How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
Alright, fair enough. You are in a (supremely nutty) third camp, which believes both 'XT died for our 1MB sins' and 'XT will return for the Gavinista rapture.' Alas, if only you could understand the superlinear relationship between tx size and verification time, we could put this civil war behind us. Unless you are determined to destroy Bitcoin's decentralization-cum-survivability, and thus subvert the engineering requirement that it be above the law... XT opened a debate, you are the person that thinks its dead  Sure its a bit beat up right now, but just you wait till xmas, remember we hit $560k in november so we are bound to need a little more room! |
|
|
|
You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes. In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. Remember that? And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed? Good times! I like the part where you were wrong. Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't. Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it. The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW. They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it. How dare he not support their agenda at his expense!  Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for. 8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP. Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability). Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm. That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post. The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority. Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more. Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first. And of course, nobody does. Game over, newb...BIP000 wins! We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually." But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason. So ' Not Tonight, Dear!' or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?" |
|
|
|
Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage. Yes, the "bargaining stage" framework is a great fit for explaining the current actions of some notable remaining Gavinista dead-enders. It's the classic "well at least XT died accomplishing its mission of [Noble Cause]." The stages of grief also explain the contradictory narratives we observe Team XT promulgating. Those still in the denial stage put out the spin doctor "XT isn't dead; it's waiting in the wings. Wait until December, then you'll see!" fantasy. Zarassthua and Benighted22 are stuck in this initial stage. PR, sgbett, Frap.doc, and Hearn@signint.google.mil have moved on to the bargaining stage, wherein XT died as a sacrificial egg to make the #ScalingBitcoin omelet. You say us grave dancers could "be a bit more gracious" but your mercilessly spot-on 'grieving stages' analysis twists the knife in their bellies more cruelly than our lighthearted clowning ever could. Nice job!  How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent! |
|
|
|
All this talk is so wearing, I've been reading less and less on the forums and thinking. When I got into bitcoin I saw something with massive potential to be disruptive technology. It looked to me like it could basically replace fiat currency, an opinion that I think was shared by a lot of people back in the day. Sure there was the whole get rich quick thing, and the insane volatility and the less cynical more funny community. I still believe this fundamental idea that bitcoin can take over the world. To do that it needs to grow though, and that's why "I am SGBETT and I am a big blocker"... but you all knew that already. What seems to have happened though, is that a new idea has arisen. The idea that bitcoin *can't* scale, and should instead be used as some kind of settlement layer. That other things should be developed to provide the 'currency' style features. What I am finding difficult is the whole debate seems to be now centred around the pro's and cons of two exclusive camps. BTC can *only* be store of value and settlement. BTC can *only* be cash. The participants have taken these as axiomatic truths and are arguing the pro's and cons. At worst this is an intentional strategy, by characterising the argument in this way its easier to justify one position by radicalising the opposing view and arguing against it. At best its just misguided passion for what you believe in. A cynic might think its the former, but I am going to assume its the latter. Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size. Concerns about full blocks are being used as a way to justify increasing block size. The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event. Where does that leave us? Well the followup work by Taleb describes Antifragility. This means positioning yourself to benefit massively/protecting yourself from loss should the unexpected happen, which it inevitably will. Of course this perspective can be twisted to justify pro / anti block size increase. I'll leave it to the small blockers to give there explanation as to how keeping blocks small is antifragile. My view though, is that having larger than you think you need blocks is antifragile. If there is an unprecedented surge in bitcoin use then transactions can increase massively, fees go up massively miners get paid, we all cheer because bitcoin adoption is taking off (we can surely agree that everyone would like to see adoption no?). If the blocks are much bigger than we need, and they are not needed, nothing happens. An antifragile view (imho) looks at both outcomes and checks to make sure neither results in tragedy. Lets take centralisation. Massive blocks, really big regularly, means fewer people can run nodes etc. This could happen, but how badly? What constitutes unacceptable levels of centralisation, unacceptable as in 'terminal', can we define this? Is there an actual block size (not block size limit) that causes terminal centralisation? Do 8MB blocks cause this, 16MB, 32... ? Don't forget each doubling is 2 years, so we are already in 2020 before