"Bitcoin" XT Status Update

[iCEBREAKER]

This BitcoinXT thing seems like an interesting new project, and I think we should be discussing it here since two big former BTC contributors (Gavin and Mike) are backing it.

Hello,

As you may have noticed, Bitcoin unfortunately has run out of capacity due to someone DoS attacking the network. We now get a preview of coming attractions (so far that means, people complaining that their transactions are not confirming).

Gavin has prepared patches that implement a hard fork in January for bigger blocks. I spent the last couple of days testing and doing a second code review of the patches, this revealed some further bugs and I have sent him patches to fix them. However Gavin is on vacation and so not much will happen until he is back next week.

In the past week we also found that Gavin's XT node was under attack via Tor. In case this was a trial run, I have prepared a patch to help with that a bit, though DoS attacks are an ongoing matter of concern that require significant effort to raise the bar. I will put that patch into the next XT release.

I will try and find time to look at ways to resolve the current tx flooding attack in the next day or two. I suspect it can be mitigated through heavier reliance on coin age priority, as coin age is not something that can be trivially bought on the spot, unlike fee priority. If anyone wants to beat me to it, please go ahead.

thanks,
-mike

[1713915813]

1713915813

[canth]

This BitcoinXT thing seems like an interesting new project, and I think we should be discussing it here since two big former BTC contributors (Gavin and Mike) are backing it.

Hello,

As you may have noticed, Bitcoin unfortunately has run out of capacity due to someone DoS attacking the network. We now get a preview of coming attractions (so far that means, people complaining that their transactions are not confirming).

Gavin has prepared patches that implement a hard fork in January for bigger blocks. I spent the last couple of days testing and doing a second code review of the patches, this revealed some further bugs and I have sent him patches to fix them. However Gavin is on vacation and so not much will happen until he is back next week.

In the past week we also found that Gavin's XT node was under attack via Tor. In case this was a trial run, I have prepared a patch to help with that a bit, though DoS attacks are an ongoing matter of concern that require significant effort to raise the bar. I will put that patch into the next XT release.

I will try and find time to look at ways to resolve the current tx flooding attack in the next day or two. I suspect it can be mitigated through heavier reliance on coin age priority, as coin age is not something that can be trivially bought on the spot, unlike fee priority. If anyone wants to beat me to it, please go ahead.

thanks,
-mike

OK - lets put you on record.

Hypothetical: if 90% of the network ran BitcoinXT (or any other Bitcoin Core fork supporting larger block sizes), which side would you be on? Would you hold fast and stick to 'the original bitcoin' or would you go along with the supermajority?

[iCEBREAKER]

OK - lets put you on record.

Hypothetical: if 90% of the network ran BitcoinXT (or any other Bitcoin Core fork supporting larger block sizes), which side would you be on? Would you hold fast and stick to 'the original bitcoin' or would you go along with the supermajority?

Oh you mean there's gonna to be an album of this? How exciting. Oh terrific. Yeah sure. (clears throat) My name's Chris Peterson, Americano.   

XT's minimum participation threshold is 75%.  IDK where you got 90% from, but it sure is easier to defend that hypothetical, isn't it?

And do you mean putative "90%" (which is purely self-reported) or actual 90%?

You need to be clear because, as we saw with the BIP66 fork, self-reported numbers are often wildly and problematically optimistic.

BIP66's supposed "95%" turned out in reality to be 64%.  What makes you think XT's far more lower 75% (or your made-up 90%) will be any less of a shitstorm, especially given the fog of war and associated maliciousness Gavin's contentious hard fork will entail?

What part of "If you go on a Bitcoin fork, irrespective which scammer proposes it, you will lose your Bitcoins" do you not understand?

I won't contaminate my coins with Gavintaint unless MPEX's Gavincoin Short somehow fails and #bitcoin-assets throws in the towel.

[canth]

OK - lets put you on record.

Hypothetical: if 90% of the network ran BitcoinXT (or any other Bitcoin Core fork supporting larger block sizes), which side would you be on? Would you hold fast and stick to 'the original bitcoin' or would you go along with the supermajority?

