...

[Lucko]

More then 30 hours and still no code? Come on if it is there you should have found it by now! Unless it is not there...

Why don't you look through it? You act like I work for you. I might've gone through the effort of analyzing it but regardless of what I find you'll shoot it down. You and a few other people tried your hardest to hide this info from the public by spamming the thread with nonsense.

I'll let an expert be the one to analyze this, I scanned through it and saw plenty of things that looked bad but don't want red herrings thrown at me anymore.

I explained about 3 times already. You can't point to something that not there. So I can't show you code that doesn't ban since that is all the code. That is why I would like you to point to a code that ban. So you know for things that are bad? Grate show them. Just one. For now wee seen code that is in QT(core) that bans IP's if they really misbehave and since XT is made from QT code it has the same code and a comment that states that list can be used to deprioritized or ban IPs. But after that there is no ban code only deprioritization... So where is that code. If you can't find it experts shuld... Or is this just a lie... It is like 40 hours now...

[1714800021]

1714800021

[1714800021]

1714800021

[1714800021]

1714800021

[1714800021]

1714800021

[pineapples]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

[meono]

Signature:
Hey bitcoiners, My name is Adam Allcocks. I'm bisexual and i can suck cocks for bitcoin. Just PM and i will link you to my cam channel for viewing....

yeah right- that makes meono a credible expert on what exactly?

Keep bringing irrelevant shit does not make your post any creditable.

Prove me wrong then, tell us why you couldnt give us the code ? Why did you only give us 2 seperate comments which are not even related to each other?

Noone and i mean noone quote comments in source code as a proof of what the code does. If you belive the comments are true then why did you ignore Mike's comment explaining what the mechanism does?

Go ahead. Prove me wrong

The OP is lying all this time because apparently he cant code, cant even read code and just destroy his every ounce of integrity by making bogus claim.

When asked, he responsed : its in the code!

WOW.. the best he could was, intentionally posting some comments which have nothing to do with his claim.

You can call me a troll but you couldnt help him or could you? Quote any line of code to support this stupid FUD or else you're just as low as him.

[meono]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

That does not work because any BIP101 blocks would also be counted to the 75%.

75% is plenty. the minority of miners got two weeks to switch to majority side. Economic incentives would sort this out. I'm sure at 75% we will all see forking is inevitable.

[zetaray]

XT wallet uses the list of IP to find the order of disconnection of nodes when max connection is reached. When number of connections is below max limit, is the list not used? I think tor nodes are most affected, home wallet users send a few transactions a day will not receive negative score.

[iCEBREAKER]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

Yes, let's keep forking XT.

So far, we have XT and NotXT.

I like your suggestions for GoodXT and XT90.

So we'll also need NotGoodXT and NotXT90.

Oh, and GoodXT90/NotGoodXT90.

Can we make a BadXT, which has all the evil anti-Tor/blacklist BS but no block increase?

We'll get everyone so confused, both sides will somehow be deploying hundreds of NotBadXT nodes thinking that's helpful. 

[JorgeStolfi]

Actually blocksize is almost certainly not a real issue, here's my take on it. Evidence supporting this is quite solid. Alot of people were suspicious as to what the real motive of XT was since they knew blocksize isnt a dire situation.

Funny that no one seems curious about what the motives of Blockstream may be...

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

You own a bus company and you are losing money because you have 1 bus, only enough customers to fill 60% of its capacity on average, and 20 employees  with fat salaries in an expensive rented office. You are charging 1 $ of fare, but you are spending 200 $ for each passenger that your carry. However passengers are increasing and by next year you know that you will have to leave passengers waiting for hours at peak hours and times.  What would you do to fix your financial situation:

(1) get a loan from the bank, buy another 7 buses and hope that somehow it will be enough

(2) raise the fare to 200 $ per passenger

(3) wait until next year and then let the passengers negotiate the fare with the driver by a blind auction on the platform.

(4) fire all employees except 1 driver and 1 mechanic, close the main office and move to a back-office in the garage

(5) file for bankruptcy protection.

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

It is increasing at 0.2 MB per year, the max effective capacity is 0.8 MB, and traffic jams will start to occur when it is 0.6-0.7 MB

(Have a plane to catch, more on return)

[pineapples]

why doesnt someone release bitcoin XT ?
only the good bits without the fork

and bitcoin XT90
forks at a 90%


--

hmm what other flavours can we have?

Yes, let's keep forking XT.

So far, we have XT and NotXT.

I like your suggestions for GoodXT and XT90.

So we'll also need NotGoodXT and NotXT90.