anyone could mine a 32 MB block. Note, that is *could* mine a big block. If we don't need it, we don't use it, and thats the flip side of the centralisation argument. Nothing bad happens. You can dissect all arguments for and against block size in this fashion, trying to figure out what course of action is most antifragile. Fee market - in 2020 with 32 mb blocks. If they are full then a simple extrapolation may be that we have 32x the amount of current fees in a block (about 6BTC). Maybe average fee per transaction has declined tenfold and there is only 0.6BTC a block. Still, the block reward is 12.5BTC so we still aren't exactly in tragic failure mode. If we are still only doing the same volume as today then nothing bad happens. The closest I think we can get to arguing 'something bad happens' is the terminal centralisation of mining. A hypothetical *extreme* scenario. The fee market argument doesn't hold up because we still have decades before the block size gets small enough that fees are relevant. I can't fathom why anyone is trying to force a fee market right now whilst the block reward is still so big. The only reason I can see is greed, and that would perfectly fit with all of human history. Bitcoin is the goose laying golden eggs right now, and it feels to me like some people aren't happy with one egg a day. Why reversion to the mean, because this is exactly what the banks are doing right now. The banks squeeze us for every penny, because they are greedy and we have no choice. This fee market? Who do you think pays for it, and to whom? Appeal to authority, yes. Appeal to emotion, yes. Isn't that the whole point, doing smart things that feel right. Learning from history. Don't make bitcoin 'the bank', don't let greedy men fool you - it was inevitable that once bitcoin started showing value it would attract those that seek to take that value for themselves. Bitcoin should be for everyone. Bitcoin should replace 'fiat' money. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. |
|
|
|
All aboard! Just because the price went up a few bucks? I hope the best hasn't gone yet as I plan to enjoy this trip a little bit longer I will start to get excited once Bitstamp and Bitfinex break through the $250 level. Can never be sure about anything, but we've been around the 200's for so long that I think its fairly safe to say we have found a new platform. Once people realise it isn't going any lower then there is only one way it can go. I think it might be different this time, a much shakier and uncertain upwards move, over a long time, one that absolutely tests the limits of anyone trying to ride it all the way up. |
|
|
|
I've watched paid shills change opinions on this forum for years. Some of them are quite successful. They generally argue against seemingly rational and well thought out arguments with a vigor that highlights their true purpose. The next steps in the irrational debate are name calling and doxing. This happens because someone arguing against the shill wants to invalidate, what appears to be, an unwavering irrational argument. The last step is usually the "you're stupid, I'm leaving the debate" stage. What step in the process are we at now? I think we're 2-4 pages from the last step.
Unlikely, the ice'n'berg show must go on! Ego's are at stake! |
|
|
|
All aboard! |
|
|
|
...you Gavinistas actually believed you controlled more than ~0% of Bitcoin's socioeconomic consensus...
In your giddiness you've become so unsophisticated that you can't even manage to avoid projection? What next "NO U?"? |
|
|
|
I thin there are no more old timers almost majority of them have sold their coins and enjoying with cash money.What remain they are just waiting for Bitcoin to reach all time higher in few years.Some of them will keep holding for years through think and thin.
sold all there coins? lol |
|
|
|
I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.
This thread won't die whilst ever the comedy duo of Ice'n'Brg are around to keep pimping it. They desperately need it at the top of bitcoin discussion so they can feed there ego. The thing is these two clowns aren't even really arguing for anything that can be defined, they are just arguing about how they are right, AND SMRTER TAHN U. It's like tuning in and watching re-runs of your least favourite shitty party political broadcast. Its all propoganda, nothing else to see. As for BIP101, that will die once core reaches consensus about the way forward with the now inevitable block size increase. Along with the other block size related BIPs. XT didn't get rekt, it did exactly what was necessary to get serious discussion. (Remember the the cold war and subsequent disarmament? Remember the last time you made an omelette and had to break a few eggs? You two are like a couple of kurd rebels waving your pistols at a Tank convoy.) Only thing #REKT round here is the super naive Ice'n'Berg. Funny thing would be now if XT took off. I doubt it, but can you imagine the drama! |
|
|
|
|
forum stagnating as much as the price. stopping one of the most interesting threads is going to push people away. maybe thats what was wanted though *shrugs*
doesn't matter if btctalk dies though. honey badger don't care.
there is no point arguing with the rolling waves of incoming trolls about anything, as soon as the tide turns, they'll all wash back out to sea.
its like every internet community. X is the cancer killing Y etc etc
the thing itself remains. whatever happens the trolls only have there words. I have bitcoin.
In the end we either both have nothing or ...
|
|
|
|
bulltard incoming....  |
|
|
|
Where is my 1 BTC biatch???
Don't make me cockslap you!!
seriously  |
|
|
|
So the point he is doing is that it is better to have better implementations for the same Bitcoin?
How can different implementations be fully compatible?
And if it is that what he is saying...why a fork? I mean, if he is advocating lots of different "compatible" or "agreable" implementations, Does not the fork make it incompatible with a non-forked Bitcoin?
I see a contradiction there.