Oh you mean there's gonna to be an album of this? How exciting. Oh terrific. Yeah sure. (clears throat) My name's Chris Peterson, Americano.  

XT's minimum participation threshold is 75%.  IDK where you got 90% from, but it sure is easier to defend that hypothetical, isn't it?

And do you mean putative "90%" (which is purely self-reported) or actual 90%?

You need to be clear because, as we saw with the BIP66 fork, self-reported numbers are often wildly and problematically optimistic.

BIP66's supposed "95%" turned out in reality to be 64%.  What makes you think XT's far more lower 75% (or your made-up 90%) will be any less of a shitstorm, especially given the fog of war and associated maliciousness Gavin's contentious hard fork will entail?

What part of "If you go on a Bitcoin fork, irrespective which scammer proposes it, you will lose your Bitcoins" do you not understand?

I won't contaminate my coins with Gavintaint unless MPEX's Gavincoin Short somehow fails and #bitcoin-assets throws in the towel.

I said hypothetical because that's what it is - a hypothetical. BitcoinXT doesn't have any >1MB blocksize code yet, so there's no reason to assume that the final number is 75.

Regardless, you've said that you won't 'contaminate' your coins unless MPEX fails, which is fine. I seriously doubt you'll stick to that but hey, if we're going to play chicken we might as well have people that talk a good game - it would be boring otherwise.

Longest chain with the most users and the most coins wins - GL going against a supermajority if it comes to that.

[NattyLiteCoin]

Congrats canth, you said chikun, learn more at www.litecoin.com

[canth]

Congrats canth, you said chikun, learn more at www.litecoin.com

Ha...so we've got another that's going to go against the flow? I think most people are liars when it comes down to this topic, but if you really are brave enough to stay on the short side of a PoW fork- you've got bigger balls than me.

[iCEBREAKER]

I think most people are liars when it comes down to this topic, but if you really are brave enough to stay on the short side of a PoW fork- you've got bigger balls than me.

Yes, the fact that "most people are liars when it comes down to this topic" is why I asked you to account for the vast, empirically problematically significant discrepancy between self-reported trigger thresholds and actual compliance.

All you did, by hedging with your weaselly "subject to change" squishiness, was admit "75%" is a terrible idea.

I think we both know that BIP66's example of "95%" theoretical translating into 64% actual, in a non-contentious soft-fork no less, indicates GavinCoin will be a complete shit show whether it uses an ostensible 75%, 90%, or 95%.

Did you read the qntra and trilema links in my post?

They explain why saying on the short side is the safest strategy.

My coins are perfectly safe sitting out the Grand Schism.

OTOH, coins moved to the bloat-fork are at risk of being lost or becoming worthless:

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

Bitcoin is not a democracy nor a popularity contest.  Blocksize will not be determined by Gavin's Redditard Army.

The fork will be decided by economic power.  Do you have more coins than MPEX and the #bitcoin-assets crowd, and the core devs, and btcdrak, etc.?  Do Gavin and Hearn?  No, I didn't think so either.   

[canth]

I think most people are liars when it comes down to this topic, but if you really are brave enough to stay on the short side of a PoW fork- you've got bigger balls than me.

Yes, the fact that "most people are liars when it comes down to this topic" is why I asked you to account for the vast, empirically problematically significant discrepancy between self-reported trigger thresholds and actual compliance.

All you did, by hedging with your weaselly "subject to change" squishiness, was admit "75%" is a terrible idea.

I think we both know that BIP66's example of "95%" theoretical translating into 64% actual, in a non-contentious soft-fork no less, indicates GavinCoin will be a complete shit show whether it uses an ostensible 75%, 90%, or 95%.

To me, BIP66 shows that SPV wallets and SPV mining is a terrible way to secure any sort of meaningful transactions and requires running non-ancient versions of software. I'll agree, there is no way of knowing the difference between self-reporting thresholds and actual compliance except for when it comes down to maintaining consensus. Consensus is a very broad term, but for kicks lets say a supermajority of PoW hashing power, a supermajority of economic power including large holders, exchanges and wallet providers.

