...

[bitsolutions]

... well ... will be interesting over the next few days to see how many pools start putting /BIP100/ in their sigs

Looks like one already showed up.

[1715100672]

1715100672

[1715100672]

1715100672

[1715100672]

1715100672

[1715100672]

1715100672

[Kprawn]

LOL!

http://litecoinxt.com

Ah, now all these XT people intend on destroying Bitcoin would have another crypto currency to sabotage.   ....Let's hope after this whole circus has come to a end, people

would calm down and concentrate on the common goal to make "Bitcoin" work to the benefit of all people and not a few individuals with hidden agendas.

This is such a waste of time and resources, for people to fight for the control over Bitcoin... Can they not see the harm in that?  

[Lauda]

This is amazing, XT will never reach more than 1000 nodes.  

It has already reached over 1000 nodes (presently 1101).  It is now the second most popular implementation:
-snip-

Off-topic:
No. The sudden jump to ~1290 clearly shows us that someone is manipulating the node count and that it should be disregarded. It quickly went down to 877.


The question is how is this relevant to the original point of this thread? There obviously is no censorship and they are pretty tolerant. If someone stricter was in charge all of these posts would get wiped.
So essentially OP made an assumption without proper evidence in the code? Even though Hearn was advocating blacklisting even in 2014, that does not necessarily mean that it has already been implemented (no). However, that does not mean that it won't get implemented either.

[Carlton Banks]

The question is how is this relevant to the original point of this thread? There obviously is no censorship and they are pretty tolerant. If someone stricter was in charge all of these posts would get wiped. So essentially OP made an assumption without proper evidence in the code? Even though Hearn was advocating blacklisting even in 2014, that does not necessarily mean that it has already been implemented (no). However, that does not mean that it won't get implemented either.

pro-XT FUD.



The facts:

There is not a TOR usernode blacklist in XT.

There is a TOR exit node whitelist in XT.

[iCEBREAKER]

LOL!

http://litecoinxt.com

In the future...

"Hello, I am from the internet.  Do you take PrimecoinXTdark?

"We only take PrimecoinDarkXT you fucking scammer!  GTFO my coffeeshop."

"Zomg, censorship!"

[hdbuck]

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

[Swimmer63]

So much emotion over ones and zeros.  Satoshi was/is brilliant in his design. 
EVERY change is up for a vote.  Vote by running a node and choosing your client.  I firmly believe in the wisdom of the crowd. 

In 9 months-
If XT is meant to be, it will be. 
If Core is the way, it will stay.
And the FUD on both sides will be as irrelevant as usb miners.

[hdbuck]

No kiddin. Wisdom of the crowd?! Gimme just one example of how wise people are when gathered as a crowd. Hooligans? Retards. Voting in our modern alleged democracy? Lol. So much Wisdom.

There is no crowd. Only sheeples.

[Swimmer63]

No kiddin. Wisdom of the crowd?! Gimme just one example of how wise people are when gathered as a crowd. Hooligans? Retards. Voting in our modern alleged democracy? Lol. So much Wisdom.

There is no crowd. Only sheeples.

You're thinking of a mob, I said crowd.
Augur is going to make millions off the crowd.

[Lauda]

You're thinking of a mob, I said crowd.
Augur is going to make millions off the crowd.

I'm going to assume that you've never had any sociology classes? The wisdom of a crowd is biased and it is much easier to manipulate. They are a lot of ways for one to manipulate a crowd to agree with a controversial idea, thus we should not rely on the crowd's 'wisdom' to pick the right way forward (Core or XT as an example, in this scenario). Crowd manipulation is often used in politics and business. Here's a example of a technique: To get a crowd to agree to a controversial idea (e.g. blacklisting), you first start talking about things that the crowd agrees with or believes in. This way you are starting to build up trust, and then you can proceed to start talking about the more disagreeable stuff. There was actually a good study about this not long ago.
So back to the topic now. Obviously many have appealed to authority in this debate, which is wrong. Just because someone has a strong position or reputation, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are preaching is probably correct. The argument from authority is not a logical argument. The problem is that people are not seeing the obvious and are being manipulated. XT has implemented a few other things that they present as "features" and people are buying it. I'm pretty sure that Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future if XT was to take off (which is problematic).
This is why it is necessary to try and have a healthy discussion and keep the ad hominem and similar nonsense aside, else we will not be moving forward.

[Swimmer63]

You're thinking of a mob, I said crowd.
Augur is going to make millions off the crowd.

