Is Bitcointalk a place of free and open discussion?

[meono]

What makes you think merchants won't switch to xt if the majority of miners mine on xt and not on core?

Would it not be in the merchant's best interest to accept coins on the chain that is more time efficient?

Coins being sent on the old chain would be super slow. Can't see why merchants would not switch of the majority of miners processing transactions moved to xt.

A chain with fewer miners is not more efficient. It is more secure, though there would be very few things that could attack even 25% of the network's hashing power.

Blocks would be slower (25 minutes on average instead of 10), but this would only last for a few weeks until the difficulty goes down. Even today it's common for blocks to take 25-60 minutes, so this wouldn't be Earth-shattering.

This wouldn't actually last for long in the scenario where 75% of miners switch but no big economic actors do because the miners who switched will switch back very soon after they realize that they're mining coins that no one will accept.

Smoothie has already switched over, so XT miners will always be able to trade their XTcoins for silver and Hawaiian real estate, no problem.  

LOL just because I switched doesn't mean I will accept payment on a fork. The outcome remains to be seen once the blockchain forks. Any merchant accepting payment on a fork before consensus has been made is retarded.

I support bigger blocks that's the only reason I switched.

If the network decides against larger blocks I will then switch back to core.

Nah not gonna happen until you buy Luke a high end computer, a new place that comes with high speed connection.

Not satisfying one of the dev? well tough luck.... we dont have 100% agreement.....

Dumbest shit i've seen from these clowns

[iCEBREAKER]

Smoothie has already switched over, so XT miners will always be able to trade their XTcoins for silver and Hawaiian real estate, no problem.  

LOL just because I switched doesn't mean I will accept payment on a fork. The outcome remains to be seen once the blockchain forks. Any merchant accepting payment on a fork before consensus has been made is retarded.

I support bigger blocks that's the only reason I switched.

If the network decides against larger blocks I will then switch back to core.

Nah not gonna happen until you buy Luke a high end computer, a new place that comes with high speed connection.

Not satisfying one of the dev? well tough luck.... we dont have 100% agreement.....

XT is "not gonna happen" because nobody (not even our foolish pal smoothie) is willing to stick their neck out by being the first to defect from Core's economic majority.

[smoothie]

here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:

"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."

[smoothie]

Smoothie has already switched over, so XT miners will always be able to trade their XTcoins for silver and Hawaiian real estate, no problem.  

LOL just because I switched doesn't mean I will accept payment on a fork. The outcome remains to be seen once the blockchain forks. Any merchant accepting payment on a fork before consensus has been made is retarded.

I support bigger blocks that's the only reason I switched.

If the network decides against larger blocks I will then switch back to core.

Nah not gonna happen until you buy Luke a high end computer, a new place that comes with high speed connection.

Not satisfying one of the dev? well tough luck.... we dont have 100% agreement.....

XT is "not gonna happen" because nobody (not even our foolish pal smoothie) is willing to stick their neck out by being the first to defect from Core's economic majority.

How am I foolish?

Just because I choose to support bigger blocks does not make me foolish.

You are now starting to sound like you have to resort to ad hominem.

Very mature. 

[Lauda]

here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:

"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."

It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.
Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT.

[sdp]

Bitcoin XT forwards both double spend attack transactions.  If bitcoin-core receives a transaction and another one that conflicts with this transaction,  core will ignore the second one and not forward it.  Now, Bitcoin XT will forward both such transactions..  ergo both double spend attack transactions.

You may want to send a conflicting transaction which wouldn't be really double spend.  In the case you might want to increase the fee for a transaction that is not getting confirmed.

I wonder whether most nodes could cope with 20 MB blocks.  Whereas computing space storage and speed might go up exponentially, home bandwidth rates have faced stagnation and bandwidth caps.  Perhaps the majority of users will use light clients anyway.  We lack the hard data to know what would happen, which makes this XT testnet a good thing.  We only know the parameters in bitcoin-core worked out even in face of a transaction flood attack.  If you have more demanding bandwidth, you may get fewer nodes, we cannot say for certain how many unfortunately.

There is another side of matters that are not technical, yet I think they are even more important in the XT vs. core debate.  If Gavin gets his way here against the majority of developers and if I were king, I would definitely feel I could coerce him into doing things that would be good for the bankers that I serve but bad for bitcoin.  Now his life would become very difficult for him at this point.  It sets a very dangerous precedent.

sdp

[smoothie]

here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:

"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."

It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.
Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT.

Why not just allow discussion of a hard fork (which may or may not happen) continue?

It is bitcoin with support for larger blocks if CONSENSUS of the network is achieved.

How is it not a candidate for actual bitcoin discussion when the code is supportive of the current bitcoin network going forward?

If people choose not to use it then fine. But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.

It isn't like we are talking about a complete restart of the network like Litecoin or whatever.


CORRECTION: Supporting XT is ONE way of supporting bigger blocks.

Don't get it twisted.

[smoothie]

Bitcoin XT forwards both double spend attack transactions.  If bitcoin-core receives a transaction and another one that conflicts with this transaction,  core will ignore the second one and not forward it.  Now, Bitcoin XT will forward both such transactions..  ergo both double spend attack transactions.

You may want to send a conflicting transaction which wouldn't be really double spend.  In the case you might want to increase the fee for a transaction that is not getting confirmed.

