It doesnt work on bitcoin. It uses federated peg servers to fake the functionality ( contract like scripts) until they can shoehorn it into bitcoin. Nothing these guys are doing at the moment is above PoC level. Its interesting, its just not ready. |
|
|
|
It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn.
At least you are now starting to accept that point that they are compromised. Some progress finally. I really dont value the opinion of that guy to spend time on that blog. I'm aware of him - that is sufficient. |
|
|
|
Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation
Another powerful point not made. Its right up there with your false "Bitcoin is already sidechain ready tm!!' claim |
|
|
|
The issue is not whether they will succeed or not.
Obvious fallacy. Thats the only thing its about. Its about wresting control from a compromised few to the many. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.
Thats exactly what you are trying to do - your just not doing it very well anymore. As a shill, I'm afraid you really need to up your game. Everything you have written is designed to instill fear - it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Calm and informed rebuttals are weakening your case with every post. |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Historically, perhaps. But that was history, and that was certainly before Blockstream. Now their interest is to preserve a bottleneck in Bitcoin that makes up the only value proposition for their sidechain alt coins. They have $21m reasons to fight this. And as people begin to realise this, they are getting behind the fork, something most (including me) wouldn't have countenanced just a few months ago. |
|
|
|
It's interesting to see how much this thread recently changed from price movement discussions to block chain and other discussions.
Coming back to price discussions and bitcoin forecast, we see that the technical analysis methodology works fine to predict bitcoin prices. And with that, speculators and investors can save time. No need to worry about blockchains, hashes, etc. More info here: http://bullbearanalytics.com/bullbear-analytics/ Thank you for saving us from the darkness that is OT. It certainly is the milk of the dark one.
So all I have to do is pay you $300 and I'll get to buy a boat? How can I lose!?!?You ungrateful git. Every boat you buy is one that he is deliberately foregoing so he can share the good.  And all can be done by ignoring fundamentals. Seems legit.... |
|
|
|
It's not even that I am against raising the limit. (within reason) I'm mostly just irked by the fear mongering and panic and desperation-driven FUD coming out of the Hearn/Andresen camp.
Most of the hysterics I've witnessed are from the Blockstream camp. Most XT posts seem pretty calm, just watching the adoption. Anti forkers are screaming threats and XT-spoofs in an effort to subvert what has already happened. |
|
|
|
Simple function, 1000 words.
The function is simple. Observing the actual XT adoption curve , though the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely. I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster. There is no fog, just your own cataracts obscuring your vision. And yes, that was very funny. I'm surprised you didn't quote it. |
|
|
|
Sidechains are workable as of now under the existing protocol.
So this irc never happened? 00:51:22 <gmaxwell> the altcoin is also a bitcoin node, and monitors bitcoin for coins assigned to the altcoin, and then permits someone on the altcoin to emerge those coins from thin air.. and then when you want to send them back you make a special transaction in the altchain and prove you did it to bitcoin. 00:51:23 <adam3us> gmaxwell: i suppose the other thing is it itself requires bitcoin changes, perhaps non-trivial ones, and that is part of the reason for the exercise. 00:51:46 <gmaxwell> yea, unfortunately it requires changes to bitcoin.00:52:18 <gmaxwell> we could _almost_ do it in script without the disabled opcodes, but there are enough little corners that I suspect we can't. |
|
|
|
Oh, and the bitcoin "news" webshites, like CoinDesk, have been as silent on the topic as any statist newsmedia would be.
Its not like we were getting anything meaningful there anyway. I think this will be a quiet revolution - lots of smothering....  |
|
|
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch.  Do you even know what you're talking about? make a point or shut up. |
|
|
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
Indeed. They will be making "A List' next.... I was told that "book burnings" would be next. Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out? It's getting confusing. And why are you still here in the land of oppression, instead of running free and wild at https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt ? Did Hearn set up a checkpoint, or what? Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve. |
|
|
|
The likelihood of sidechains becoming an integral part of Bitcoin is, I'd argue, far more important than any chance XT fork has at succeeding.
Keep burying your head in the ground and ignore innovation
But thats it - you're not arguing, you are just saying. sidechains require far more fundamental changes to bitcoin to work than anything being done in this patch. |
|
|
|
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.
Indeed. They will be making "A List' next.... |
|
|
|
I retract that post - I see that there might be some confusion at the time of fork. Let's hope the losing chain dies quickly.
From that article: Edit: The first instance described in the article was a soft fork and not a hard fork. The 2nd instance is in debate [as to] whether or not it was non-deterministic behavior or a true hard fork. |
|
|
|
Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about. Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this? |
|
|
|
This follows from the idea that, strictly speaking, there is no need for a hard block limit at all. There is enough information in the network ( difficulty, recent block sizes, number tx's, fee level, etc.) o be able to calculate an 'on the fly' block limit that responds to changing needs in a manner not dissimilar to block difficulty. Rising costs of creating a block ( increased difficulty) can be matched with revenue (fees, subsidy) while allowing for growth to support a greater tx throughput. But for now, we are having enough difficulty trying to get some people to accept that we need a bigger block at all, so first steps first. |
|
|
|
I have NOT sold, and I am just attempting to figure out the best point to buy some more.
Every point is good point to buy some more. But you've to follow few simple rules: - Use only long term funds to buy bitcoins. Funds you won't need for the next couple of years. - Use only your own money. Don't borrow! - Use only such an amount you can afford to lose entirely with a smile. - Work on your own bitcoin project that improves bitcoin economy and don't waste your time looking at bitcoin price day and night. Never forget that Bitcoin is just one experiment. It is very promising and getting stronger every day, but still is an experiment. That post should be a sticky at the top of the topic.  |
|
|
|
But if the old ledger will not preserve the XT ledger perfectly, what happens if suddenly the 75% drops 25% or otherwise? Why 75%?
Its not a moving target. Its a change point. If you want to change back, for whatever reason, you start a new process to get the network to follow you. |
|
|
|
Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:
XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.
Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled. The worst case scenario is that someone starts spamming the blockchain with the 8mb blocks. Then, next thing you know, people will say "ohh these 8mb blocks are full, we need bigger blocks". Then you get 20mb blocks and ~3gb/day of bloat / >1 tb per year. And who is to stop them spamming the 20mb blocks and getting them full too? What's next? We'll be asking for 100mb blocks? This is madness. Personally I don't believe that even the 750k/1mb blocks are full by legitimate transactions and not bogus transactions. I believe these bogus transactions are created to stir a "debate" about "ohh we need bigger blocks" and stuff so that we can then go on and shoot ourselves in the foot by "accepting" larger blocks as the "natural evolution". We have to deal with a reality here: Big banks, credit cards, swift etc, don't want BTC to succeed. Bloating it is a very cheap way they can use to kill it. It's much cheaper than a 51% and cheaper than manipulating the BTC market. And it will be FAAAAAAAAAR cheaper to enable that attack vector with 8mb or 20mb blocks. I think you have just gone Full Retard Conspiracy Theory there. The issue is smaller than that, the solution is even simpler. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