I'm going to assume that you've never had any sociology classes? The wisdom of a crowd is biased and it is much easier to manipulate. They are a lot of ways for one to manipulate a crowd to agree with a controversial idea, thus we should not rely on the crowd's 'wisdom' to pick the right way forward (Core or XT as an example, in this scenario). Crowd manipulation is often used in politics and business. Here's a example of a technique: To get a crowd to agree to a controversial idea (e.g. blacklisting), you first start talking about things that the crowd agrees with or believes in. This way you are starting to build up trust, and then you can proceed to start talking about the more disagreeable stuff. There was actually a good study about this not long ago.
So back to the topic now. Obviously many have appealed to authority in this debate, which is wrong. Just because someone has a strong position or reputation, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are preaching is probably correct. The argument from authority is not a logical argument. The problem is that people are not seeing the obvious and are being manipulated. XT has implemented a few other things that they present as "features" and people are buying it. I'm pretty sure that Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future if XT was to take off (which is problematic).
This is why it is necessary to try and have a healthy discussion and keep the ad hominem and similar nonsense aside, else we will not be moving forward.

Maybe crowd is the wrong word.  Voters, Node-owners, active bitcoiners, whatever term you want to use, are going to make an informed or uninformed decision whether to switch or not.  I have faith that the majority will decide in the best interest of bitcoin.
Are you saying that the decision will be based on flawed logic regardless, because crowds are manipulated?  If so, then bitcoin is doomed anyway.  Because that is the protocol's tie-breaker.

[Carlton Banks]

Are you saying that the decision will be based on flawed logic regardless, because crowds are manipulated?  If so, then bitcoin is doomed anyway.  Because that is the protocol's tie-breaker.

Let the chips fall where they may. Even if the outcome that I dislike most becomes reality (worst possibilities realised, TotalitarianCoin), then I think someone out there will be motivated enough to pick up the pieces and come up with a more robust model. I would help in any way I could.

[Bagatell]

Maybe crowd is the wrong word.  Voters, Node-owners, active bitcoiners, whatever term you want to use, are going to make an informed or uninformed decision whether to switch or not.  I have faith that the majority will decide in the best interest of bitcoin.

Nooshphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

[DooMAD]

Obviously many have appealed to authority in this debate, which is wrong. Just because someone has a strong position or reputation, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are preaching is probably correct. The argument from authority is not a logical argument. The problem is that people are not seeing the obvious and are being manipulated.

This much I agree with.

XT has implemented a few other things that they present as "features" and people are buying it. I'm pretty sure that Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future if XT was to take off (which is problematic).
This is why it is necessary to try and have a healthy discussion and keep the ad hominem and similar nonsense aside, else we will not be moving forward.

Then it all goes wrong here.  It's all well and good asking for an end to the ad-hominem nonsense, but you're still implying an insult to peoples' intelligence when you say "Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future".  Your argument is essentially saying that you can't trust people to make intelligent decisions in future, so you have to prevent their right to choose now.  

Also, the only ones buying anything here are the people who have read this thread and now genuinely believe that using core will somehow magically prevent IP logging and blacklisting, while XT has only just introduced this possibility, which (speaking of "not seeing the obvious") is complete horseshit.  The ability to log or blacklist IPs has always been there.  Any node can log or blacklist IPs if they choose to.  Core or XT makes no difference in that regard.

[meono]

You're thinking of a mob, I said crowd.
Augur is going to make millions off the crowd.

I'm going to assume that you've never had any sociology classes? The wisdom of a crowd is biased and it is much easier to manipulate. They are a lot of ways for one to manipulate a crowd to agree with a controversial idea, thus we should not rely on the crowd's 'wisdom' to pick the right way forward (Core or XT as an example, in this scenario). Crowd manipulation is often used in politics and business. Here's a example of a technique: To get a crowd to agree to a controversial idea (e.g. blacklisting), you first start talking about things that the crowd agrees with or believes in. This way you are starting to build up trust, and then you can proceed to start talking about the more disagreeable stuff. There was actually a good study about this not long ago.
So back to the topic now. Obviously many have appealed to authority in this debate, which is wrong. Just because someone has a strong position or reputation, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they are preaching is probably correct. The argument from authority is not a logical argument. The problem is that people are not seeing the obvious and are being manipulated. XT has implemented a few other things that they present as "features" and people are buying it. I'm pretty sure that Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future if XT was to take off (which is problematic).
This is why it is necessary to try and have a healthy discussion and keep the ad hominem and similar nonsense aside, else we will not be moving forward.

Maybe crowd is the wrong word.  Voters, Node-owners, active bitcoiners, whatever term you want to use, are going to make an informed or uninformed decision whether to switch or not.  I have faith that the majority will decide in the best interest of bitcoin.
Are you saying that the decision will be based on flawed logic regardless, because crowds are manipulated?  If so, then bitcoin is doomed anyway.  

