irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.

95% is a past threshold for consensus that worked. the idea -- and I believe this is in line with the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

i'd argue that the burden is on the XT/Classic crowd to prove why 75% a) can be considered consensus in the context of the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper. From a historical--as relates to bitcoin-- and linguistic standpoint, calling 75% "consensus" is completely laughable).... b) from a game theory perspective, why the 75% chain (or 51% chain for that matter) will cause the minority chain to be orphaned (dead) -- including a thorough assessment of incentives, including the relative hashing power increase netted by miners who remain on the minority chain.

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

just watch the epically stagnant development on the Classic repo (and the XT repo before it). these guys can't begin to replace Core -- Toomim thinks he can have Core do everything for him and then simply copy it. https://imgur.com/gallery/wbsxJ

just standing outside Core's gates complaining as loudly as possible. but they can't even establish a facade that they are capable of maintaining bitcoin.

their only power is political (ie argument). and as it becomes more and more clear that this small group of less experienced and less talented developers are wholly incapable of surpassing Core on a technical level, they will continue to push political arguments, resulting in a further splintering among them.

with any hope, Bitcoin XT, Unlimited and Classic will give birth to another 5 fail implementations.

who gives a shit about the speed of transaction growth? how "fast" btc grows is not a metric of its success -- it is only that for get-rich-quickers who think dreams of adoption (err---future bubbles) are paramount to securing the blockchain and keeping it decentralized.

if people simply write off bandwidth concerns (and therefore node health) because they are more interested in "growth" than the system's ability to "handle that growth" (i.e. scalability).....then how few nodes is too few that they will finally admit that bitcoin has failed to retain any semblance of decentralization? by then, it will likely be too late.

i'm amazed that people around here still push the idea that "increasing block size limit" increases scalability. sorry, but throughput =/= scalability. go ahead and see if bitcoin can handle 2,000 transactions per second like Visa. increase throughput to the max, see what happens. and then continue to babble about how increased load on the system made it more scalable. (VS, i'm looking at you)
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=definition+throughput

sometimes i wish bitcoin never "bubbled" in april/november 2013. the get-rich-quick assholes may ruin everything, because they play right into the hands of industry stakeholders that have zero interest in keeping bitcoin decentralized.

gavin's biggest problem (assuming we don't try to ponder what his more nefarious intentions might be) is his optimism. he has no interest in planning for worst-case scenarios -- that is an abomination for any software/engineering project. i've never once seen him make any compelling argument for why raising the block size limit (and doing so aggressively, as in the case of XT) is remotely urgent for the health of bitcoin. nothing but fear mongering about "omg blocks are full! what if small time newbie investors have to pay more than a couple cents (or nothing) to send a transaction?! the horror?!"

and at the end of the day, what he has said is completely untechnical and fails to address the many legitimate technical concerns of Core developers. bullshit like "I really, really don't understand this attitude-- I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164429.msg12269256#msg12269256

well, that technology improves does not address the arguments that current infrastructure may already be insufficient to force more capacity on the system (e.g. upload bottlenecks, for one). and if not, the only sensible way to go about increasing throughput requirements is to do so with respect for technological and infrastructural limitations -- not come up with idealistic "fixes" (to fix what?) with the intention of rolling back changes once something goes terribly wrong.

we already know that based on the current validation architecture, that at 2MB block size, an attack can be structured so that a single transaction can take longer to validate than for multiple subsequent blocks to be found.

but i dont see Classic devs offering a fix for that. in fact, it seems Toomim isn't even willing to properly maintain the repository -- he wants to push the hard fork but do zero real work. instead of preparing Classic for seg-wit functionality, he plans to simply copy everything from Core once it's done. is this really the guy you want leading bitcoin development? he can change a constant -- great -- but his plan is to copy more skilled developers for everything else?
https://imgur.com/gallery/wbsxJ

this whole thing is a sick fucking joke. i've never been so ashamed to be associated with this community. like chickens with heads cut off.

