Not Bitcoin XT

[tsoPANos]

That spoof client could affect peoples psychology and actually create a new wave of bitcoin XT adoption.
Or it could make bitcoin XT allow >1 mb blocks too early and bring chaos to the bitcoin ecosystem.
I don't believe at this though. Even if it makes XT allow bigger blocks too early, we will not see any big blocks unless we get a big transaction volume.
Nice idea though.

[iCEBREAKER]

NotBitcoinXT can be used to protect the status quo

Of everything you've ever said on this forum, your current signature is quite possibly the most honest you've even been about your views towards Bitcoin.  You genuinely believe Bitcoin is a means to provide enormous value to a small minority.  For you it's all about preserving the status quo.  It's not just that you don't care if Bitcoin becomes a niche plaything for a wealthy elite, in fact that's your actual goal here.  You're doing everything you can to try to undermine larger blocks, because you know that your endgame doesn't involve making Bitcoin scalable, it involves forcing everyone else off of "your" chain.

Bitcoin is not and will never be about preserving the status quo.  Keep dreaming if that's how you think this plays out in the long term. 

I think most on this sub-forum are aware that scaling up the current design isn't the only way to allow for mainstream sized transaction rates.

Not the only way indeed but currently the only way. It's kind of the point.

There is no way to scale Bitcoin "currently."  Blockstream is working on it, and have at least two promising prototypes in SC/LN.

Bloating Layer 1 with more of the same is not "scaling up the current design."

You can't get to Visa from here, no matter how large you make the blocks.  Because trade-offs.  Make the blocks too large, and miners simply create more empty ones.  It's already a huge problem at 1MB 750k.

[knight22]

Blockstream and bitcoin are 2 separate things and in no way scales bitcoin itself.

[iCEBREAKER]

At the moment, only the developers get to decide on what's merged into Bitcoin Core, and what isn't.
Additionally to that, theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum and reddit.
In the end, bitcoin consensus is the only method of voting left to the community.

Whichever fork wins the vote, so be it, it got consensus. Removing this possibility
from the community seems really counter-productive.

By using this fork, you're not voting for one of option or the other. Instead, you're
the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.

Since when did theymos control reddit?  Is he Pao's replacement?  Has he banned /r/BitcoinXT, /r/BTC, /r/bitcoin_uncensored, etc?

And how is this thread possible if "theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum?"

I guess he just did a really bad job of it.   

Your hysteria over NotXT users "gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot" is quite remarkable.

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

[knight22]

At the moment, only the developers get to decide on what's merged into Bitcoin Core, and what isn't.
Additionally to that, theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum and reddit.
In the end, bitcoin consensus is the only method of voting left to the community.

Whichever fork wins the vote, so be it, it got consensus. Removing this possibility
from the community seems really counter-productive.

By using this fork, you're not voting for one of option or the other. Instead, you're
the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.

Since when did theymos control reddit?  Is he Pao's replacement?  Has he banned /r/BitcoinXT, /r/BTC, /r/bitcoin_uncensored, etc?

And how is this thread possible if "theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum?"

I guess he just did a really bad job of it.  

Your hysteria over NotXT users "gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot" is quite remarkable.

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

The only hysteric person here is you and I am indeed banned from /r/bitcoin for talking about shuuuuuut XT

[iCEBREAKER]

Blockstream and bitcoin are 2 separate things and in no way scales bitcoin itself.

Yes, Blockstream is a company, not a technology or software protocol.

Its two prototypes for scaling Bitcon, LN and SC, are open source.

If successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways.

The only hysteric person here is you.

I'm not the one comparing NotXT users with

the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.

Don't you find that comparison just a little dramatic?  

Wait, don't answer that.  Fuck off to https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt and stop supporting theymos' dictatorship!

[aliveonearth]

Seriously..   And you people wonder why we haven't seen mass adoption. 

[achow101]

I have thought about this for a little bit, and I have thought of two scenarios that could happen because of NotBitcoinXT

Scenario #1: Some people (a small percentage, less than 10%), including miners and exchanges, use BitcoinXT. NotBitcoinXT gains enough usage to cause a fork. Those 10% using XT are forked, while everyone else continues on normally. Some business is disrupted, but not too majorly and those XT users abandon XT and return to Bitcoin Core and your plan worked to maintain the status quo.