I think what you meant to say is economic majority, you know the crowd that got the most to lose in this. There is no point arguing with a bunch of hyporites.

 They say the crowd can be easily manipulated yet they're doing just that. They force their opinions, not facts, on anyone who's learning about this fork issue. They claim Mike and Gavin are dictators while they only accept decision from a handful of people (core team) and discard anything elses. I have a feeling if BIP101 was rolled out by core, no one even asked questions on the merits of such decision.

Its gone so bad that this FUD thread popped up to cause more damages. Most dont even care, thay just love to have the mob mentality to bashing what they dont like.

BitcoinXT has been out way longer than the BIP101. Fact.

BitcoinXT can be forked to remove any local policies such as antiDoS feature any time by anyone if the majority desire. Fact

Choose BitcoinXT to support BIP101 does not mean picking Mike or Gavin as "leaders". So bashing their characters is a polictical move. Fact

Most people on here dont have a technical ability to read codes but quickly jump to conclusion then go as far as bashing anyone who asked for proof is a fine example of mod mentality. Fact.


Then once in a while you find a level head (rare gems) in this jungle,

You are free to make choices now, you weren't able to few weeks ago.

No one is forcing the network to choose BIP101.

Everyone that is against the freedom of choice is blinded, or in bad faith.

[mallard]

bitcoin xt considered harmful

[hdbuck]

meono is a cunt.

do not listen to a single word of his poisonous speech. just look at his signature.

i even wonder if he is a NSA/CIA/whatever troll paid to spill his venom amongst the real and free bitcoin community.

[Lauda]

Maybe crowd is the wrong word.  Voters, Node-owners, active bitcoiners, whatever term you want to use, are going to make an informed or uninformed decision whether to switch or not.  

Well you would ask for one to asses the situation specifically tied to cryptocurrencies which would require real research in order for sufficient evidence to surface. I'm not exactly sure how one could call all of that with one word.

Are you saying that the decision will be based on flawed logic regardless, because crowds are manipulated?  If so, then bitcoin is doomed anyway.  Because that is the protocol's tie-breaker.

No. I was trying to say that while the decision will not necessarily be based on flawed logic, it is very likely (if we "just let things happen").

Then it all goes wrong here.  It's all well and good asking for an end to the ad-hominem nonsense, but you're still implying an insult to peoples' intelligence when you say "Hearn would be able to sell you blacklisting in the future".  Your argument is essentially saying that you can't trust people to make intelligent decisions in future, so you have to prevent their right to choose now.  

-snip-

That was not my intention. I was using that as an example (in this case) of possible crowd manipulation. I was not implying, nor intentionally trying to insult anyone's intelligence. I can't be a judge of that, as it is almost impossible to be objective about it.

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

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

Rather:  "6) tell your investors that you have invented a fantastic technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs."

Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.' 

You bet it is.  That must be why Adam Back has ignored all hard technical questions about the "fee market" and the Lightning Network, and instead has been relentlessly spewing out baseless FUD and ad-hominems for the last two months.  "Let Blockstream decide the future of Bitcoin, because Mark is a CIA agent".  And it is working, it seems...

That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.

AFAIK not even Blockstream claims that Sidechains will solve the scaling problem.  Their pie in the sky now is the Lightning Network, which seems to be just as plausible as an 80'000 passenger bus...

I could see [ the banking ] 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.

Well, right now, if they control Blockstream, they control the future of Bitcoin...

[JorgeStolfi]

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.

The stress tests were not traffic jams.  They created a huge backlog but with a fixed low fee (0.2 mBTC/kB), so anyone who paid more than that got through with no problem.

Even so, at one moment when I checked the queue, there were at least 5'000 transactions that paid less than that, and were therefore delayed until the backlog cleared.  The total number of transactions that were blocked by the three big stress tests must have been a lot more than that.

Presumably, the thousands of users who issued those transactions were not aware of the fee/priority thing, or had no way of setting a higher than normal fee, or were not aware that the "stress test" was going on.  I suspect that they were not particularly thrilled with bitcoin's quality of service.  

Could that be the reason why the average traffic is now ~110'000 tx/day, or ~8000 tx/dat less than it was in mid-June?  (By the trend of the previous 12 months, it should have been ~10'000 tx/day more.)

In a real traffic jam, you will not be competing against a "stress tester" who pays fixed fees, but against other user like you who are trying to push you out of the next blocks so that their transactions can get in.

Smart wallets and tools like RBF and CPFP will not reduce the average wait time by one second.  SO, unless you have a Golden Priority Pass signed by Satoshi himself, there is no reason to suppose that your transactions will be confirmed faster than those of your peers.  Therefore you can expect to have your transactions delayed by hours, even though you will pay a lot more than you pay now.