Since there's no way of knowing, the only way to find out is to offer software forks and let users choose to run what they will.

Did you read the qntra and trilema links in my post?

They explain why saying on the short side is the safest strategy.

I've read them both in the past and I'm not terribly impressed. People talk a lot, MPEX/trilema more so. So he's got some coins - he speaks for the community no more than Gavin/Hearn do. I respect others opinions and they're welcome to do what they will with their coins.

My coins are perfectly safe sitting out the Grand Schism.

OTOH, coins moved to the bloat-fork are at risk of being lost or becoming worthless:

http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

As the Giga-blockchain and main-blockchain continue to grow from the fork, those actively attacking the Giga-Blockchain will create many transactions that allow their main-blockchain coins to duplicate over to the Giga-blockchain while remaining safely on the main-blockchain. The transactions that succeed can then be used to acquire more main-blockchain coins upon which the cycle repeats. Eventually the blockchain with the most financial resources behind it will continue to grow at a faster pace, while the other slowly, and eventually stops growing altogether.

Those siding with the wrong chain who end up accepting duplicated transactions from the other chain, such as a purchase from an exchange running on the losing blockchain, will lose those coins when the dust settles. No war is without casulties, the Great Blockchain Civil War will be no different.

Bitcoin is not a democracy nor a popularity contest.  Blocksize will not be determined by Gavin's Redditard Army.

The fork will be decided by economic power.  Do you have more coins than MPEX and the #bitcoin-assets crowd, and the core devs, and btcdrak, etc.?  Do Gavin and Hearn?  No, I didn't think so either.   

My coins will be perfectly safe as well - like I say, I'll be on the longer fork and won't care what's going on with the shorter one.

Bitcoin is a democratic popularity contest, but I agree - not one with equal representation. It's determined by economic power indeed and that can't be measured by strong shouting on #bitcoin-assets or by MPEX or reddit. It'll be determined on the nodes. Run what software you like, sit on the fence, I don't care.

When the dust has settled, I'll be on the longer chain - whether that's 1MB, 100MB or if luke-jr gets his way, 100KB blocks.

[iCEBREAKER]

So he's got some coins - he speaks for the community no more than Gavin/Hearn do.

"Some coins?"

Is that your subtle yet snotty way of conceding MPEX and associated #btc-a folk most probably do in fact posses far more economic influence than Team Gavin?

Or are you counting on Hearn's buddies at google.mil to throw some freely printed central bank fiat at the bloat-fork?

If so, you do realize the leverage provided by the Gavincoin Short mechanism provides MP & Co with commanding heights and a downhill battle, right?


"the community?"

Didn't we just agree the fork's fate will be decided by power, not (up)votes?  

Let's pretend MP and the core devs are vanquished by the Gavinista insurgency:

Now we all have XP, like it or not.

Then something breaks at 3am.  Who is going to fix it?  The spurned former core devs?  Gavin the Economist?  Mike 'Let's reduce fees by 10x and induce crapfloods' Hearn?

Or do you imagine Gavin can simply post to r/bitcoin and crowdfund some new devs via Mechanical Turk and Fiverr?

Putting your coins on the longer chain won't save them, if that chain's blocks are invalid.  We just learned that lesson with BIP66.  

[Alley]

Has there been any statements from core devs lately?  Whats their current plan?

[iCEBREAKER]

Has there been any statements from core devs lately?  Whats their current plan?

The core devs' current plan is to first scale Bitcoin to 1MB, then worry about what to do (and/or not do) next.

Source: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/616027500561346560

But this is the Altcoin sub, so let's get back on topic and discuss Hearn's XT project.   

[Za1n]

I do not pretend to understand all this bitcoin fork talk, but am I to understand that  some type of change is going to take place that could put bitcoins at risk?