Scenario #2: A large portion( around 50%) of the users are using XT, and some more people use NotBitcoinXT which causes a fork. Now half of the Network is one the XT chain, and the other half on the Core chain. There are essentially two Bitcoins because the XT chain will continue to call itself Bitcoin since it was supposed to be a fork with consensus. Users will be frustrated because there are two coins called Bitcoin but you can't know which one to use. Business are confused and get angry customers because of the two chains, and new users don't know which one to use. lot of users and businesses stop using Bitcoin due to the hassle involved with trying to sell things with Bitcoin and two chains. Then they leave and don't come back because of this massive fuck-up and Bitcoin is Dead. Also, malicious users will have both clients, and get double their coins and attempt to sell to get the most profit.

Scenario #3: Ntohing happens and neither XT nor NotBitcoinXT gains enough traction to cause a fork.

Also, if people start to see XT to appear like it is gaining traction(when a lot of it is NotBitcoinXT nodes) and nearing the fork point, it might actually cause more people to jump to XT in order to stay in business. After the fork scenario two happens and shit hits the fan.

So again, please tell me how causing Scenario #2 is good? Or are you trying to go for Scenario #1?

[Rampion]

And this (Not Bitcoin XT) is exactly why contentious hard forks are doomed. Andresen and Hearn should grow a pair and bootstrap their own altcoin from scratch instead of trying to piggyback Bitcoin Core's network effect.

[JorgeStolfi]

Since when did theymos control reddit?  Is he Pao's replacement?  Has he banned /r/BitcoinXT, /r/BTC, /r/bitcoin_uncensored, etc?

Theymos is the creator/mod of /r/bitcoin, a section of reddit ("subreddit").  As such he has substantial freedom to decide what gets posted and who gets banned.  

However there are some general reddit rules for mods (e.g. he should not moderate topics in which he has a financial interest, or ban people who did not violate any rules), and there are clais that he violated those limits.    

But those who are unhappy with it have moved to /r/bitcoin_uncensored or /r/bitcoinxt.  He has no authority over these.

And how is this thread possible if "theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum?"

Theymos claims that he is not directly involved with moderation here, and leaves that task to other moderators.

[ Blockstream's ] two prototypes for scaling Bitcon, LN and SC, are open source.
If successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways.

The Blockstream devs have admitted already that Sidechains are not a solution to the scaling problem.

LN is a large-scale payment system to be built using Payment Channels.  Think of a Payment Channel as a length of pipe, and LN as an oil refinery.  What has been implemented so far is a two tanks with a pipe between them.  The other details of the refinery are still only at the vague ideas stage; and no one knows whether the refinery will be economically viable.  Indeed, there are several back of the envelope calculations indicating that the LN will be as viable as a balloon made of reinforced concrete.

Even if the LN can be designed and implemented, even if it were to be viable, it will not be "bitcoin itself", not even remotely.  

Bitcoin was designed to be a peer-to-peer payment system that did not require a trusted third party.   The only reason why Satoshi designed and implemented it was because no such thing existed, and he thought that he had figured out how to build one.  

The LN will depend totally on trusted intermediaries -- the hubs.  Even though in theory anyone could set up a hub, or any two parties could set up a payment channel between them, in practice that will not be possible, for many reasons.  The hubs will necessarily be large companies that will have to be registered, licensed, comply with AML/KYC, etc.  They will charge significant fees on top of the fees of the bitcoin network, and will have lots of control over the clients' payments.  For one thing, they will be able to block payments and freeze funds for months, block payments between specific clients (whose identities they will know), and may even be able to divert payments or steal coins.  Almost like the current banking system -- only much more inconvenient and expensive.

I am sure that Satoshi would not have spent a couple of years creating bitcoin, if it had to end up that way.  One thing that the world does not need is another lousy banking system.

[Holliday]

I am sure that Satoshi would not have spent a couple of years creating bitcoin, if it had to end up that way.  One thing that the world does not need is another lousy banking system.

The thing is, we don't need Bitcoin's freedom from lousy bankers for every transaction under the sun. All we need is for the system to exist and function so that when we do need it's properties, it is available to us.

I think using Bitcoin to buy a Happy Meal is like using a chain saw to cut down a dandelion.

[JorgeStolfi]

And this (Not Bitcoin XT) is exactly why contentious hard forks are doomed. Andresen and Hearn should grow a pair and bootstrap their own altcoin from scratch instead of trying to piggyback Bitcoin Core's network effect.