VeritasSapere---it's obvious to anyone reading that you have ignored nearly everything i wrote and simply continued to repeat your opinions as if they are valid responses. merely writing a response is not sufficient to prevail in a debate. you show no respect for the practice of debate and you thrive off of fallacies (which i have pointed out several times) and arguments from repetition instead of addressing the points directed at you. i've continually pointed out these dishonest tactics, yet you continue to use them. there are plenty of examples, but here is one:


whether they exist "on a spectrum" doesn't address the argument that an open source project is on one extreme of that spectrum. stating that there is a difference between "centralized" and "decentralized" is not an argument, let alone does it prove me wrong.

more importantly, my argument was that an open source project is decentralized. since you disagree, addressing my point involves proving yours, as you are continually suggesting that development in regards to Core can characterized by concentration of power. since no developer has any power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything, i'd ask that you prove that claim in accordance with common usage. merely stating that some people have a more respected opinion than others is not proof that they have power, authority or control to force any economic participant to do anything.

as indicated here, your arguments are just deflections and statements of your opinion. this is true of virtually every response you have made here, so i can't possibly justify taking the time to explain each similar instance of illogical argument. since my first post in this thread, you've made no effort to respond to my arguments, so i'm not sure why i should continue responding to yours. again---quoting what i wrote and writing something in response =/= addressing the points that i made.

it's quickly becoming clear that you are not interested in a reasoned, logical discussion, but rather to establish the appearance that your (and XT's) position is legitimate.

wow, i just wasted so much fucking time...... at least i'm six beers and two joints in......


so, in other words, no examples. okay.


75% "consensus"? why not 51%? call it what it is, an attack. if the fork were capable of achieving consensus, why the need to force 1/4 of miners (or more, given the possibility of lucky runs) into submission? that is not "agreement." what you're looking for is a democracy, where a temporary majority forces its will on the minority---not so unlike a 51% attack. please look elsewhere.

do me a favor: link me to the last hard fork that forked based on 75% hashing power or less. then consult the Merriam-Webster dictionary and see the first definition of "consensus":


i'm wondering why we should ignore bitcoin's history, common usage and common sense based on little more than your propensity to construct sentences where "75%" is placed next to "consensus."

ever notice how "majority" is used several times in the bitcoin whitepaper in the context of transaction validity? yet "consensus" is used only once in regards to "needed rules and incentives." gosh, i wonder why that might be?


supporting a contentious political party does not "threaten to break the consensus mechanism" or result in "multiple surviving blockchains." stop blathering about the word "contentious" (red herring) and analyze the idea of a "contentious hard fork." try addressing the arguments made rather than baselessly throwing around the term "groupthink" as if that's relevant. this is a really dishonest form of debate. and i'm quickly losing patience with your impressive ability to write an incredible amount of words and still say absolutely nothing to address the points made. you just throw around meaningless opinions that boil down to a complete lack of understanding of technical issues.



it's almost as if you sit with a thesaurus next to you, believing that using the ideal synonym will win the argument.

firstly, re-read what you wrote earlier:


secondly:



i've watched your attempts at debate for some time. you never address the technical issues. rather, you write some "words" in response and use terms like "balancing act" to dismiss technical criticisms without addressing them. a cursory glance at the rest of your response here shows more of the same. your method of debate is never to address the points made, but rather to say "I don't think that is true" or something similar, then state your general "feelings" about the topic. merely writing a response to an argument is not sufficient to prevail in a debate. you're wasting everyone's time.


common usage of the word "centralize" suggests power and authority. you can dance around the subject all you want, but developers have no power or authority to do anything. they can release code; others can choose to run it or not. that goes for anyone, Core or otherwise.

and you've certainly used centralization of development (under Core) as an argument in favor of XT. and yes, your position on BIP101 is clear, too---you dismiss all technical issues while showing a feeble understanding of them, and conclude therefore that it is acceptable. your assessment of node viability under drastically increased block size the other day on the basis of calculating the downstream speed of one node---that was just too cute.

no one said not to choose an alternative implementation "because it is contentious"---just another straw man. i said that a contentious hard fork threatens to break consensus and could result in multiple blockchains. that is why a contentious hard fork should be avoided.


