Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 10:27:46 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ...  (Read 60020 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 02:39:24 AM
 #581


You can then taint one of your coins with coins which only exist on one of the forks. Let's say you get a few satoshis from block reward which occurred in a XT 8mb block (thus is not valid and does not exist on the 1mb chain).

Of course I know that.

Yes, of course.  LOL!


But how do you get those few satoshis?

Try just South of where you found the 'taint'.


1511260066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260066
Reply with quote  #2

1511260066
Report to moderator
1511260066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260066
Reply with quote  #2

1511260066
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511260066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260066
Reply with quote  #2

1511260066
Report to moderator
1511260066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260066
Reply with quote  #2

1511260066
Report to moderator
1511260066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511260066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511260066
Reply with quote  #2

1511260066
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2015, 02:56:12 AM
 #582

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.


Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.
The only pool producing XT blocks is apparently doing exactly that - just marking them as "XT version" and no more.
See slush's comments about his pool.

But more importantly, no pool in their right mind would be running the XT code yet.
The XT code has been severely lacking in testing compared to normal Core code changes.

Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node.  Slush must be a gambler!   Cheesy

So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.

Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.   Grin

Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).   Cheesy


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 07:53:35 AM
 #583

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.


Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.
The only pool producing XT blocks is apparently doing exactly that - just marking them as "XT version" and no more.
See slush's comments about his pool.

But more importantly, no pool in their right mind would be running the XT code yet.
The XT code has been severely lacking in testing compared to normal Core code changes.

Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node.  Slush must be a gambler!   Cheesy

So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.

Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.   Grin

Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).   Cheesy

I missed that. What did Slush say about his pool? Link?

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2015, 08:52:20 AM
 #584


Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node.  Slush must be a gambler!   Cheesy

So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.

Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.   Grin

Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).   Cheesy


I missed that. What did Slush say about his pool? Link?


Here you go:

Quote

Quote

% RealXT blocks:        0
% FakeXT blocks:    100
% #R3KT Hearn: >9000


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 09:42:43 AM
 #585

Help me understahd: the "anti XT" camp here is euphoric with the idea that slush or other miners may run their own 8 MB software, as long as it is a private patched copy of Core rather than a private copy of BitcoinXT -- that is a patched copy of Core.  Is that so?

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 09:45:58 AM
 #586

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

correct Wink

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
mallard
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 10:05:08 AM
 #587

All the BIPs are a pathetic attempt at reproducing the lame presidential elections soup we all get served.

You think you have a choice? You dont.

To believe that voting is going to help the situation, is the same as forking will improve bitcoin. But it just wont.

And big corps, banksters et al. will win again. and again.. and friggin again.

The core team has maintained Bitcoin for years, don't you think they know what's best for us?
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 29, 2015, 10:07:23 AM
 #588

The core team has maintained Bitcoin for years, don't you think they know what's best for us?
So the same is for Gavin, he was here from the beginning.

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 01:20:32 PM
 #589

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.


Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.
The only pool producing XT blocks is apparently doing exactly that - just marking them as "XT version" and no more.
See slush's comments about his pool.

But more importantly, no pool in their right mind would be running the XT code yet.
The XT code has been severely lacking in testing compared to normal Core code changes.

Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node.  Slush must be a gambler!   Cheesy

So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.

Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.   Grin

Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).   Cheesy


By fake, I mean advertising accepting BIP101 blocks but in fact rejecting them, which Slush it not doing. Anyone that runs NotXT might as well be running NotBIP101 on core since it's the exact same deceitful practice. It doesn't help demonstrate support for alternative BIPs; it might help fracture the network in January. I know you're not dumb enough to have ignored the game theory - anyone that runs NotXT is gambling with everyone's money without any upside.

erik777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 03:05:03 PM
 #590

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

correct Wink

^^-- LIKE

JorgeStolfi, if you read the thread topic, the goal is to not run software that does blacklisting, or more specifically, introduces centralized trust, which is a systemic risk and counter to the principles of Bitcoin.  What differentiates Bitcoin from everything that came before it is that it is a TRUSTLESS SYSTEM.

I think most people support larger blocks overall, but don't support the additional logic being thrown into XT.  It looks like Mike has turned block size into a red herring for other agenda, permitting him to take over bitcoin code and introduce other "features" that run counter to the trustless network that Bitcoin was designed to be.  

