "download speeds?" They don't matter; upstream is the constraint. 8MB blocks will keep a 17Mb up pipe full (of cosmic background spam and real tx). That's not realistic for most users, especially the bandwidth-poor who have the most to gain from Bitcoin. If Bitcoin is going to rule the world, normal people damn well better be able to access the signal, verify its integrity, and amplify their findings to other like-minded Byzantine Generals. Making the drooling masses trust SPV or Circle ® is no different than keeping fiat. This is a global revolution against central banking and fiat, not a novel replacement for your fucking Paypal app.  |
|
|
|
i think this is a turning point.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a market.
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over today as well.
This is a turning point. The point where XT officially became a laughingstock.  After so much chaos and drama, you have a mighty 3% of the nodes to show for it? Team XT lost the technical debate, and there is zero propensity for XT gaining an economic majority. Plus, we now have this handy Domination Post from thermos:
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.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
Face it old buddy, XT got rekt like Stannis at Winterfell.  Now, when can I order my 1000 XMR 1oz Platinum Lealana? Do you want Cryptonic to eat your lunch?  |
|
|
|
I ran Bitcoin Core for >3 years, and I turned it off today
I am now running Bitcoin**Censored**
Censored? I've been here participating in discussions about XT for months. Your vanity post seeking social validation for standing up to Evil Core and Theymos-Hitler is so precious, I made you a meme:  |
|
|
|
Nobody cares. We are far more interested in reading the presumably lulzy forthcoming Gavinista Manifesto. |
|
|
|
What is stopping Gavin from broadcasting an alert to core clients saying an upgrade is required in an attempt to move people to XT?
Antifragility. And wildfire.  |
|
|
|
This Bitcoin Core / XT thing is getting old now and it's dividing the Bitcoin community.
It's dividing the community into XT's 3% and Bitcoin's 97% (*yawn*).
#rekt |
|
|
|
If a compromise could be realistically reached (which is hard to see lately), then I think many users would be greatly relieved.
There will be a compromise, but not in the direction you are imagining. Hint: Bitcoin is about power, not popularity. |
|
|
|
The long, hot summer of 2015 has revealed something surprising about the Bitcoin community: many people have strange and technically unsupportable ideas about how the block chain algorithm actually works.
This has culminated in [theymos], who admins bitcoin.org and various discussion forums, banning all discussion of Bitcoin XT and threatening to delete services that use it from the official Bitcoin website. His rationale is that Bitcoin XT is an alt coin because it is intended to trigger a hard fork. On the other hand, “soft forks” are totally OK.
This position doesn’t make any technical sense, and in this article I will explain why not.
Source: https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7Banning? XT discussion is not banned here. As usual, Hearn@sigint.google.mil gets his facts wrong: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22XT%22+site%3Abitcointalk.org--> About 3,050 results Why use theymos' personally identifiable information instead of his familiar screen name? If the intent is to facilitate harm to a non-public figure IRL, Hearn better hope theymos remains perfectly safe for the duration of the Blockchain Missile Crisis. |
|
|
|
wondering if Bitcoin XT happens ... we will be posting on the Altcoin section forever ?  totally support BitcoinXT , but i think that Satoshi should really consider stepping up and clear some things up here . (If he is not dead yet) Don't worry your pretty little head about XT. It's a fringe group of dead-ender Gavinista fan boys controlling an entirely irrelevant 3% of nodes. As for Satoshi stepping up and clarifying, here you go:    I'm surprised a scammer POS like you still got a nerve to post here. You're so butt burned about XT being exiled to the alt coin wasteland (where it belongs), I'm surprised you still post at this "epitome of authoritarianism" forum. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc.
Which is the polar opposite of Bitcoin XT. Not just a normal opposite, but a polar opposite? Wow, polar opposite is the most opposative you can possible be! Literally! Because math. Hearn's XT fork shunts bandwidth-poor defecting North Korean/Floridian types (those with the highest marginal utility gained from Bitcoin) off the mainchain (and Tor) and onto SPV/pruned nodes or worse (Circle ®). That is not acceptable. Anyone with a $300 laptop and 1MB upstream should be able to *ACCESS, VERIFY, AND AMPLIFY* the world's first distributed quorum system, especially if that system may control our destiny for the next 100 years. |
|
|
|
Wow, smooth look at this!