"centralization" isn't subjective at all in the context of bitcoin, hence your use of it to spread fear around Core development. it means "concentration of power" and you know it. ad hominem? i didn't say anything about you. i said it was a dishonest form of debate to concede that---
---then afterwards, go on to continue to project "centralization" repeatedly on Core development. that's a red herring, as i have stated repeatedly. you are either unaware of common usage (unlikely), or you are attempting to project a loaded idea onto Core development with no basis. what "power" do developers have, exactly? last i checked, no one was forcing me to run anything.


no. peoples' ignorance does not grant developers power to do anything. as always, everyone involved at every level has the freedom to do anything they want in this context. fork whatever they want, run whatever they want. this is just irrational fear mongering. you're trying to suggest in a quite illogical way that "people are ignorant" --> "Core is bad"...... sorry but no.


nobody cares about your irrelevant analogies to modern democracy. they say nothing.

right, right, right... so more of this "people are ignorant" --> "Core is bad". really compelling.

expertise =/= power.

who ought to have influence on discussions of bitcoin's security and technical viability? perhaps those with expertise in large scale systems engineering, database programming, who have established themselves as experts on cryptographic money? or should it be people who don't know have a technical background or technical understanding of the protocol, who "majored in political philosophy in college?"

serious question.


oh? like what? do tell. i really don't even know what you're talking about.


what makes an open source project decentralized is a lack of centralized control. again, as gavin and hearn showed us, no one has centralized control. that is true now, it is true with a billion code forks. get over it. this is a non-issue. as i said earlier, an open source project is decentralized by definition---prove me wrong.

and in that sense, no, it is not comparable to nodes at all. for the billionth time, go ahead with your alternative implementations. no one cares.


i've said repeatedly that alternative implementations are fine. please stop it with the straw men. you can lay off with the "principles of decentralization" since an open source project is decentralized by definition. the consensus mechanism refers to the protocol, not the development process---please make an effort to at least act like you have a basic understanding of bitcoin, rather than constantly reducing it to vague political ideas.

it really seems you're even having trouble constructing coherent sentences at this point. i really can't imagine i will continue this conversation. i have no doubt you will write an endlessly long reply that is little more than your opinions repeated over and over. cheers.

i'm at a loss for words, really. how is it that you can blame Core developers because some entity decided to coordinate a DDOS attack? i understand that it sucks to be DDOSed, but you're not saying anything relevant to the topic at hand. what does you (and your neighbors) getting DDOSed have to do with anything?

this is like me getting DDOSed and blaming the Chinese government because i have some idea in my head that they might benefit from disrupting stateside communications.

i'm not gonna tell it to your neighbors. your neighbors should tell it to their ISP. it's now Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd's fault that your ISP has insufficient infrastructure to deal with DDOS?

and what if Core nodes were the target, not XT? then, it's Gavin and Hearn's fault, right? and therefore XT is the problem, right? i believe that's the logic being used here.....

the next time your ISP goes down, are you really gonna keep spinning your wheels about how Core development is centralized? that's one of the most absurd arguments i've ever seen.

i've seen nothing compelling from Peter R. ever. but that's neither here nor there.

i haven't seen many people at all suggesting that "it is wrong to hard fork." could you point to any examples? in fact, i've seen quite the opposite from XT opponents. i'd love for you guys to fork now with a mining minority, so we can write the epilogue on this embarrassing chapter in bitcoin's history, when a group of developers tried to use populism to break consensus.