Oh, and GoodXT90/NotGoodXT90.

Can we make a BadXT, which has all the evil anti-Tor/blacklist BS but no block increase?

We'll get everyone so confused, both sides will somehow be deploying hundreds of NotBadXT nodes thinking that's helpful. 

and XTNOW which forks as soon as it syncs ..

[volyova]

Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.

How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.

IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???

[DooMAD]

Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.

How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.

IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???

There isn't an issue.  Problem solved.

The (highly misleading) premise of the thread is that using Bitcoin core means you're somehow magically immune from IP logging and blacklisting but XT has just suddenly introduced those concepts because they are teh evils.  This is empirically false.  Any peer to peer software, whether it be filesharing networks, Bitcoin or something else entirely, can log your IP.  Whoever has logged your IP can then attempt to trace it.  They can pass your IP on to third parties including law enforcement agencies.  They can ban or blacklist your IP from their server.  That's ANY network, INCLUDING Bitcoin core.  This is not something unique to XT and anyone who believes it is doesn't know how the internet works, let alone Bitcoin.  

If I run a node, whether it's Core or XT, I can log your IP and ban you from my node.  It's my node.  I can do whatever I want with it.  If I want to ban you, I'm within my right to do that.  Core or XT makes no difference in this regard.

Hell, the admins of this very forum can log/trace/forward/ban your IP if they want.  If you are fearful about the issue of protecting your IP, please disconnect your device from the internet now.

Everyone needs to stop jumping at shadows and calm the fuck down.

[volyova]

Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.

How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.

IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???

There isn't an issue.  Problem solved.

Oh..cool. I'll just go back to sleep then, as apparently, I don't have anyyything at all to worry about. Cheers DooD...zzzzzzz

[volyova]

Oh wait...what if I lose all my money, because of this issue that isn't an issue? 

[tvbcof]

Actually blocksize is almost certainly not a real issue, here's my take on it. Evidence supporting this is quite solid. Alot of people were suspicious as to what the real motive of XT was since they knew blocksize isnt a dire situation.

Funny that no one seems curious about what the motives of Blockstream may be...

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

You own a bus company and you are losing money because you have 1 bus, only enough customers to fill 60% of its capacity on average, and 20 employees  with fat salaries in an expensive rented office. You are charging 1 $ of fare, but you are spending 200 $ for each passenger that your carry. However passengers are increasing and by next year you know that you will have to leave passengers waiting for hours at peak hours and times.  What would you do to fix your financial situation:

(1) get a loan from the bank, buy another 7 buses and hope that somehow it will be enough

(2) raise the fare to 200 $ per passenger

(3) wait until next year and then let the passengers negotiate the fare with the driver by a blind auction on the platform.

(4) fire all employees except 1 driver and 1 mechanic, close the main office and move to a back-office in the garage

(5) file for bankruptcy protection.

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

It is increasing at 0.2 MB per year, the max effective capacity is 0.8 MB, and traffic jams will start to occur when it is 0.6-0.7 MB

(Have a plane to catch, more on return)

6)  Develop technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs.

 - Now each passenger pays the expected modest fee and the bus company has enough income to operate a very secure business.

Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.'  That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.

sidechains could aggregate the activity of thousands of sidechain transactions to a single on-chain transaction.  Even a tiny transaction fee at the user level passed up to the Bitcoin backing layer would support very robust infrastructure.

I would add that merchants of a certain size will provide pretty decent savings to customers who will participate in their company 'rewards program' or use company gift cards.  If the merchant had their own branded currency system it must be worth at least as much to them as a silly little rewards card.  This could bring a tsunami of value into what I've always called a 'subordinate chains' cypto-currency ecosystem.  Sidechains would be an example but the word was not coined when I started promoting that scaling mechanism.

Seems to me that what Blockstream is shooting for is to be recognized as a trusted authority both technically and ethically in a world where sidechains are a major economic player.  If a 'branded currency' is a useful thing to large corporations, they (unlike a gaggle of plebs) have the muscle to induce governments to lighten up and allow them to at least exist.

I would never expect the financial services industry proper to be very supportive of real sidechains operating under a 'free' backing store since they are doing very well under the current fully controlled systems.  I could see this sector promoting something like XT which gives them the hope of monopolizing the take from a centralized and controlled solution just as they do with most fiat systems today.

[tvbcof]

I keep seeing people talk about blockstream, who are they and what do they do?