Could someone explain in simple terms what actions I would need to take to protect the small amount of bitcoins I do own? Is there a time period I should perhaps cash completely out and wait until this is settled?

[iCEBREAKER]

I do not pretend to understand all this bitcoin fork talk, but am I to understand that  some type of change is going to take place that could put bitcoins at risk?

Could someone explain in simple terms what actions I would need to take to protect the small amount of bitcoins I do own? Is there a time period I should perhaps cash completely out and wait until this is settled?

Bitcoin's own former lead dev, Gavin, and his henchman Hearn are in the process of sabotaging Bitcoin from the inside.

You will hear about it when their XT trojan horse deploys its payload, and attempts to force us all to join their altcoin at Bitcoin's expense.

When that happens, simply keep your BTC offline until it's over and the dust settles (lol, blockchain pun!).

Read this http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/

and this http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

to understand why.

[canth]

<snip>

Let's pretend MP and the core devs are vanquished by the Gavinista insurgency.

Now we all have XP, like or not.

Then something breaks at 3am.  Who is going to fix it?  The spurned former core devs?  Gavin the Economist?  Mike 'Let's reduce fees by 10x and induce crapfloods' Hearn?

Or do you imagine Gavin can simply post to r/bitcoin and crowdfund some new devs via Mechanical Turk and Fiverr?

Putting your coins on the longer chain won't save them, if that chain's blocks are invalid.  We just learned that lesson with BIP66.   

If the "insurgency" as you describe occurs, do you really think that the 'former core devs' will quit working for MIT, BitPay and Blockstream since they're no longer maintaining Bitcoin Core, an unused fiefdom? BitcoinXT might go nowhere - it might never get more than 10% of the network. However, as soon as it gets north of 40%, I predict that negotiations happen and all of a sudden the >1MB "gavin patch" goes into Bitcoin Core.

The core devs will continue to be core devs and XT will exist as a separate software fork, just the same as it is today.

[canth]

So he's got some coins - he speaks for the community no more than Gavin/Hearn do.

"Some coins?"

Is that your subtle yet snotty way of conceding MPEX and associated #btc-a folk most probably do in fact posses far more economic influence than Team Gavin?

Or are you counting on Hearn's buddies at google.mil to throw some freely printed central bank fiat at the bloat-fork?

If so, you do realize the leverage provided by the Gavincoin Short mechanism provides MP & Co with commanding heights and a downhill battle, right?

This isn't Gavin/Hearn vs MPEX / #btc-assets - it's much bigger than that. Scroll to the bottom of this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate

[iCEBREAKER]

This isn't Gavin/Hearn vs MPEX / #btc-assets - it's much bigger than that. Scroll to the bottom of this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate

Of course the sides are bigger than the people I used to typify them.  But I still think MPEX & Co have more coins and (more importantly) are willing to spend more coins to win the civil war than anyone else.

And I have no idea what the core devs would or would not do about their careers if Hearn wins.  I just suspect they might be less enthusiastic about fixing and improving code imposed upon them without consent.

So far, Gavin is the only who's threatened to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.  But it could be a trend...

Did you see cypherdoc asking gmax why his XT node has an unreasonably bloated swap file?  Classic!   

[canth]

This isn't Gavin/Hearn vs MPEX / #btc-assets - it's much bigger than that. Scroll to the bottom of this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Blocksize_debate

Of course the sides are bigger than the people I used to typify them.  But I still think MPEX & Co have more coins and (more importantly) are willing to spend more coins to win the civil war than anyone else.

And I have no idea what the core devs would or would not do about their careers if Hearn wins.  I just suspect they might be less enthusiastic about fixing and improving code imposed upon them without consent.

So far, Gavin is the only who's threatened to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get his way.  But it could be a trend...

Did you see cypherdoc asking gmax why his XT node has an unreasonably bloated swap file?  Classic!  

Honestly, if >1MB blocks are this controversial then BitcoinXT will just stay what it is - a minor fork of bitcoin core run by no one except testers.

Say what you will about one side or another, but the ideas discussed and the questions brought up are important.