i've seen many suggesting that it is wrong to promote a contentious hard fork, because it threatens to break the consensus mechanism. that's a lot more risky than forking with a hashing minority. in the latter case, XT will just die as any invalid chain does (perhaps its life could be temporarily extended with checkpoints). in the former case, we would have multiple surviving blockchains.

the specific misinformation i was speaking of here was your assertion that "power" could be "centralized" among Core developers. that's patently false, as i pointed out. stop using it as a way to rationalize promoting implementations that lack merit. you repeatedly do this: when someone criticizes the merit of XT (for whatever reason -- node centralization, increased latencies, bandwidth/storage limitations, IP blacklists, etc) you concoct this falsehood that "supporting anything besides Core" is rational in order to "decentralize" development. ive made clear this does absolutely nothing to "decentralize" development; by definition, open source development is decentralized. so, in effect, you are using a patently false argument to baselessly argue in favor of XT. further, erroneously projecting "centralization" onto Core is no mistake, as it has a loaded connotation among bitcoiners. this is a pretty dishonest form of debate, hence "misinformation" and "fallacy."

if you fear that people don't properly understand that bitcoin is open source and will blindly follow any implementation they are told to, that doesn't amount to centralization of power. the developers still have no power to force anyone to do anything. peoples' ignorance does not change that. if i build myself a cage to live inside of, and convince myself that the Core developers "made me do it," it doesn't follow that the Core developers are imprisoning me. this is just a bizarre roundabout way of blaming developers for other peoples' ignorance. and it has no basis in logic.

an "open source" project implies vigilance by those who use it. if you want to spend your time passing out flyers about what "open source" means, so that people understand, good on you. but this has fuck-all to do with centralization.

now, we are talking about "centralization" in the context of "development of the Bitcoin codebase." if you want to argue that the process within the development of a specific version is centralized, you'd be correct. but that applies to Core and XT both -- as well as any code updates to any engineering project. if there is no centralized review process within specific versions, unaudited code could be released at any time, meaning that anyone could hijack any version at will (whether that means increasing the 21 million coin supply, or anything else)..... this, of course, has no bearing on anyone's ability to develop alternative versions, nor on the decentralization of the protocol.

on the bolded: oh. lol. glad we cleared that up. now if only Peter R could understand that, and stop spamming his pie charts in the face of reason.

the only context in which this "mechanism" need be mentioned at all is if bitcoin were closed source. that is an impossibility at this point.

no one said it was wrong to hard fork (that is very different from criticizing the merits of a particular hard fork). opponents of XT have been telling you guys to fork off for months now. that doesn't mean that when you keep on arguing for XT based on misinformation and fallacy, that we won't explain reality to you (and those who read these threads).

lol, what a non-argument. terrorism? anyone could mount a DDOS attack on the bitcoin network, regardless of which version (if any) it might target. how is this relevant in any way?

if nodes (wholesale) can't withstand a DDOS attack, bitcoin isn't very robust, is it? indeed, there are various optimizations that could and should be implemented to assist in withstanding DDOS. feel free to contribute code to assist.

if nodes can be DDOSed to the extent that overall node health (and decentralization) are threatened, that has fuck-all to do with "centralization of development." it simply means improvements to the protocol need be made.

if you'd like to run XT, you ought to push Gavin and Hearn (and whoever else may be contributing to XT) to make it far more resilient to DDOS than it is. they are the only ones to blame for its shortcomings. if XT is to be a replacement for Core, it is incumbent on XT developers to address these issues, and all issues that might threaten bitcoin's robustness. i would question whether they are capable of that, especially considering the bugs in XT's implementation.

how can centralization of power develop, in this context? i argue that it cannot. there is no power. this greatly differs from the protocol-level discussion where the various parties hold some level of power to hold the others accountable (e.g. nodes have the power to enforce the protocol and render a miner's fork invalid). these incentive-induced checks and balances have absolutely fuck-all to do with developers. development is completely external to the protocol, and developers have zero power to enforce code on anyone. all this "centralization" talk in the context of development is a silly red herring to confuse simple-minded people who take the word at face-value without thinking about it.