         ▀█████▀
▀▄         ███         ▄▀
  █▄       ███       ▄█
   ██      ███      ██
    ██     ███     ██
    ▀██▄▄  ███  ▄▄██▀
      ▀███████████▀
         ▀▀███▀▀
           ███
           ███
           ███
           ███
         ▄█████▄
.MOIRAI.
  ██████
██████
█████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

██████
██████
  █████
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
        ███

    ▄█████
    ██████
    ███▀
    ███
███████
███████
    ███
    ███
    ███
    ███
    ███

█▄                ▄████▄
██▄             ███████▄▄▄
▀███▄▄      █████████▄
  ▀███████████████▀
▀████████████████
    ▀█████████████
  ▀█████████████
      ▀▀█████████
    ▄▄████████▀
██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀

                              ▄▄██
                        ▄██████
                  ▄████▀▀███
            ▄█████▀  ▄████
      ▄██████▀  ▄██████
▄███████▀  ▄████████
  ▀▀▀▀███    █████████
            ██    █████████
            ▀█  ▄█▀    ▀████
              ██▀            ▀██
btbrae
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 677


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 03:11:46 PM
 #591

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 04:14:22 PM
 #592

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 04:34:15 PM
 #593

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

I guess they caught on the people's mood. I'd still go for BIP100 now, but with this we could stop the XT Flaming.

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
BrianM
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


Born to be wild


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 05:04:59 PM
 #594

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Does BIP 101 means those big blocks? I assumed it was somekinda encryption standard.
What is the difference on BIP 100, BIP 101 and BIP 102?

Still not convinced about this whole XT thing, got a baaad feeling about it.

BIKER 4 LIFE
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 05:11:28 PM
 #595

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Does BIP 101 means those big blocks? I assumed it was somekinda encryption standard.
What is the difference on BIP 100, BIP 101 and BIP 102?

Still not convinced about this whole XT thing, got a baaad feeling about it.

BIP100 - miners vote - 1MB min, 32MB max and there is no code written yet
BIP101 - 750/1000 blocks voted for BIP101 starting in Jan 2016 trigger allowing up to 8MB blocks, doubling 2X every 2 yr, ending with 8GB in 2036
BIP102 - 17% increases annual starting in 2017. Approximately 2MB blocks by 2021.

XT = BIP101 + 5-6 non-consensus changes


DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile WWW
August 29, 2015, 05:25:13 PM
 #596

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

I guess they caught on the people's mood. I'd still go for BIP100 now, but with this we could stop the XT Flaming.

Sorry, but I had to chuckle at that one.  Would be nice if that was the end of it, but I don't think that's how it works.  What happens is that someone finds a way to take something perfectly innocent and then twists it into the most vile and horrid thing imaginable, then plasters it all over the boards to cause a panic.  The so-called "blacklist code" was never actually an issue, but they found a way to turn it into one because they wanted an issue.  If they genuinely believed the code was an issue, they'd have simply asked for that particular code to be removed, but they didn't.  It's the fork itself they actually disapprove of and they have to attack it in any way they can.  Now that the big-blocks-only patch is available, they'll just find another molehill to transform into the worlds tallest mountain and start kicking up a load of undue fuss about that instead.

It'll still be "gavincoin" this and "altcoin" that, just with newer and lamer excuses.  This is the internet, the flaming doesn't stop.   Roll Eyes

canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 05:49:27 PM
 #597

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

You asked, they delivered. Core + BIP 101 only.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

I guess they caught on the people's mood. I'd still go for BIP100 now, but with this we could stop the XT Flaming.

Sorry, but I had to chuckle at that one.  Would be nice if that was the end of it, but I don't think that's how it works.  What happens is that someone finds a way to take something perfectly innocent and then twists it into the most vile and horrid thing imaginable, then plasters it all over the boards to cause a panic.  The so-called "blacklist code" was never actually an issue, but they found a way to turn it into one because they wanted an issue.  If they genuinely believed the code was an issue, they'd have simply asked for that particular code to be removed, but they didn't.  It's the fork itself they actually disapprove of and they have to attack it in any way they can.  Now that the big-blocks-only patch is available, they'll just find another molehill to transform into the worlds tallest mountain and start kicking up a load of undue fuss about that instead.