A for-profit structure consisting of a startling number of the most prolific and trusted people in the current crypto-currency space.  Including those who wrote most of the code used in Bitcoin today.  They seem to be focused on more complex cryptographic innovations that would allow, say, an individual to send money to a services (say Mt. Gox) but in such a way that the service had no real way to abscond with it.  Also a variety of privacy innovations and such.

Maxwell did a nice rundown of their first block of released work and it is linked on their website.  I think this is the one I watched when it came out and I found it worthwhile and interesting:  http://www.blockstream.com/2015/04/24/gregory-maxwell-talks-at-sf-bitcoin-devs-meetup/

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

6)  Develop technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs.

 - Now each passenger pays the expected modest fee and the bus company has enough income to operate a very secure business.

Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.'  That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.

sidechains could aggregate the activity of thousands of sidechain transactions to a single on-chain transaction.  Even a tiny transaction fee at the user level passed up to the Bitcoin backing layer would support very robust infrastructure.

I would add that merchants of a certain size will provide pretty decent savings to customers who will participate in their company 'rewards program' or use company gift cards.  If the merchant had their own branded currency system it must be worth at least as much to them as a silly little rewards card.  This could bring a tsunami of value into what I've always called a 'subordinate chains' cypto-currency ecosystem.  Sidechains would be an example but the word was not coined when I started promoting that scaling mechanism.

Seems to me that what Blockstream is shooting for is to be recognized as a trusted authority both technically and ethically in a world where sidechains are a major economic player.  If a 'branded currency' is a useful thing to large corporations, they (unlike a gaggle of plebs) have the muscle to induce governments to lighten up and allow them to at least exist.

I would never expect the financial services industry proper to be very supportive of real sidechains operating under a 'free' backing store since they are doing very well under the current fully controlled systems.  I could see this sector promoting something like XT which gives them the hope of monopolizing the take from a centralized and controlled solution just as they do with most fiat systems today.

Except that what you are doing is effectively "dressing" up the bus company to be contracted out to a 3rd party operator. That operator runs the buses, invests in new buses that are entirely his. collects the fares and manages the majority of the business. Then you tell your shareholders that they never owned the buses in the first place - only the bus stops.  But you originally thought there was a limited number of stops, you now find that their are 100,000,000 bus stops where previously you had one. Your bus stop is virtually valueless. The buses go by full.

80,000 to a bus??? Thats exactly why you shouldn't be in charge.  

[hdbuck]

comparing bitcoin to buses. so smart.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

comparing bitcoin to buses. so smart.

Bitcoin forks are a bit like a bus, you wait for years for one, and then 6 turn up at once.

[Frijj]

Mainstream media is completely ignoring this controversy even though it is a much more important debate than block size, and a juicy story. Probably due to a combination of ignorance and also because it'll reveal their previous round of panic inducing articles are way off mark.

I've seen it mentioned a few times, though most people in the mainstream wont care about it or even care about bitcoin and like you say its not exactly an exciting story.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.

How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.

IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???

There isn't an issue.  Problem solved.

The (highly misleading) premise of the thread is that using Bitcoin core means you're somehow magically immune from IP logging and blacklisting but XT has just suddenly introduced those concepts because they are teh evils.  This is empirically false.  Any peer to peer software, whether it be filesharing networks, Bitcoin or something else entirely, can log your IP.  Whoever has logged your IP can then attempt to trace it.  They can pass your IP on to third parties including law enforcement agencies.  They can ban or blacklist your IP from their server.  That's ANY network, INCLUDING Bitcoin core.  This is not something unique to XT and anyone who believes it is doesn't know how the internet works, let alone Bitcoin.  

If I run a node, whether it's Core or XT, I can log your IP and ban you from my node.  It's my node.  I can do whatever I want with it.  If I want to ban you, I'm within my right to do that.  Core or XT makes no difference in this regard.

Hell, the admins of this very forum can log/trace/forward/ban your IP if they want.  If you are fearful about the issue of protecting your IP, please disconnect your device from the internet now.

Everyone needs to stop jumping at shadows and calm the fuck down.

Bear in mind also the fact that privacy concerned bitcoiners will more than likely be running their node behind a proxy or through tor. In that case, bitcoinXT behaves EXACTLY THE SAME as Core.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There will be zero traffic jams even with full blocks, the stress tests proved that. The stress test provided definitive evidence in favor of no blocksize increase, ironically enough.

Liar! Liar! Pants On Fire!

From one of your shills fellow travellers during that event:

How are developers responding to this severe limitation of Bitcoin's usage. There are currently 72000 (!) unconfirmed transactions but it seems they don't really want to acknowledge it.

Perhaps set a limit of tx/s to discourage spamming the mempool and block malicious nodes.