Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. Side chains are implemented on top of bitcoin - they dont directly change the underlying protocol, only interact with it - like a wallet would. However, some changes to core are required to support certain sidechain proposals. Edit: Actually, when you tke into account the tokens for using sidechains ( eth, factoids, etc.) then, yeah, the lines really do begin to blur. Maybe call it alt-coin-lite?  Good morning good morning So in this case, discussion of sidechains as a technological application of Bitcoin should be okay but once you step into the actual tokens or implementations of sidechains then I think it becomes off Bitcoin topic? |
|
|
|
|
From my perspective, that's because, like say, SatoshiDice for example, they run on top of Bitcoin as it is. They're like any other use case of the Bitcoin blockchain.
No comment on the "Yes" but I'm just glad to have learned so much today through all this hubbub. Sleep is now calling my name though. Take care everyone
|
|
|
|
But I don't agree that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus.
I predict that miners won't (vote to) change unless there is network consensus. Nobody has anything to lose by going XT. I honestly hope so. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users. Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum. People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT. They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc. Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end. All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others). You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin. [–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin.permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold Um did he just contradict himself? Hardforks are not silenced yet XT is a hard-fork implementation of bitcoin when certain conditions are met. Some time down the road. Therefore XT should not be silenced. Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network. I love the logic fails even by Theymos. Sidechains, blockstream, and lightning network are not bitcoin yet they are allowed to be discussed on reddit/r/bitcoinIs this a case of selective censorship? Maybe, I don't really know for sure. Is running x code programmed to change to y code the same as running x code that isn't programmed to change to y code? Your examples of sidechains etc. run on Bitcoin and don't require forks to Bitcoin if I'm not mistaken. They're kinda like satoshidice maybe? |
|
|
|
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users. Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum. People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT. They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc. Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end. All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others). You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin. [–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin. permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold ...yet XT is using the exact same chain/protocol as core aside from the future possibility of block size increase. Not an alt chain in any sense as it has been used on other coins like litecoin that are completely separate chains and protocols. XT operates just like CORE as of right now. But I don't agree with XT's definition that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus. |
|
|
|
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users. Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum. People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT. They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc. Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end. All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others). You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin. [–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin. permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold |
|
|
|
I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.
I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
The argument of this guy is that if the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.
The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knew that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics show that the outcomes of democratic process don't align with the best interest of the voters.
Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.
Just because someone makes a client (XT or original satoshi client) doesn't mean they make people choose to use that client. If that were so then Satoshi himself had political influence thus negating your point entirely. I don't see anything that XT is doing other than allowing people a choice to switch their client to one that supports bigger blocks (and a few other minor things). Ultimately people choose what they want to use. Political influence lol. Sorry but I make my own choices by thinking with my brain, not who is in the lime light. If people start to move over but not everyone moves over together, then you get two different blockchains. To me, if everyone doesn't agree to move to a fork, then the proposed fork is not good enough yet. Let It Be |
|
|
|
I have been thinking about the mail from the nickname Satoshi Nakamoto, whoerever it is. His argument is not about the technical side of the debate but about politics and long term future.
I think people need to talk less about the technical implications and more about the political implications of this fork.
The argument of this guys is that is the XT fork is sucessful, that means that in the future someone with enough political influence can make a fork successful. That means that one days the President of the United States, who definitely has enough political influence, will be able to push a succesful fork. And we all know what that would mean: no more 21 million limit. We will be back to central banking.
The argument that the community will decide what is its best interest is invalid. Aristotle already knows that democracy turn into demagogy. And history and economics shows that democracy choices don't align with the best interest of the voters.
Basically the problem is that: by forking we are choosing a democratic political process, and it's the very same process which lead to central banking and is currently unable to stop it.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 |
|
|
|
I'm not against bigger blocks. I am, however, vehemently against some minority coercing rather than appealing on merit a change that affects every member of a system for some collectivist notion of "the common good" without everyone's voluntary consent. Great, bigger blocks can fit more transactions, but maybe we should wait until there is full consensus that fees are indeed too high and we all agree to move together to using bigger blocks. Til then...Perhaps we can even work out a dynamic block size schedule based on rigorously proven and acceptedly fair feedback cycles by then and not have to go through the whole process again. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
But people won't because there is greater risk cost to switch than to stay until some situation demands full consensus migration. Antifragility. Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.
The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
If the economy splits without full consensus in either direction, then this may happen: If that happens, trouble for those on the fork and any businesses/entities that forked over without full consensus. |
|
|
|
I've closed my margin buy position but I am not by now means bearish so keep pumping as I have plenty of XMR waiting for higher prices. I've withdrawn those from the exchange (only about 50 xmr left in exchange) so do not worry, the dump will not be that bad. I am becoming more and more bullish now as the price seems to make nice jumps, emission is only about 13 000 xmr per day and Risto is preparing to start big Monero sales which hopefully will attract others also and create a nice network effect and revives the whole world for Monero. Timing seems good. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for introducing me to his writings, he's hilarious!
|
|
|
|
monero price is very good now, on trex the average is between 220k sat..
i would like to buy some when the price at the 190k sat,,,hope it go down a bit before take off..
