Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol]

[brg444]

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/635882565090607105

Frap.doc: "any ideas where to rehost "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP"? this is the only 1 i'm aware of: http://bitco.in/forum/"

The cheerleaders of banning and censoring still don't realise that they are the best supporters of their enemies. That's amazing.

XT is dead 

[1714148888]

1714148888

[1714148888]

1714148888

[1714148888]

1714148888

[1714148888]

1714148888

[Zarathustra]

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

[brg444]

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.

 

[brg444]

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.

 

Blockstream was never meant to be in competition with Bitcoin and definitely could not pretend to any "unfair advantage". good morning lambtroll

[Carlton Banks]

BIP101 (and BIP100 as well) is gaining strength, caused by XT. That's the only thing that's important.

Both will get tossed aside once our good folks at Blockstream release their BIP for a flex cap  

And when that happens, we win.

Once blocks can grow at their own rate, blockstream will be in competition with native bitcoin, with no unfair advantage. And thats really whats going on here. Nobody gives a shit about XT v. Core.  Its about maintaining a level playing field.

 

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Yeah, you truly are handicapped - finally something I agree with you on.    (joking)

Blocksize is already dynamic. Have a look at the recent block sizes, they vary from 300kb to over 900kb. Edit:  fixed to kb. Thanks RealBitcoin

However, it will be always limited by whatever max blocksize is set to. Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

And you are right, as max size gets larger, spam attacks are disincentiveised, so not sure why you say that.  

[RealBitcoin]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Yeah, you truly are handicapped - finally something I agree with you on.     (joking)

Blocksize is already dynamic. Have a look at the recent block sizes, they vary from 300mb to over 900mb.

However, it will be always limited by whatever max blocksize is set to. Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

And you are right, as max size gets larger, spam attacks are disincentiveised, so not sure why you say that. 

You mean kilobytes. And it rarely hits 900 kb, its more like between 300-500, and if it rarely hits 1 mb, oh boy, i dont think a little delay will affect people.

Now to make it more performant i think the 4-8 mb block increase should be appropriate now, simultaneously with some internal payment processors, that can do the dust transactions inhouse (without fee, but centralized) while the big ones would go (with fee, but decentralized) on the blockchain.

XAPO,COINBASE,BITPAY, CIRCLE, etc could/should do it....

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Blockstream was never meant to be in competition with Bitcoin and definitely could not pretend to any "unfair advantage". good morning lambtroll

Of course it is. To make a compelling business case fro sidechains, there has to be a large volume of traffic. The best way to get this volume ( without creating it or finding it yourself) is o take it from the existing traffic. If fee's can be forced upwards, it makes it easier to coax that traffic from native bitcoin to a privately run sidechain.

I should point out that I have no beef with the idea of sidechains. Or LN for that matter. But I feel they need to stand on their own merits, and compete for traffic on their own merits, and not through a competitive advantage achieved by an artificial price distortion.

If I was lambie, I would be inserting bouncing ponies here.  

[Carlton Banks]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

Stick to your small blocks then, and fork off into a footnote in the history of bitcoin, Carlton

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You mean kilobytes. And it rarely hits 900 kb, its more like between 300-500, and if it rarely hits 1 mb, oh boy, i dont think a little delay will affect people.

Now to make it more performant i think the 4-8 mb block increase should be appropriate now, simultaneously with some internal payment processors, that can do the dust transactions inhouse (without fee, but centralized) while the big ones would go (with fee, but decentralized) on the blockchain.

XAPO,COINBASE,BITPAY, CIRCLE, etc could/should do it....

Yes, sorry. Not since the days of the zx81 has a kilobyte been so important.! 

I'm sure that will happen - but it will happen in the context of an open market on the blockchain.

[Adrian-x]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

[brg444]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

FUD

Miners will be able to merge mine sidechains.

"Remove the cap"

You realise how clueless you sound when you say such a thing? You think you figured it out and EVERYONE else is too dumb to understand it !? Well understand there is no support from any sides for lifting the cap completely for absolutely good reasons. So enjoy the crow because your dreams are about to be crushed, repeatedly.

By that I mean:

-XT is DOA
-8MB blocks are DOA
-Blockstream will save the day
-Sidechains will be a resounding success

Enjoy the little time you have left pretending "things are working your way"

[Carlton Banks]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

that's a whole load of stuff I did not state. what was the purpose of saying it in reply to my comment?

[brg444]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

that's a whole load of stuff I did not state. what was the purpose of saying it in reply to my comment?

Don't mind him. He's panicking.

[brg444]

A dynamic blocksize can outgrow (and disincentivise) whatever spam attack that anyone throws at it. BIP101 has no chance against that.

Dynamic dosn't mean infinite.

Spam attacks won't be infinite either. Go home.

for someone who has been around longer than the Blockstreams shills, you should know better, Blockstream are actively trying to move bitcoin transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain.

Whatever their reasons, lower transaction volume will reduce miners income as block subsidies diminishes, that is a change to the revenue necessary to support the incentive structure inherent in Bitcoin.

now trying to disprove the obvious is disingenuous, we already know that miners are incentivized to mine the smallest blocks possible so we dont need to change Bitcoin at all, we just need to remove the cap.

every thing else is FUD.

“We do support big blocks if it is implemented in Bitcoin Core. But we believe the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “While the question whether and how to increase the block-size limit is a technical one, the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”

Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.

“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.

 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

“We do support big blocks”

 

Thats the key take away here. Nobody cares who he hates, or who he wants to shove his d into, or who should resign or who should run for president.
 
What he is saying is - "I dont give a shit what your reasons are Core, but give me big blocks or I wont support you..."


Its big blocks all the way, yo.   

[iCEBREAKER]

  the only force i see is the censorship   

Aww, sad Frap.doc has a sad.   

You really don't understand the enormous difference between moderation and censorship?

Or are you invoking the specter of authoritarianism in a cheap attempt to rationalize your pouting?

After all your altcoin-hater BS invoking Metcalfe's network effect, you defect and self-isolate on bitco.in's obscure forum for rage-quitters....

Have fun with the dozen or so XT dead-enders on that lost island of misfit Gavinistas!   

[iCEBREAKER]

“the whole ‘Bitcoin’ XT thing is manipulation,” Chun said. “the Bitcoin Core and ‘Bitcoin’ XT issue is political. By introducing ‘Bitcoin’ XT, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn are splitting the community. Totalitarianism and dictators cannot co-exist with the free and open-source software spirit.”

Chun’s opposition wasn’t subtle.

“Boycott ‘Bitcoin’ XT. Bitcoin Core forever. Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn should resign,” he said.

 

BitFury CEO Valery Vavilov told Bitcoin Magazine: “The Bitcoin Blockchain is not an amateur project anymore – it is becoming a platform for the Global Economy of Things. Changing the base rules can affect a lot of things, thus, any changes should be done very carefully, gradually, and with tests.”

He added: “The proposed transition to the alternative client raises some concerns about its security: It is well known that key parts of the default Bitcoin Core client were thoroughly checked and sometimes formally verified, which cannot be said about alternative clients – including Bitcoin XT.”