Well, it seems to me after watching some of the technical debates that bitcoin has a serious problem with the beta status and a value of $4billion. It makes it extremely hard to fix technical issues just because of it's value. It can never really get out of the beta status and fix the real issues.
There is nothing wrong with the code per se. It doesn't scale very well ( easy fix) and its propagation bound (alas inherent in the design). Its biggest problem is that its potential as a mass financial settling platform has been spotted, and some people wish to change it towards this service (attracting about $200m in VC in the process) . Its possible that this will prevent bitcoin from becoming a unit of commerce in its own right. But for what it does now, it does exceptionally well for a giant beta. |
|
|
|
I predict the mother of all crashes coming if they do more "stress testing" now that the fork issue is also coming to a headline near you.
When are they going to start stress testing again? I heard it would vaguely be sometime in September but is there anything more specific than that yet like a date? I don't want to have my payments stuck in limbo for days like during the last test, but I also don't want to start paying higher fees until absolutely the last minute. If they do that then I think it will be a scenario that Bitcoin will have difficulty of recovering from. It might be the beginning of the end, and something else will take over. Better we find all the bugs/attack vectors while Bitcoin's still in beta. People keep forgetting that this is a prototype, an experiment, not a money printing machine. who invited this guy?  |
|
|
|
Can't expect anything else from mainstream media. They live on drama.
Then again if this scares people they obviously don't know what they have invested in in the first place, better to get rid of them if you ask me.
Bloody media and their 'truths'... Should not be allowed. Can they not be silenced? |
|
|
|
Community needs to aggressively educate BitcoinXT supporters.
How do you reckon industry leading retards are going to educate anyone?  Give me an example of this'education' you propose to give? Whats your key point to stick to 1mb? |
|
|
|
The average delay for the transactions that had the bad luck of being below the median will then be ~20 hours (instead of the ~10 minutes of normal conditions).
A bit short of the 30 day target, no? The fee-adjusting tools that have been proposed by the Blockstream devs, to be used in the "fee market", woudl make this atack much cheaper.
I told you they were evil!!! |
|
|
|
The "moderation" going on is frankly disgusting. How the hell can any compromise happen if you use force make the opposing side of the debate just shut up?
Nobody is censoring you. You're free to register bitcoinxttalk.org and discuss XT altcoin in every way you like. You're missing the point. If the arguments against raising block size stood up to scrutiny, there would be no need for this suppression of the debate. They don't. So now there is an orchestrated blacklisting of any dissenting voice from the blockstream narrative, with little more than vague screams of "Dear god! Think of the children!!" to justify it. Strange thing is, the 1mb limit, coupled with the opening of blockchain to private chains would hit the hard core HODLlers here the worst. Being able to settle financial transactions on a private chain with satoshi level tokens would wipe out any chance bitcoin would have at being a de facto currency for commerce. |
|
|
|
Imo Gavin and Hearn are to blame for this.
Blame for what? For the PR desaster that is unfolding at the moment and that could cause harm to the adoption of BTC as much as Goxfart did. For giving a choice? Whats with the constant personalisation of the issue? There are 800 fewer bitcoin core implementations - thats a lot of people making a choice. The suppression of debate on here and reddit will likely have far deeper repercussions in the coming months. |
|
|
|
The thread shouldn't have been hijacked in the first place, what a mess. The thread is mostly about XT now, and the only graphs posted are XT related.
It would be a lot of work to split or delete all the XT posts. Splitting is not easy to do in SMF, especially with large threads, and many posts to be split. So that isn't an option.
It could stay in speculation since the majority of the thread is relevant, but all XT chat from here on out to be moderated.
Might be better to just lock the thread since it's so far off track at this point.
Its a shame. You don't even sound that convinced by your own arguments.  |
|
|
|
685 nodes and rising... (10.8%) (actually, the figure is 737 lower down, but I cant explain the difference, so I wont quote it) ( Oops, looks like I did.  ) |
|
|
|
Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.
But it is. Just because the house is not on fire today, doesn't mean you don't buy a fire extinguisher. Bitcoin is hobbled, and blockstream and LN go to great lengths to point this out when setting out there business case. I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.
If I had a satoshi for every time a developer said that.... The xt block limit change is considered trivial - replacing a #define with a configurable variable routine. ( there is a bit more, but its that in essence) Getting scripts to work correctly is a far more complicated matter - the place holders exist (trivial implementation), but the functionality hasn't even been ring fenced yet.  |
|
|
|
sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain
ftfy. Finally you get it. It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable. Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem. No disagreement from me on those points. But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly. |
|
|
|
sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain
ftfy. Finally you get it. |
|
|
|
You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.
Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".
I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read
I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like. However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community. Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion. "Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit.. So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??" Not winning any meritorious badges with that one. |
|
|
|
That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.
If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design. One that works with bitcoin as it currently is. |
|
|
|
You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.
Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".
I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read
I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like. However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community. |
|
|
|
 Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans. You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen? So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.
Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business. Seems you are too since you know so much about their "core focus" https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzwety?context=3I'm sorry, but what part of that cosy exchange with Rusty would lead me to believe you are not a blockstream cheerleader? edit: cheerfully withdraw the shill remark. you are entitled to give their side of things. |
|
|
|
Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin, not scaling.
But isn't this the crux of the situation? Blockstream ( and by extension, bitcoin core) have no intention of scaling Bicoin to become a global payment system, but merely a support mechanism for their scalable payment system. |
|
|
|
Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans. You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen? So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures. Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business. |
|
|
|
From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.
Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin, just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system. I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper? Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper: We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered. That sounds like scaling features to me. They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus. |
|
|
|
From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.
Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin, just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system. IOW, their value proposition is based on the limits of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