You earned your own dedicated troll account designed specifically to attack you.
In case you are actually an impressionable drive-by lurker and are reading this topic, I urge you to realize the OP is a shill for Dash or Bytecoin, is butthurt figuratively and literally at Monero's open and honest development and is resorting to whining about his hurt feelings when one of the Monero developers calls out his favorite scams on being scams.
P.S. Can I get my own dedicated troll-attack account next? I'm a huge narcissist so I'd love to read someone talking shit about me.
Sorry AP, you'll have to put in the requisite time on the DashHole thread to earn the privilege of a personalized dedicated troll account just for you. The forum's Tor Tax being what it is, only the those of us inflicting maximum butt burn on the cargo cult are granted such a customized attack-the-attacker response. Mine hasn't started any Two Minute Hate threads (the lazy git), but at least I enjoy free sig space thanks to RoadStress. |
|
|
|
I think that Tor needs to be built to scale and be useful, not that products should be built to scale only to current Tor speeds. Is it nice if someone can solo mine bitcoin on a full node in North Korea running on Tor? Yeah, I guess so. Should we build it with that as our focus? I'm not convinced. I think that a product that 100m people use and rely on is much harder for governments to suppress than something which maybe 500K users regularly uses but that works over Tor on a bad network despite being banned.
That conclusion greatly depends on the product in question. To be flippant (my specialty), of course we don't care if Netflix doesn't work over Tor. That's a frilly luxury product, not a necessity (although experiencing Hinterland in 1080p is arguably a human right  ). Bitcoin, OTOH, restores the fundamental liberty of every person to be their own bank, maintain their economic freedom/financial privacy, etc. What would it take to convince you that empowering (ie not abandoning to their fate) the lower bound of Bitcoin users (the proverbial bandwidth poor North Korean or Floridian trying to move funds for an eventual defection) is of greater concern than Joe Yuppie paying for his Jamaica Blue Mountain half-caff? PS Welcome to Monero, Brother Mustang! |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a store of value.
There is no such thing as a thing. Separateness is an illusion. All that exists is the Unified Field and the Void (sort of). Oh sorry, I thought I was in a late night dorm room session discussing our Epistomology 101 homework, not a thread for adults focused on the practical implications of Gold vs Bitcoin. Yo dawg, pass that sick glass you got at Pipes Plus over here... |
|
|
|
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bitcoin-xt/Iov4vcCOg9M/qOTSP07How exactly does BitcoinXT break Tor/I2P? Seriously, I've not seen anything about that.
There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.
Hearn has some weird relationship with Tor, the details of which are murky (much like the relationship between In-Q-Tel and A16z). Current use statistics are not especially relevant. What is critical is that the option of Tor be preserved and strengthened. There's the fact that <1% of home owners actually use fire extingushers, but that's another story. See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
wondering if Bitcoin XT happens ... we will be posting on the Altcoin section forever ? totally support BitcoinXT , but i think that Satoshi should really consider stepping up and clear some things up here . (If he is not dead yet) Don't worry your pretty little head about XT. It's a fringe group of dead-ender Gavinista fan boys controlling an entirely irrelevant 3% of nodes. As for Satoshi stepping up and clarifying, here you go: |
|
|
|
due to recent censorship regarding BitcoinXT
Moderation is not censorship. You don't have free speech rights on private servers. Personally i'm perplexed to see Theymos is both owner of btctalk AND moderator for the reddit. That's not very decentralized is it? You don't seem to understand what "decentralized" means. Everyone is free to start their own forum and reddits. The barriers to entry are astonishingly/vanishingly low, thanks to our present golden age of information technology. Theymos inherited this forum from Satoshi, and he's not the only mod for the reddit (much less an admin or owner). |
|
|
|
No change, and/or Dr. Back's soft fork. Give extension blocks (Layer 1.5) a chance before resorting to bloating-as-scaling desperation. That summary sucks. We can do much better: |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