bitcoin is not closed source. that's the only instance in which developers can hold any power over users, nodes and miners. otherwise the latter parties can simply audit the code and opt to run another version.

you repeating these misnomers just makes you look foolish. Core developers don't have any power; that's the beauty of the open source decentralized protocol that they are developing. at any time, miners and nodes can throw their weight behind a different version, developed by anyone. they have zero power to control anyone's actions. you and other XT fanboys are just upset that miners and nodes do not support other versions. i suspect the reason that only a tiny minority of loud developers shares your view that "Core is centralized" is that developers by and large have a much more sophisticated understanding of the technical issues, and therefore don't see a "civil war" of sorts as necessary. they'd prefer to continue to collaborate effectively on the bitcoin project; it was clear for many, many months that Hearn became disinterested in collaboration since no one was receptive to his ideas. since bitcoin is open source and development is indeed decentralized, he took the liberty (as anyone can) to fork the code.

and you know what? miners and nodes didn't support his fork. boo hoo. he proved just how decentralized bitcoin development is -- no one controls the code -- and even temporarily garnered some limited support for his fork. but it failed. and the idea that it could achieve 75% hashing power at this point is laughable. if nodes and miners do not support alternative versions, that is not evidence to say that "centralization of development" exists. it only says that unpopular versions are unpopular.

if you believe that a significant portion of miners and nodes will support an alternative version, go develop it. not a developer? well, too bad. because crying about "centralization" when you've no idea what it means won't make the alternative versions you think are so important magically appear. and it certainly doesn't provide any evidence that there is "centralization of power within the Core development team."

i'm a bit confused as to why any "worst case scenario" justifies ignoring the longest valid chain and intentionally breaking bitcoin into multiple blockchains. these are basic, basic defining principles and completely betrays the consensus mechanism outlined in the whitepaper.

the very reason this is a topic of discussion is because everyone possessing basic intelligence knows that 75% (less, including lucky runs) is not sufficient to achieve consensus. basic game theory. consider a 70-30 mining split---the 30% minority that remains on the pre-fork chain have strong incentives to remain there. the biggest incentive is that with 70% of the hashing power mining a different chain, relative hashing power on the pre-fork chain rises by 333%. especially if you are ideologically opposed to the forked chain or believe it is doomed to technical failure. a 75% threshold is so low that by the time the fork happens, we could see miner splits much closer to 70-30, 60-40, 50-50. without a very clear supermajority, this would inevitably break bitcoin in multiple chains forever.

if you're so intent on breaking consensus, just join frapdoc et al and start pushing for a hard fork with only a minority of hashing power. the result is more or less the same. you'd probably just look even more irrelevant than you already do.

i believe there are more than that. there are 20 listed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615953.0

my experience opening the Services forum is that i immediately notice that signature campaigns take up the majority of threads. i think if one looked at posts/thread, signature campaign threads would constitute the vast majority of activity in that forum.

i would definitely support a sub-forum for this. the Services forum is an eyesore.

this issue is likely far bigger than the block size debate. this will bring a real civil war. if certain players want to flex their muscle by wholesale blacklisting of certain addresses/inputs, then it is incumbent upon us to cut off the cancerous limb -- excise them from the economy.

this will, of course, devalue tainted coins. the premium market that would develop is purely a market process. and if this devaluation becomes so severe, unfortunately, we can only move our money---out of bitcoin---if we cannot safely store our wealth there.

and so, the war begins. and that is what bitcoin is all about---security from external control. will you cede to that external control---blacklisters (governments, large corporations), or will you resist?

because if we cannot freely transact, nor store our wealth, then what is all for? you might not care now, but you will certainly care when you pay for inputs that will later be blacklisted. and under a culture that passively accepts blacklisting and continues to support companies that do it, you inevitably will be affected.