I wonder whether most nodes could cope with 20 MB blocks.  Whereas computing space storage and speed might go up exponentially, home bandwidth rates have faced stagnation and bandwidth caps.  Perhaps the majority of users will use light clients anyway.  We lack the hard data to know what would happen, which makes this XT testnet a good thing.  We only know the parameters in bitcoin-core worked out even in face of a transaction flood attack.  If you have more demanding bandwidth, you may get fewer nodes, we cannot say for certain how many unfortunately.

There is another side of matters that are not technical, yet I think they are even more important in the XT vs. core debate.  If Gavin gets his way here against the majority of developers and if I were king, I would definitely feel I could coerce him into doing things that would be good for the bankers that I serve but bad for bitcoin.  Now his life would become very difficult for him at this point.  It sets a very dangerous precedent.

sdp

Having the network (community) ultimately decide if consensus of a hard fork is reached is dangerous? really? If the majority chooses to use XT (or whatever hard fork version) then how is that bad?

If consensus is reached then that means the majority of nodes in the original bitcoin network agree to the changes. If they don't XT will just die.

What's the problem?

No need to censor posts on discussion of a possible fork (not that it will happen).

[Lauda]

-snip-
But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.

You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested).                                Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested. 
Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring.

[smoothie]

-snip-
But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.

You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested).                               Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested.  
Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring.

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

[Lauda]

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar.
Here it is. Ignore the longest chain.  

[smoothie]

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar.
Here it is. Ignore the longest chain.  

censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit.  

thanks for the link...watching it now.  


...

interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it.

Thanks

[smoothie]

@LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion

is it based on nodes?

hash power?

majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?

all 3 above?

[meono]

here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:

"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."

It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.
Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT.

Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?


Convincing huh? you can only try to convince a bunch of kids for so long. They're running circle and refuse to compromise. Guess what the economic majority want that feature and IT WILL BE DONE if bitcoin core devs decide to play hostage game.

[Lauda]

Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?
-snip-

Last time I checked, there was Bitcoin-scrypt which was almost identical from Bitcoin aside that it used scrypt instead of SHA. Does my implication not apply then?
Stop posting from shills.

censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit.  
-snip-
interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it.

Well you could say that it happened on reddit, however theymos did not do it without the right reasons (as mentioned in post).

@LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion

is it based on nodes?
hash power?
majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?

all 3 above?

It is better to say miners as they provide hash power which can't be properly measured anyways. I would say all of the above. Let me quote theymos on this one as I fully agree with him on the following:

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.

Update:
Insults will not be tolerated in any way, and you're now a confirmed shill. Welcome to the ignore list meono.

[meono]

Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.

I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?

Please provide this.

Thanks

BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar.
Here it is. Ignore the longest chain.  

Hey idiot, if you prefer to the video atleast have a fucking understanding of what he said b4 jumping on the bandwagon to bash blindly.

Let me quote you what he said so you can fucking read over again:

If the needs of the wider global bitcoin community start diverging from what miners in China want, the who wins .... the answer is the economic majority wins

This fucking block size debate has been going forever. Bitcoin core devs play games around all the bullshit they can come up with. Also bitcoin miners MUST follow the economic majority unless they're stupid. They're business to make profits, they dont care about the growth of bitcoin community. So why the fuck do we have to beg them ?

This community/forum is now just full of retards. Most of old members are gone, all new members are altcoin junkies.

[meono]

Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?
-snip-

Last time I checked, there was Bitcoin-scrypt which was almost identical from Bitcoin aside that it used Scrypt instead of SHA. Does my implication not apply then?
Stop posting from shills.

Retard, first let me fix those typos for you

Second there is a difference between forking the current blockchain and forking the original code to create a new blockchain.

Calling a fork of bitcoin blockchain an altcoin is stupid. Consensus of the bitcoin network isnt between bitcoin core devs, what are they? the fucking owners or what?

Consensus should be based on the network/community.

[Blazr]

This community/forum is now just full of retards.

I partly agree but I think the retards are the trolls like you who cover the forum in all these shitposts and personal attacks. It has gotten to the point that the majority of members here have to stay anonymous to avoid receiving personal attacks from people like you. I honestly think there should be a huge crackdown on alt accounts. I also think that personal attacks and threats of violence should be removed from the forum too. The forum is a bit too liberal in this area, there needs to be some order if we actually want this to be a friendly Bitcoin community and not turn into something like hackforums. There are always going to be bad-apples who want to ruin it for others and they will succeed unless action is taken.

[meono]

This community/forum is now just full of retards.

I partly agree but I think the retards are the trolls like you who cover the forum in all these shitposts and personal attacks. It has gotten to the point that the majority of members here have to stay anonymous to avoid receiving personal attacks from people like you. I honestly think there should be a huge crackdown on alt accounts. I also think that personal attacks and threats of violence should be removed from the forum too. The forum is a bit too liberal in this area, there needs to be some order if we actually want this to be a friendly Bitcoin community and not turn into something like hackforums. There are always going to be bad-apples who want to ruin it for others and they will succeed unless action is taken.

Gotta love the internet, calling anyone that point out our stupidity ... a troll.

Also a shill if they dont support what we believe.

Funny someone actually said I'm Gavin's alt acct.

Your post is a perfect example of what i mean by "full of retards". Meanwhile, Icebreaker is a known shill for HashFast fraud.

[iCEBREAKER]

deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.

You keep using that word, i dont think you know what it means

Maybe you can go and live in China to understand what censorship means

http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/07/05/25-shocking-facts-about-chinese-censorship/

smoothie, knock off your drama queen act.  Or I will make memes about your First World Censorship Problems.