how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems
Because: - 8 MB blocks might not be enough during future peak times
- 8 MB blocks are not enough to handle a stress test either
Essentially, almost nothing will be resolved. Learn the definition of the word urgent. Having a problem constantly would result in this being a urgent change, which it is not.
I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.
-snip-
By using a estimate of the future growth pattern? This is not evidence and will most likely be wrong. Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold. |
|
|
|
Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. lol banned? Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space? Who? The greatest inquisitor of all time! |
|
|
|
Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?! Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this. Core, your move now or it's XT all the way. Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority. Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase. Pressure is going to get things moving. Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry. |
|
|
|
That's misleading.
The option you refer to prevents people using Tor to DOS attack your node. But it cannot prevent your node being blocked from connecting to the XT network by others who do not disable the feature.
This is not a problem on the Bitcoin network.
It isn't misleading at all. If you don't like that DOS protection, don't run it. Your position implies that you want to deny others the option to us that DOS protection. I'm sure there are better ways to ... Yes, you are always 'sure that there are better ways' for everything. That's your discussion style. It's unmasked alreaday. |
|
|
|
Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.
You don't have points. Jorge Stolfi has points and that's the point to which I refer. I think Carlton may have been a victim of the CONSENS-A-TRON TM too:  Cartoons and graphics sometimes say more than thousand words. Today I found the truth table in the cyberspace.   |
|
|
|
You mislabeled your graph. "Bitcoin XT adoption" should be labeled "Bitcoin XT + NotXT + Pseudonode adoption." Good luck observing RealXT's actual adoption with so many FakeXT nodes feeding you misinformation. Also, the total FakeXT+RealXT adoption curve has flattened over the last week, as the public became better informed about XT's Tor Blacklist, IP reporting, potential catastrophic consensus failure, and Mike's "Final Call." Core 0.11.0 has flattened moar and before. Perhaps because they are implementing customized core + BIP101. About your Blacklist FUD: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.msg12221920#msg12221920 |
|
|
|
Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.
You don't have points. Jorge Stolfi has points and that's the point to which I refer. |
|
|
|
My first choice is BIP101, but if certain corners of the community are absolutely hellbent on torpedoing it through increasingly fraudulent means (the 'notXT' spoof client, impersonating satoshi, reddit and forum censorship, calling it an altcoin, general FUD or misinformation and all the other underhand and dishonest shit that's currently going on), I would settle on this proposal as a compromise or fallback. However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves. Wouldn't it be better to fork away the people with such behavior? What's the benefit to keep them within the bitcoin movement? |
|
|
|
That's all you can. Spitting ad hominem.
Jorge Stolfi is doing better.
As with Jorge, you cannot make a statement any more true by virtue of speaking it aloud. The rest of us feel this need for their arguments to make sense. "The rest of us..." Are you one of those collectivist us-men who blieve to be in a position to speak for the rest of the world. |
|
|
|
I've missed these, but in fairness it could be my own fault. I follow only trolltalk and some of the links provided from here. I don't even follow the commits anymore. [ ... ] I guess you are missing the forest for the trees perhaps. The idea that anyone can grab a reference implementation and do their own sidechain makes it kind of obvious to me how sidechains could solve the scaling problems and add a whole bunch more desirable niceties to the ecosystem as well.
It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling. For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are. Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself. As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care, It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain. One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team. Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints. According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it. I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin. The idea is that the sidechains are merge-mined, Jorge, on account of using the same hashing algorithm. So the miners will all be the same, except that a proportion of them will mine the other chains too, however they decide their capacity can be best utilised. But of course, you knew that already. @ wider bitcointalk: I and seemingly everyone else don't always have time to reply to all of this gizzard of a troll's willful distortions and contortions, suffice to say that unaddressed Stolfi posts are still staggeringly dishonest despite that. This man, and others like him, will be shunned throughout the remainder of this century when their conceits are fully exposed to the public. That's all you can. Spitting ad hominem. Jorge Stolfi is doing better. |
|
|
|
...
The problem with this is that it's released under the "BitcoinXT" label. We wanted the same thing released under the "Core" label as well. People would then choose to support (or not) BIP101 either via the Core dev team of via the XT dev team. I realize it would result in the exact same code either way.
Maybe someone (reputable) can just fork XT repo (big-blocks-only branch) and rebrand it as Bitcoin101, or BitcoinBB (big blocks), or something... Bitcoin101 has a nice ring to it. Who will do this? Haha, I love it! Bitcoin 101. Yes! We need a developer or even better a group of developers to step up and create Bitcoin101. I know you are out there mighty developers, do what is right. The Bitcoin community wants a third option.  It doesn't need to be a developer. Gavin and Mike Hearn already developed it. We're just copying it and renaming it. Here it's named Satoshi + BIP101:0.11.0/https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Satoshi%20+%20BIP101:0.11.0/ |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's motherland suddenly vanished. WTF.  Poor little iCEman. Have you learned a lesson? If not: [–]future_greedy_boss 1 Punkt 8 Stunden zuvor
Well, I learned a good lesson today, and you guys taught me well. I was wrong for staying in this sub, for keeping an open mind about Core, when it turns out the community here is full of censorship-loving downvoting lickspittles who don't understand that "Appeal to authority" is a dead end for Bitcoin, even if the authority is Nick Szabo or Satoshi or Galactus FFS. |
|
|
|
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.
you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.
you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.
ignored.
q.e.d. That's exactly the linguistics of the sidecoiners. Warriors, censors, destroyers. How can they ever win the majority of the bitcoiners that way? Great job. |
|
|
|
It is unbelievable but true. Idiocy prevails. This stalker thread is still unlocked.
Ah, there you are. I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6EIf there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there. Switzerland is the one and only Direct Democracy. The country can be glad seeing people with your mentality (stalking/hating direct voting/applauding censorship) leaving. Your leaderships are clearly seeking to hybridize the herd with gene-stock from various far flung regions in addition to converting the native stock into people who are to sexually confused to reproduce on their own. I can guess the types of policies the populous is going to prefer for the betterment of society through the 'direct democracy' that you are so proud of in the next generation. Conspiracy paranoia. That you and your wannabe elitist soulmates hate direct voting is obvious. |
|
|
|
Great! Won't be easy to counter for the conspiracy fudsters, censors and alikes. What shall they whine about now? |
|
|
|
The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.
I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet. Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right? I have seen this repeated a lot now and I need to correct this, to be clear so that everyone understands. There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus. Yes. They don't want to discuss that. Instead of discussing it, they spread conspiracy shit. |
|
|
|
The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.
I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet. Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right? The Blockstream coin will not be a coin on the Blockchain. It will be an altcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