It'll still be "gavincoin" this and "altcoin" that, just with newer and lamer excuses.  This is the internet, the flaming doesn't stop.   Roll Eyes

Indeed. You would think that Jamie Dimon had paid a bunch of JPMorgan Chase interns to "go disrupt that bitcoin thing" given the quality of arguments that have been tossed around.

erik777
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 06:14:59 PM
 #598

It'll still be "gavincoin" this and "altcoin" that, just with newer and lamer excuses.  This is the internet, the flaming doesn't stop.   Roll Eyes

Who needs flaming?  The facts speak for themselves...

1. Mike proposes controversial idea after another over the years, always proposing to introduce centralization and trust to Bitcoin, which is built on decentralization and is a TRUSTLESS network.

2. Becomes a committer to Core in 2013.

3. Partners with Gavin

4. Tired of having his centralization ideas shot down, forks Bitcoin XT in June 2015.  Establishes a "leadership hierarchy" for development in place of Core's consensus development.  "Decisions are made according to a leadership hierarchy."  Who is at the top of this hierarchy?  Clearly, Mike has launched a fork where he is the dictator and can now get every bad idea of his that was ever rejected by both people in open discussions and the Core devs in an easy to download client.  All of the features described on the site sound rosy, do not discuss any of the objections to those changes, and even outright claim there is no risk.  All discussion of the client is to be discussed on a moderated forum he controls.

“The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned.” Mike Hearn

By reformed, I presume he means will not permit Mike to erode its decentralization and trust-less foundation.  

5. He uses block size as the red herring to promote XT, and a whole lot of nice words to make developers feel love at the bottom of his hierarchy.  

“XT is about more than just the block size limit.” — Mike Hearn

6. He then proposes a ridiculous centralized scheme to Core that runs counter to the decentralized trustless concepts that Bitcoin was created to be.  Read the entire discussion.  

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6364

Based on what?  Because his partner in crime, Gavin, claims to of suffered a DoS attack via Tor.  No evidence was shared.  There was no other node identified as being attacked.  A little convenient, don't you think?

The devs gave really good reasons why this was not only a bad idea, but would do nothing to thwart DoS attacks as the vast majority will not occur through Tor exit nodes.  Like always, Mike brushed off EVERY concern and line of reason with vague philosophical statements.  

7. He then, of course, includes it in XT.  

The concern people in this thread have is that people will download and install the client having no idea what can of worms they are unleashing, both on their systems, and the Bitcoin network. 

Yes, there is a fork with only the block size change.  But, will that be enough to thwart Mike's clear attempt to take over the Bitcoin protocol with nice marketing?  Clearly, open discussion leading to insight is beneficial. 



         ▀█████▀
▀▄         ███         ▄▀
  █▄       ███       ▄█
   ██      ███      ██
    ██     ███     ██
    ▀██▄▄  ███  ▄▄██▀
      ▀███████████▀
         ▀▀███▀▀
           ███
           ███
           ███
           ███
         ▄█████▄
.MOIRAI.
  ██████
██████
█████
███
███
███
███
███
███
███
███

██████
██████
  █████
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
      ███
        ███

    ▄█████
    ██████
    ███▀
    ███
███████
███████
    ███
    ███
    ███
    ███
    ███

█▄                ▄████▄
██▄             ███████▄▄▄
▀███▄▄      █████████▄
  ▀███████████████▀
▀████████████████
    ▀█████████████
  ▀█████████████
      ▀▀█████████
    ▄▄████████▀
██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀

                              ▄▄██
                        ▄██████
                  ▄████▀▀███
            ▄█████▀  ▄████
      ▄██████▀  ▄██████
▄███████▀  ▄████████
  ▀▀▀▀███    █████████
            ██    █████████
            ▀█  ▄█▀    ▀████
              ██▀            ▀██
marky89
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


JOLYY - The future of beauty!


View Profile
August 29, 2015, 06:27:52 PM
 #599

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

correct Wink

^^-- LIKE

JorgeStolfi, if you read the thread topic, the goal is to not run software that does blacklisting, or more specifically, introduces centralized trust, which is a systemic risk and counter to the principles of Bitcoin.  What differentiates Bitcoin from everything that came before it is that it is a TRUSTLESS SYSTEM.