so if you are one of those silly, silly pro-bankster cancers, you might want to rethink your position before it's too late.

do you even bitcoin?

you think bitcoin would even exist without cypherpunks? fuck banks, why should i care about them? the banks are only here to plunder anything they can, at any cost.

like any good cypherpunk, i believe cryptography (read to include: bitcoin) is a way to combat that.

that's fine. like i said, it is at the discretion of the lender to publicize a default in the first place. he can choose to remove negative trust too, or use that as leverage to recover the debt.

but 1. once he has publicized the default, he cannot control how others report the incident and 2. liquidation of secured collateral, by definition, means both parties cannot be made whole---as you yourself suggested. the latter is purely a result of the debtor's lack of trustworthiness. the first point is practical---he will be marked as a scammer no matter what (so your points are sort of moot). the second point is why he should be marked a scammer.


i never said the latter shouldn't be. but, like anything else, it is case-by-case. if a debtor is slow-paying or no-paying and eventually pays back the loan, i imagine his level of communication and believability throughout the situation would factor into whether or not a negative feedback would remain.

assuming the former is a loan defaulter, i am suggesting that they both remain marked. in the latter case, trust feedback is merely being used as leverage, and i can understand why recovering a debt would be more important than the principle of marking a defaulter with negative feedback.

all said, lenders want to know whether prospective debtors have defaulted in the past. the more disclosure the better. and lenders are also the very basis for whether negative feedback is given to loan defaulters. this is about the interests of lenders, not the rights of loan defaulters.

incorrect. a lender makes a loan in the first place to recover the principal + interest. if a loan is secured, that doesn't change that fact. and it doesn't make it okay to default on loans. If a savvy lender can profit off of loan defaults, that has nothing to do with how trustworthy a loan defaulter is.


the bolded assertion is beyond crazy. the collateral was secured in the first place for the express purpose of being liquidated in the event of default. this was known by all parties. also, not only is this customary, but it is entailed logically by the securing of collateral in the first place.

i would say that there should be a similar rationale to credit reporting. take the example of an overdrawn checking account. the bank will generally hold the debt for several months before eventually selling the debt and reporting the debtor to Chex Systems. if the debtor repays the balance before the debt is sold, the slate is wiped clean. if, however, the debtor cannot repay the debt in a reasonable amount of time, their record can only be repaired by time----3 or 5 years, i believe. like bitcointalk, it is at the debt owner's discretion whether or not to publicize the default.

similarly, if BitcoinBoss666's lender was forced to liquidate the collateral, BitcoinBoss666/BonusGame should not be let off the hook. the default is already public, so pandora's box is already open. there is no going back. the loan was defaulted on, the collateral was liquidated, and there can be no repayment of the original loan.

"forever" may be a bit much, as my analogy implies. but for the foreseeable future: yes. the fact that he defaulted over such a tiny loan as $25 makes him all the more untrustworthy.

would you not agree that politics are not a sufficient reason for a hard protocol change? consensus may make bitcoin a bit of a dinosaur, but it is a critical security feature built into bitcoin. until a commit is supported by an extreme supermajority, consensus says no protocol change. that may be disappointing to some, but it is what keeps the blockchain safe to transact on. a fork based on politics is an excellent context for a civil war.

(why 75%? let's just do 51% and get on with it )

indeed. however, one aspect that comes into play here is a more rigorous auditing/testing process for pulls. the fact that the XT code was primarily peer-reviewed by one person before it was released was reason enough never to run it.

indeed, Peter Todd exhibited this point well when he pointed out this bug in an XT patch:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3kenp1/stress_test_commence_as_of_now_were_seeing_23/cuwxvbz

i would think that he has only labeled alt accounts of proven scammers. do you have examples that suggest otherwise? i think if an alt reveals himself (intentionally or not) to be a marked scammer, that the alt should be marked as well. it's only reasonable when considering those that do business on this forum.