Pardon my ignorance but what are sats? I've seen it pop up every so often. |
|
|
|
So thus the proposed ICO method has been abandoned. There is an obviously simple solution. I don't think it is necessary to state it.
This is probably a dumb question, but I would be interested in hearing the solution you propose. I read through the last few pages and didn't see this clarified. That is not a dumb question  |
|
|
|
[..]
In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.
[...]
So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way. What are you smoking, crack? Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do. Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions. So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks? This is one way to defend Bitcoin from XTcoin: The GavinCoin Short. That's FTLDR. you smoking crack? It's like a few paragraphs. It's about 20 pagedowns on my screen. The word short is nowhere to be found. What do you take me for? It is an insult. Not that I care. Anyway it is UFTLDR. (Utterly fucking too long, didn't read). lol only with a crack-addled attention span... I'm on an iPhone in landscape mode and the post itself is 3-4 page downs. Since you are that persevering; found on a link on that page: "The fate of this fork will be exactly the fate of all attempted forks to date : the savvy Bitcoin holders will sell their fake-Bitcoins on the fake network, while double-spending (and thus invalidating) their sale on the actual network, thereby keeping their actual Bitcoin safe.iv The proceeds of this "victimless"v crime will be used to purchase more legitimate Bitcoins on the legitimate network, thus draining away value from the holders of Bitcoin fakes, into the pockets of the legitimate Bitcoin holders." How is this not selling gavincoin and buying cripplecoin? Still the link provided had nothing but svada, the above text is from a link in the link. txs are reflected from the original chain to the forked chain, but not necessarily vice versa so unless there is full consensus on the fork to antiquate the original chain there is risk of attack |
|
|
|
The real Satoshi has never signed anything.
Can more people corroborate this? I am not familiar with his public history too much. That writing is not Satoshi it lack understand of how Bitcoin works. If anything Satoshi would just clarify how he though his imposed limit should be dealt with. You seem so sure. In any case, I think the messenger supported the block increase if and only if full consensus for such a fork was achieved meritoriously. I'm confidant with the information I have, my mine is flexible on the subject. If there is information I don't have the people supporting limiting the block size should present it. This Satoshi email dose not reflect an understanding of the issue being debated. I'm happy to hear. Well, to me, personally, the issue the past recent while is not concerning the block size fork but rather the manner of implementing such a fork. |
|
|
|
[..]
In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.
[...]
So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way. What are you smoking, crack? Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do. Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions. So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks? This is one way to defend Bitcoin from XTcoin: The GavinCoin Short. That's FTLDR. you smoking crack? It's like a few paragraphs. It's about 20 pagedowns on my screen. The word short is nowhere to be found. What do you take me for? It is an insult. Not that I care. Anyway it is UFTLDR. (Utterly fucking too long, didn't read). lol only with a crack-addled attention span... I'm on an iPhone in landscape mode and the post itself is 3-4 page downs. |
|
|
|
[..]
In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.
[...]
So you suggest the Elder Whales will buy up bitcoins from their stash of xtcoins? Just like a central bank would do? Well that is going to be interesting. But there is a risk of losing it all, so I would not bet that it plays out that way. What are you smoking, crack? Elder Whales exercising their GavinCoin Short option is nothing like what central banks do. Your confused, sketchy understanding of the situation continues to surprise and baffle me with its surreal assumptions and bizarre conclusions. So how do they defend the cripplecoin. Pitchforks? This is one way to defend Bitcoin from XTcoin: The GavinCoin Short. That's FTLDR. you smoking crack? It's like a few paragraphs. |
|
|
|
Ah, I wasn't aware that he ever used anything other than gmx. Of course one email being hacked might lead to the other one being hacked too (by similar credentials being used, a recovery process, etc.) But as you say maybe he doesn't care if people believe the message is legit. If it's not a breach of privacy, we could possibly see if the email server operator has logged any such recovery requests re: the second scenario. |
|
|
|
The real Satoshi has never signed anything.
Can more people corroborate this? I am not familiar with his public history too much. That writing is not Satoshi it lack understand of how Bitcoin works. If anything Satoshi would just clarify how he though his imposed limit should be dealt with. You seem so sure. In any case, I think the messenger supported the block increase if and only if full consensus for such a fork was achieved meritoriously. |
|
|
|
If it was Satoshi, clearly he would have at least mentioned Monero in his anti-XT rant very good point. I think you are right That's what I was thinking too!! |
|
|
|
Speculate away  hoax? real? you decide Bitcoin XT Fork
Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