How best to handle opposing views?
How to hard fork bitcoin intentionally?
What does consensus mean?

I don't think debating it ad nauseum is best. Debate, disagree and if both sides can't meet - put the software out and let the nodes/mining/coins (economic momentum) decide. Bitcoin is bigger than any 1-2 or even 20 developers to decide on their own, no matter how capable they may be in their own right.

[iCEBREAKER]

Honestly, if >1MB blocks are this controversial then BitcoinXT will just stay what it is - a minor fork of bitcoin core run by no one except testers.

Say what you will about one side or another, but the ideas discussed and the questions brought up are important.

How best to handle opposing views?
How to hard fork bitcoin intentionally?
What does consensus mean?

I don't think debating it ad nauseum is best. Debate, disagree and if both sides can't meet - put the software out and let the nodes/mining/coins (economic momentum) decide. Bitcoin is bigger than any 1-2 or even 20 developers to decide on their own, no matter how capable they may be in their own right.

The "economic momentum" will follow the economic power/majority, which belongs to those willing to spend/risk the most coins attacking the other side.  Effectiveness of the coins spent/risked also depends on relative position as defender or attacker.

BTC is designed to grant all possible advantages to defenders of its status quo.  Combine that fact with MPEX's Smaug-like hoarde of ancient coins, and then multiply the effect by the leverage the Gavincoin Short provides to the chain with smaller blocks:

It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.

I think debating it ad nauseum is best (for Bitcoin), precisely because "the ideas discussed and the questions brought up are important."

As the debate rages endlessly more people become informed about Bitcoin's properties, both at the internal crypto-magic (uxto/mempool/createnewblock/relay/RBF) and external systemic (consensus/opposition/controversy/Gavincoin Short) levels.

XT isn't run "by no one except testers."  That would have been the appropriate traditional approach, but Gavin and Mike decided to it was better to force the issue by prematurely escalating XT to a troll/attack fork, complete with its own core-dev-free github.  So XT is being run by Gavinistas determined to impose on the rest of us, external to the BIP/consensus process, their own pet hard fork.

The endless debate (which has gone on harmlessly for the past ~5 years) usefully creates something asymptotically approaching clarity, as well as counterplans.

Now instead of just XT, we have on the shelf and ready to go Plans B, C, etc. in the form of BIP100, 101, and so on.

I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

As much as I believe in BTC's antifragility, Gavin's XT line in the sand (with its absurdly low, unverifiable "75%" opt-in trigger) has the potential to result in the kind of black swan chaos that may be the Kryptonite to BTC's nigh-invincible Superman.

[canth]

It will be impossible for the Giga-chain to keep 1:1 parity with the main chain from which it forks, they contain different transaction, although some may overlap. Here a user broadcasts a transaction with inputs originating on the Main-chain, and is eventually included in a block on the Giga-chain, but not on the Main-chain. The coin is essentially duplicated onto both chains.[/center]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see how this is relevant. If the majority of miners are creating longer chains of blocks which include > 1MB blocks and all of the participants that I care to business with agree that this is the valid chain to do transactions on, then what I do give a crap about whether or not MPEX or anyone else does with their coins? Whether they sit on them or spend them on both chains makes no difference to me.

Hard forks only matter to you if you're on the short (wrong) side of the fork, otherwise it just means a faster block rate until the next difficulty adjustment.

[iCEBREAKER]

Uh-oh!  Trouble in Gavinista paradise.




XT nodes have dropped from a high of 154 to 103 at present.

103 XT nodes / 6098 total = 1.7%


And then there's this:

https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg00500.html

tx1: To merchant, but dust/low-fee/reused-address/large-size/etc. anything that miners don't always accept.


tx2: After merchant gives up valuable thing in return, normal tx without triggering spam protections. (loltasticly a Mike Hearn Bitcoin XT node was used to relay the double-spends)


Example success story: tx1 paying Shapeshift.io with 6uBTC output is not dust under post-Hearn-relay-drop rules, but is dust under pre-Hearn-relay-drop rules