I think most people support larger blocks overall, but don't support the additional logic being thrown into XT.  It looks like Mike has turned block size into a red herring for other agenda, permitting him to take over bitcoin code and introduce other "features" that run counter to the trustless network that Bitcoin was designed to be.  

Bingo. Unfortunately, the diehard XT supporters in here won't address legitimate critiques, whether of XT or BIP 101. They'd rather continue to act as if anyone who doesn't support XT is a "Blockstream shill" and continue shouting while knocking over straw men. That way, it's pretty easy to force the discussion onto the next page and gloss over thoughtful posts.

Every time I've brought up how the third party compilation of IP addresses is centralized and trust-adding, the standard response (in the unlikely event that an XT supporter actually responds to the argument) is that "oh, anyone running a node can disable that feature." That's not good enough. Nodes don't need a centralized, trusted list to tell them when someone is attacking them from a certain IP address. That's laughable.

Why would anyone want to introduce trust, when the objective can be achieved without it?


            ███           ▄▄▄████████▄▄▄           ███       ▀███          ▀██▄ ▄██▀          ███▀
            ███         ▄████▀▀    ▀▀████▄         ███         ███          ▀█████           ███
            ███       ▄███▀            ▀███▄       ███          ▀██▄         ▄███▄         ▄██▀
            ███      ███▀                ▀███      ███            ███       ███▀███       ███
            ███     ███▀                  ▀███     ███             ▀██▄   ▄██▀   ▀██▄   ▄██▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███               ███▄██▀       ▀██▄██▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███                ▀███▀         ▀███▀
            ███     ███                    ███     ███                 ███           ███
            ███     ███▄                  ▄███     ███                 ███           ███
            ███      ███▄                ▄███      ███                 ███           ███
           ███▀       ▀███▄            ▄███▀       ▀███                ███           ███
██▄▄▄  ▄▄▄███▀          ▀████▄▄    ▄▄████▀          ▀███▄▄▄  ▄▄▄██     ███           ███
▀▀████████▀▀              ▀▀▀████████▀▀▀              ▀▀████████▀▀     ███           ███
........T H E   F U T U R E.................
......................o f   B E A U T Y
........


 ▀█▄             ▄▄▄▄▄▄
   ▀█▄      ▄▄███▀▀▀▀
    ▄██     ▀▀▀     ▄▄▄▄
 ▄▄▄ ██         ▄     ▀▀██▄
▀█▀█▀█▀▄       █▄     ▄██▀
               ▀████████
               ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀ ▀


      ▄▄
     ▀█▀▀▀

    █▄
     ███████▀▀▀
    █▄
      ▀▀▀▀▀
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 29, 2015, 06:42:38 PM
 #600

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

correct Wink

^^-- LIKE

JorgeStolfi, if you read the thread topic, the goal is to not run software that does blacklisting, or more specifically, introduces centralized trust, which is a systemic risk and counter to the principles of Bitcoin.  What differentiates Bitcoin from everything that came before it is that it is a TRUSTLESS SYSTEM.

I think most people support larger blocks overall, but don't support the additional logic being thrown into XT.  It looks like Mike has turned block size into a red herring for other agenda, permitting him to take over bitcoin code and introduce other "features" that run counter to the trustless network that Bitcoin was designed to be.  

Bingo. Unfortunately, the diehard XT supporters in here won't address legitimate critiques, whether of XT or BIP 101. They'd rather continue to act as if anyone who doesn't support XT is a "Blockstream shill" and continue shouting while knocking over straw men. That way, it's pretty easy to force the discussion onto the next page and gloss over thoughtful posts.

Every time I've brought up how the third party compilation of IP addresses is centralized and trust-adding, the standard response (in the unlikely event that an XT supporter actually responds to the argument) is that "oh, anyone running a node can disable that feature." That's not good enough. Nodes don't need a centralized, trusted list to tell them when someone is attacking them from a certain IP address. That's laughable.

Why would anyone want to introduce trust, when the objective can be achieved without it?


What does this have to do with BIP 101?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!