Forking the chain is at one end of the spectrum of compatible-agreeable-fractious-incompatible spectrum. All implementations are on this scale somewhere even differing versions of core which can also be at the incompatible end. What happened in the past with core was that consensus was reached on chain (as opposed to on forums!) and that, I think is what will happen with XT, and that is what should happen with all implementations going forward. I think that's what Gavin was probably saying. Though of course I could be wrong  |
|
|
|
I think having different options is what makes this exciting and so on, but the thing is, the proposed scheme for upgrading the blocksize by Gavin would render us with an insanely big blockchain, and completely out of the market when it comes to running nodes. Nodes would end up being ran by corporations. We are already fucked enough with the apparently unavoidable fact that centralization of mining was, the last thing we need is centralization of nodes. That's why it's such a big deal to have huge blocks and at some point it was starting to look as if centralization of nodes is exactly what they wanted by pushing the XT agenda, and im not commenting on the checkpoint thing etc.
I'm not sure how you can be sure that increasing the limit automatically means there will be an insanely big blockchain. I also don't know what is considered insanely big. I accept the blockchain is likely to grow into its new shoes but I also think there is that while economic incentive thing going on for miners. I don't dispute that any of the things you say could happen. To jump from 'this could happen' to 'this is what XT is planning' is to assume that XT deva are prescient and know what will happen. They don't you don't I don't so the o lay thing we know is that peopele are doing what they think is best given the information they have at a point in time. When new information arises we can make different choices. |
|
|
|
At first I thought it was, and I've come full circle on this. It was my opinion that block size should be bigger (I accept others feel differently - thats cool). The only way for me to do anything about it, other than arguing oti, was to switch clients. Then I read all the bad stuff about Mike and Gavin and what they were doing and I was a bit worried. I read about how they were putting nefarious changes that track IP addresses. Blocking nodes etc That made me worried too. I don't like creeping censorship as much as the next man so tools that allow it should be regarded with suspicion. Then I read what the change did and saw that it didn't seem (to me) to be half as bad as people were making out. Then I started to read more about why XT came about I'm not going to link to it all because everyone should do their own research. My understanding though in summary is that the core dev environment seemed to be pretty toxic. This is a pretty bold claim so I started reading through some past posts on the developer list, pull request discssions etc to try and establish how legitimate this claim is. To me it seems to have some legitimacy, but I would encourage you to look for yourselves and see what you feel. I won't post links because I don't want to be accused of leading you. Now I'm not here to tell you Gavin and Mike are the good guys and core devs are evil. Nor am I here to support those that think XT is the end of times and the core dev team are the knights in shining armour that are going to rescue os from the defilers that sullied out land with a fork. The devil carries a fork. Therefore XT is the work of the devil. I'm here to say that I think its important that people look around at what is going on and have a real honest think about the situation. Don't believe any of what I wrote above check it all out. Have a look at the pull requests that have been submitted, the discussion that follows. The manifesto posted by XT and the articles written explaining there philosophy. The actions that have been taken by the various participants. When I did that I found that I no longer supported XT for the block size limit upgrade, but I supported it because it felt like it was right that there should be diversity in clients. That hard forks are almost unavoidable so better that we learn to love the bomb. I will paste one quote though because I can't spend this whole post being entirely ambivalent, it was by Gavin and whether you like him or not I think he makes an interesting but probably contentious point, which is based on some facts as opposed to being pure conjecture, or open to interpretation. I'm not going to try and assert this is some ultimate truth and anyone that disagrees is a traitor or anything like that either. None of the discussion like that is helpful. There are some smart people on these boards and if they can all discuss instead of bickering maybe it can set an example. I'll do my best, I hope others will too. Yes, I think having lots of diverse implementations of the Bitcoin protocol is a very good thing. I know Greg Maxwell has been pretty vocal in the past disagreeing with that, and I understand his point of view: it is really hard to get two or three or eleven different implementations to accept and reject exactly the same sets of transactions or blocks. Consensus is hard.
But it is hard to get EXACTLY THE SAME implementation running on different hardware or just running at different places on the network to accept and reject exactly the same sets of transactions or blocks. Bitcoin Core versions 0.7 and earlier could "self-fork" -- exactly the same code running on identical hardware could disagree about what chain was valid because of a bug.
And it's now safe to talk about the REAL reason for BIP66, which was to prevent a fork between 32-bit machines and 64-bit machines.
One of the principles of security is to eliminate single points of failure. Another is to try to minimize the damage done by failure of any one component. A diversity of implementations running on the network helps both of those aspects of security, and that is why I'm happy to see other implementations like Conformal's btcd or Coinbase's Toshi, and why I think multiple forks of Satoshi's original codebase is healthy for the long run. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJPolarising debate isn't helpful I can see advantages and disadvantages to all. Stubbornly setting up in one camp and arguing beyond reason that yours is the one true solution isn't good. You may say that is what XT has done but this can be levelled equally at core. XT is a choice, so is core. Lets have more choice and less 'Conscription'. |
|
|
|
I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.