Gavin and Mike have the right to do what they did, and each client has the right to choose which version of the software to run.

Just as some jerk created NotBitcoinXT, another jerk could create NotBitcoinCore -- a version of BitcoinXT that accepts puts out blocks with the Core stamp, but actually accepts block with more than 1 MB, and may generate them if there is enough stuff in the pool.  What woudl be the point of doing either, I don know.

However, I must concede that this initiative already made two valuable contributions to the project.

One, it underscored the silliness of the idea of blockchain voting.  That is the typical hacker mentality at work: use a complicated programming solution to avoid a simpler one that requires human interaction.  The right way to do a protocol change is to describe the intended change to the major players and users, listen to their opinions, try to convince them, find a solution that they could all agree to (that is what 'consensus' means to normal people), then formalize the proposal, and confirm that it will be accepted by the majority of affected people.  Only  then post the code that will implement the change, programmed to be activated at a fixed block number, a couple months in the future.

That is what Gavin and Mike did. That is what the Blockstream hackers are quite incapable of doing.  And that is what the Blockstream devs mean when they accuse Gavin and Mike of "populist tactics".  And, finally, that is why the Blockstream devs like soft forks: because they allow changes to be implemented without having to explain and justify them to the community.  (That is also why they did not program a grace period in the BIP66 fork: because the purpose of the grace period is to send alerts to all clients still running the old version -- and they did not want to do that.)

Two, the NotBitcoinXT initiative prompted this message from Alan Back, Ph. D., to the bitcoin developers' mailing list:

The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough
uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have to be aborted.

So Adam Back, Ph. D., thinks it is okay (if not wonderful) that nodes lie to the bitcoin community in order to preserve Blockstream's exclusive control of the protocol.  

Think of that before trusting your savings to a system whose security strongly depends on the integrity of the BitcoinCore implementation.

[dooglus]

the NotBitcoinXT initiative prompted this message from Alan Back, Ph. D., to the bitcoin developers' mailing list:

The recent proposal here to run noXT (patch to falsely claim to mine on XT while actually rejecting it's blocks) could add enough
uncertainty about the activation that Bitcoin-XT would probably have to be aborted.

So Adam Back, Ph. D., thinks it is okay (if not wonderful) that nodes lie to the bitcoin community in order to preserve Blockstream's exclusive control of the protocol.  

Think of that before trusting your savings to a system whose security strongly depends on the integrity of the BitcoinCore implementation.

The sentence you quoted appears to be a statement of fact. It doesn't sound to me like he's judging whether the fact is "okay" or "wonderful".

[iCEBREAKER]

[ Blockstream's ] two prototypes for scaling Bitcon, LN and SC, are open source.
If successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways.

The Blockstream devs have admitted already that Sidechains are not a solution to the scaling problem.

SC/LN alone are not a complete solution to scaling, but if successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways.

[Quickseller]

This is defiantly not a good idea.

The controversy behind BitcoinXT is doing nothing more then causing uncertainty regarding the future of Bitcoin, and NotBitcoinXT is only adding to that certainty. Assuming that the network actually forks, it will take up to two months before it is clear if BitcoinXT is going to be successful or if it will die off (this is based on the time it will take for the Bitcoin difficult to retarget after 75% of miners stop mining on the Bitcoin network).

Making the potential fork even more controversial and adversarial is going to threaten the fungibility of Bitcoin (immediately after the fork and until it is clear if XT is successful or not), and will cause people to be afraid to use and accept Bitcoin.

My prediction is that major economic players will choose to accept neither Bitcoin or XT until it is clear which will be successful and this will only cause damage to the overall adoption of Bitcoin

[meono]

And this (Not Bitcoin XT) is exactly why contentious hard forks are doomed. Andresen and Hearn should grow a pair and bootstrap their own altcoin from scratch instead of trying to piggyback Bitcoin Core's network effect.

Cry me a river. Maybe you should grow a pair !

Bitcoin is a decentralized system.

If you don't like the work Mike does, don't use it! If you don't like the direction he's going with that work, write some code yourself that goes in a different direction. If you don't like where "core" Bitcoin client development is "going", go to http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin and hit the "Fork" button and convince other people to join your development effort.

You people seriously misunderstand how Bitcoin works...

