"Bitcoin" XT Status Update

[iCEBREAKER]

BitcoinXT doesn't have any >1MB blocksize code yet, so there's no reason to assume that the final number is 75.

Well now it does.  I guess there was a reason "to assume that the final number is 75."

So much for your optimistic, yet hollow, hypothetical hope for a more reasonable number like 90.   

[canth]

Got my 2 XT nodes running just fine. Next step, chat with Alan from Armory about getting XT supported. If it never gets to the 75% threshold, well, then there's nothing to argue about, is there? And if it does...I'll bet MPEX jumps to larger blocks just like you and everyone else will.

 

[iCEBREAKER]

Got my 2 XT nodes running just fine. Next step, chat with Alan from Armory about getting XT supported. If it never gets to the 75% threshold, well, then there's nothing to argue about, is there? And if it does...I'll bet MPEX jumps to larger blocks just like you and everyone else will.

75% and about two-fiddy might get you a cup of (crappy horrible tasting macro-roast) coffee.   

What happened to your more reasonable, yet hypothetical, "90%" figure?

Oh that's right, it dissipated into the aether like a dream upon waking.   

Granted, I will be the first to declare my disappointment if MPEX "jumps to larger blocks" without a fight.   

[canth]

Got my 2 XT nodes running just fine. Next step, chat with Alan from Armory about getting XT supported. If it never gets to the 75% threshold, well, then there's nothing to argue about, is there? And if it does...I'll bet MPEX jumps to larger blocks just like you and everyone else will.

75% and about two-fiddy might get you a cup of (crappy horrible tasting macro-roast) coffee.   

What happened to your more reasonable, yet hypothetical, "90%" figure?

Oh that's right, it dissipated into the aether like a dream upon waking.   

Granted, I will be the first to declare my disappointment if MPEX "jumps to larger blocks" without a fight.   

It's all irrelevant anyway. Frontier has been released; all hail Vitalik's turing complete bitcoin killer. Skynet looms upon the horizon...or well, at least some fully verifiable pyramid schemes.

http://www.coinbuzz.com/2015/08/10/ethereum-offers-first-verifiable-pyramid-schemes/

[theymos]

And lets take the beast head on. The 21 million limit. Firstly Satoshi never actually encoded that limit in hard stone, it was added by devs just last year I think. Secondly, we have not even heard of any arguments in favour of it's increase. If say in 20 years it does appear that the fees are insufficient, and for the example let us suppose we are using lightning, considering that so many coins have already been lost irrevocably and may continue to be lost, what makes you think that you can today pass judgment on what may be a different situation?

[kevindurant]

Why some people (x/core devs) try to kill Bitcoin real hard? I don't really understand.
Bitcoin economy is not that big to make 2 coins competition. We need consensus.

[canth]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/

[META] On hardforking: If Bitcoin is so vulnerable to reddit posts and a man who codes in the open, that it requires censorship to stay safe, perhaps it is destined for doom after all.

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/

[META] On hardforking: If Bitcoin is so vulnerable to reddit posts and a man who codes in the open, that it requires censorship to stay safe, perhaps it is destined for doom after all.

Censorship?

As in "the epitome of authoritarianism" and "book burning" censorship? 

No?  Ah, I see.  You meant to say "moderation." 

I wonder why you avoided the proper, neutral term in favor of an inflammatory exaggeration.  Because buttburn?   

I don't think feeling sorry for yourself is a good argument in favor of allowing altcoin posts in /r/bitcoin.

[canth]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/

[META] On hardforking: If Bitcoin is so vulnerable to reddit posts and a man who codes in the open, that it requires censorship to stay safe, perhaps it is destined for doom after all.

Censorship?

As in "the epitome of authoritarianism" and "book burning" censorship? 

No?  Ah, I see.  You meant to say "moderation." 

I wonder why you avoided the proper, neutral term in favor of an inflammatory exaggeration.  Because buttburn?   

I don't think feeling sorry for yourself is a good argument in favor of allowing altcoin posts in /r/bitcoin.

1) It's not my language, although I am quoting it.
2) Cries of altcoin imply that to make changes is impossible and that bitcoin is immutable. Bitcoin is software and it will change.
3) Are people really afraid enough of Gavin, Hearn, reddit posts and open source software? Enough so that suppression (moderation) is worthwhile?

I think you know better - I'm not exactly feeling sorry, period, nevermind for myself.

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdad5/meta_on_hardforking_if_bitcoin_is_so_vulnerable/

[META] On hardforking: If Bitcoin is so vulnerable to reddit posts and a man who codes in the open, that it requires censorship to stay safe, perhaps it is destined for doom after all.

Censorship?

As in "the epitome of authoritarianism" and "book burning" censorship? 

No?  Ah, I see.  You meant to say "moderation." 

I wonder why you avoided the proper, neutral term in favor of an inflammatory exaggeration.  Because buttburn?   

I don't think feeling sorry for yourself is a good argument in favor of allowing altcoin posts in /r/bitcoin.

1) It's not my language, although I am quoting it.
2) Cries of altcoin imply that to make changes is impossible and that bitcoin is immutable. Bitcoin is software and it will change.
3) Are people really afraid enough of Gavin, Hearn, reddit posts and open source software? Enough so that suppression (moderation) is worthwhile?