I'm very tired of hearing "argument to authority" used as some reason why its OK to ignore the smartest person in the room. The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you. So yes anyone who doesn't have egomaniacal tendencies would not automatically dismiss Satoshi's opinion because it disagrees with their own. Its a cheap trick, using it hurts your credibility. I went back and reread pages of discussion on cyphers thread the other day, because I wanted to re-evaluate my own views. I wanted to try and better understand some of the arguments against block size increases. What i did find were some great posts by you about LN, Blockstream sidechains etc. prior to the block size debate. Very well argued, fact based, impersonal. This is in stark contrast to the posts I have seen from you about the block size issue, which I think you have been much more 'emotional', personal attacks, outright rejection of dissenting ideas, less reasoned posts. I don't know if thats a conscious decision and I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way, its just what I have observed. I think having ICE as your 'team-mate' doesn't help as he sets a pretty bad example in this regard. The disdain you are showing for Gavin and Mike seems entirely disproportionate and based on your opinion of them rather than their actions. The XT fork is no more dangerous than any other core upgrade *unless* those that oppose core explicitly and deceitfully sabotage it. Yet you argue they are the bad guys. You've repeatedly taken up opposition to those who would argue for a block size increase now, claiming its too soon, unneccessary. Arguing about bloat, dismissing any analysis with hypothetical 'centralisation' issues. At the same time have been vary careful to never say you aren't explicitly against a block size increase (a point which you repeatedly remind people of). The nearest thing I have seen to an actual opinion (as opposed to fairly indiscriminate opposition) is that you think 2MB would be ok. You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something? I can tell you from personal experience being wrong is just as important, if not more, than being right. Don't take this to mean I think you are wrong - I honestly don't know what is for the best, I just *think* that its a block size limit increase sooner rather than later. I think that actual block sizes should be decided by miners (either Peter R style through economic incentive, or even BIP100 style - though i think the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and in reality it will end up being a combination of both). I think the threat of bitcoin stalling because the network falls over is greater than the threat of centralisation because the blockchain is suddenly going to become bloated. I think those things - I accept others don't, but lets not pretend anyone actually knows for sure. Maybe BIP100 is the answer, maybe it isn't. Be great to see some code (whilst respecting the fact that devs aren't obliged to produce any!) and then we shall see what we will. Until there is a BIP100 based solution its still a binary choice between "no increase at all" (core) or BIP101 (XT). If they are the only options I'll take my chances with XT and the 2 developers who, whilst they may not be perfect, seem to be at least honest about what they are doing. Sure they might prove me wrong, but thats for a another day. You make choices based on the information you have at the time. Then if you find out you are wrong you reevaluate and learn from your mistakes. Hypothetical scenario: What happens as Jan Approaches and blocks are regularly full from natural traffic and theres no BIP100 on the horizon...? How long are people going to keep voting BIP100 whilst dealing with the problems of full blocks and transaction backlogs. Are miners prepared to risk failure of BTC, or will the capitulate and go BIP101 to ensure ongoing profitability can be maintained (these are business owners, there job is typically about reducing risk!). Will LN be ready? So many variables. To suggest "its all over" shows an astonishing lack of understanding for the fundamental nature of probabilistic outcomes! I can't even tell you with certainty what I'm having for dinner tomorrow.... how can you predict the emergent behaviour of hundreds 6 months out to a final outcome. Keep it real eh |
|
|
|
I've been reading through the debates on these forums and other places. I'm not sure what I'm missing but I'm confused why one of the original dev's have done this and did not simply stay with core and try and make the changes there? Was he forced out or couldn't make the changes he wanted or something else? It seems that forking the coin in such a way is a dangerous move. The fact that it has a different name to me makes it FEEL like it is an alt-coin that's trying to take over by introducing the coin as a fork. The only difference is it has one of the original devs of bitcoin involved? Thanks in advance to whoever can clear things up for me. Yes, they couldn't make the changes they wanted. Why? This should clear it up... https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0 |
|
|
|
Burn the witch! |
|
|
|
The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.
It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken? The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code. The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date. Thats a good point! I suspect an immediate deployment of Core + BIP101 would then mean XT needs to also pull the date forward. I doubt core is suddenly going to deploy BIP101 though any time soon! I'm not even sure if they could deploy a BIP100 solution - unless the devs reached a consensus on it? Which I guess includes Gavin still? Perhaps that was the job of XT all along though, to help that consensus form.... ... ok I'll get me tinfoil hat! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