[JorgeStolfi]

and accept Bitcoin.
My prediction is that major economic players will choose to accept neither Bitcoin or XT until it is clear which will be successful and this will only cause damage to the overall adoption of Bitcoin

Many of those "major economic players" as well as 4 of the 5 largest miners have expressed support for increasing the block size limit to 8 MB, in some form.  That is not yet support for BitcoinXT, of course.  If the Core devs had some respect for the community, they would cede and raise the limit in the Core too; and then the crisis would be resolved.  

Need I remind everybody that it is LIMIT that is being increased, not the block SIZE? The limit has been 1 MB since 2010, but the average block size is still 450 kB, and has never hit the limit until the recent "stress tests".  

So, if the limit is increased to 8 MB, either by Core and/or by XT, it would make no difference until mid-2016, when the average block size is expected to be ~800 kB.  Thereafter, the difference will be that, with 8 MB, the average block size will continue growing slowly,  in the measure that adoption continues to increase (perhaps to 1.5 MB in mid-2017, 3 MB in mid-2018, etc.); whereas, with 1 MB, there would be recurrent traffic jams starting in mid-2016, and adoption would stop growing.

[Quickseller]

and accept Bitcoin.
My prediction is that major economic players will choose to accept neither Bitcoin or XT until it is clear which will be successful and this will only cause damage to the overall adoption of Bitcoin

Many of those "major economic players" as well as 4 of the 5 largest miners have expressed support for increasing the block size limit to 8 MB, in some form.  That is not yet support for BitcoinXT, of course.  If the Core devs had some respect for the community, they would cede and raise the limit in the Core too; and then the crisis would be resolved. 

Need I remind everybody that it is LIMIT that is being increased, not the block SIZE? The limit has been 1 MB since 2010, but the average block size is still 450 kB, and has never hit the limit until the recent "stress tests". 

So, if the limit is increased to 8 MB, either by Core and/or by XT, it would make no difference until mid-2016, when the average block size is expected to be ~800 kB.  Thereafter, the difference will be that, with 8 MB, the average block size will continue growing slowly,  in the measure that adoption continues to increase (perhaps to 1.5 MB in mid-2017, 3 MB in mid-2018, etc.); whereas, with 1 MB, there would be recurrent traffic jams starting in mid-2016, and adoption would stop growing.

You are correct, and I have echoed your logic after seeing it during discussions of the last stress tests, that if the max block size limit is raised, then the actual block sizes will not necessarily be raised.

I do certainly agree that the block size needs to be increased for largely the same reasons as you list above. Plus the amount of resources required to run a full node would hardly be additionally burdensome, especially considering the advancements in technology since 2010.

Based on what I have read, there are some conflicts of interest with the core developers in that they have an employment relationship with a company who stands to profit if Bitcoin were to become more centralized with a 1 MB max block size. As a result, some of the core dev's income stands to be diminished/reduced/terminated if they were to support a larger block size, and the max block size appears to be unlikely to be increased in Bitcoin core.

My primary concern with BitcoinXT is that it will change the protocol without first achieving a consensus. They could possibly change the protocol without first having the support of the various exchanges, and payment processors. If Bitpay (for example) does not accept BitcoinXT for payment, then any customer of a website/merchant who is using Bitpay is unlikely to be able to pay with BitcoinXT coins.

A concern of mine is that since it is not clear that exchanges/payment processors will immediately accept BitcoinXT coins, then holders of BitcoinXT coins will have difficulty finding value in their BitcoinXT coins. The same is true for Bitcoin coins, if the exchanges/payment processors will no longer accept Bitcoin coins after XT forks the network. However, if none of the major exchanges/payment processors publicly states support for either XT or Bitcoin, then it will be very unclear as to which will end up succeeding. As long as this is unclear, there is the possibility that major exchanges/payment processors will not accept any crypto deposits until it is clear which will be successful. Or they could say that they will only accept deposits if a transaction is confirmed on both the Bitcoin and XT networks, which would mean that inputs that never deviate between the two chains would have greater value then inputs that have been spend on one chain but not the other.

[MantaMine]

YESSS!!! Bitcoiners trying to hurt bitcoiners over some stupid political squabble!

The world has not seen such entertainment since Christians killed Christians over the right way to be a Christian in the Thirty Years' War

You get to watch Muslims do it right now.

[Holliday]

YESSS!!! Bitcoiners trying to hurt bitcoiners over some stupid political squabble!

http://meaningness.com/metablog/geeks-mops-sociopaths