I think you know better - I'm not exactly feeling sorry, period, nevermind for myself.

Why would anyone be afraid of some silly altcoin with all of 3% of the interest Bitcoin enjoys?

As I've already said, La Serenissima is long accustomed to laughable failed sieges by stymied enemies, Gavincoin merely being the most recent.

Making fun of the hyperbolic language/framing being used by the poor, oppressed victims of thermos' "book burning" moderation is just rubbing the Gavinistas' faces in their tendency to exaggerate.   

The epitome of authoritarianism?  More like the epitome of poutrage!   

[iCEBREAKER]

Please don't spam this forum with duplicate XT posts, as Gavinistas have been doing on reddit.

Afraid of a little competition as usual?  Not just scared of allowing the market to decide when it comes to a fork, but also scared of people posting in a competing thread?  It's reassuring to see the lengths you feel you need to go to in order to defend your interests.  I can't help but think you wouldn't be trying so hard if you weren't threatened by it. 

I think I'll stick to this thread.  It doesn't smell of fear and desperation like yours does.   

Is Theymos not on the side of larger block sizes? I haven't seen any post by him about the subject recently.

If you are not with Team XT, you are against them.  They represent the 3%, so you must bow to their authority.   

[jwinterm]

44-60% of mining power already voting for 8 MB blocks:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3glfo1/44_of_bitcoin_mining_hash_power_is_currently/

Whether it's Gavincoin (as you derisively enjoy referring to XT) or another fork, larger blocks are going to happen, you and Martha Poopoo and MPex are just going to have to deal with it.

[kelsey]

disaster waiting to happen 

 

[iCEBREAKER]

44-60% of mining power already voting for 8 MB blocks:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3glfo1/44_of_bitcoin_mining_hash_power_is_currently/

Whether it's Gavincoin (as you derisively enjoy referring to XT) or another fork, larger blocks are going to happen, you and Martha Poopoo and MPex are just going to have to deal with it.

XT = 3% of nodes.

8MB blocks != XT

XT only starts at 8MB, then goes crazy.  Plus it intentionally breaks TOR.

[BitcoinEXpress]

44-60% of mining power already voting for 8 MB blocks:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3glfo1/44_of_bitcoin_mining_hash_power_is_currently/

Whether it's Gavincoin (as you derisively enjoy referring to XT) or another fork, larger blocks are going to happen, you and Martha Poopoo and MPex are just going to have to deal with it.

XT = 3% of nodes.

8MB blocks != XT

XT only starts at 8MB, then goes crazy.  Plus it intentionally breaks TOR.

So it breaks TOR, who gives a shit.

You really think TOR even slows down most three letter US Gov agencies?

TOR has long been compromised.


~BCX~

[iCEBREAKER]

XT only starts at 8MB, then goes crazy.  Plus it intentionally breaks TOR.

So it breaks TOR, who gives a shit

I'm glad you asked:

XT doesn't stop at 8MB blocks, it continues to bloat them exponentially.  That's why nobody likes it (along with the fact it breaks TOR compatibility, etc.),

That's actually the best reason to ignore XT, I wouldn't use a wallet that won't work over TOR. Seems a little strange, Mike Hearn made a big point of adding TOR compatibility to his bitcoinj function library, why would he suddenly decide it's not so important for the core client?

The debate is a bit of a joke anyway; everyone who understands it knows blocksize limit has to increase. Everyone that understands the debate knows that increasing the blocksize ad infinitum will run up against the exact same problem eventually. Mike and Gavin understand this at a very high level, and yet they still argue for the most polarised position (with no-one credible arguing the opposite).

Mike and Gavin are demonstrably too smart to realise that their solution to the tx rate problem doesn't work. Unless creating tension between (pretty much invented) factions is their actual objective, of course.

[canth]

How exactly does BitcoinXT break Tor/I2P? Seriously, I've not seen anything about that.

There's the fact that <1% of Bitcoin transactions actually use Tor, but that's another story.

[kalooki]

    Bitcoin requires consensus before creating hard forks, or the result fork is not Bitcoin.

No. I keep reading this over and over, and need to point out that it is wrong at the fundamental level.

"Consensus" is what happens AFTER a fork. Anyone can mine anything they want on top of the blockchain; then everyone decides which one they want to do business on.

The assumption that consensus is needed BEFORE a fork is flawed, because there is no methodology for participants to reliably (trustlessly) have consensus before a fork.

Even the whitepaper in it's single use of the word "consensus" uses it to describe an enforcing mechanism for forked chains. Not a pre-fork prerequisite. "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

So claiming consensus is needed prefork is (a) impossible (b) contrary to the main definition of consensus (c) contrary to the definition of consensus in the whitepaper.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this obsession with pre-fork consensus to upgrades is what will doom Bitcoin. On the other hand maybe it is protecting it from chaos...

[Nxtblg]

disaster waiting to happen 

 

More like the disaster-of-the-month "waiting to happen."

Q: Why is Bitcoin better than cats? A: Because cats have only nine lives. Bitcoin has ninety!

[Erdogan]

Info + download:

http://www.xtnodes.com/