...

[madjules007]

locking out people from the blockchain is unbearable. I hope XT won't see consensus...

Well, as was pointed out earlier.... I don't have a problem with nodes deprioritizing IPs that are attacking them. But why do it with a centralized blacklist compiled by a third party? This is bitcoin ffs. Since when do we seek out centralized solutions, particularly when they are entirely unnecessary? Makes one wonder.....

[1714171040]

1714171040

[1714171040]

1714171040

[1714171040]

1714171040

[kano]

We do need to have in place shortly the ability to increase the block size....

And thats what is happening - no argument there.

so that some time down the track when the pools/miners believe it would be ideal to increase it, that will be possible without the crap that is going on now.

So its just a question of scheduling? Fair enough. But if the larger portion of Miners and Pools want them sooner than you, you will support them, right?

I don't support the client changes in XT and I don't support the BIP101 central control and scare tactics increase of block size.

I do support BIP100 since it does not use central control to decide block size.

BIP100 allows for what you said.

[JorgeStolfi]

whoever paid for those SPAM attacks

Those were not spam attacks.  They were stress tests.  Rude and inconsiderate, with reproachable motives, but mere stress tests.  A spam attack will be quite different (and worse).

Nah, [ damage to bitcoin's image ] is what XT has done to BTC already ...

Another inversion of the facts... It was Adam Back, Ph. D.,  who screamed to the world that raising the size limit and/or having an alternative to Core would destroy bitcoin.  Well, it seems that some part of the world believed him...

However, this price drop is still a "minor correction".  Wait until 2016, when the world will realize that bitcoin is useless for e-payments because no one can bear the delays, AND for any sensitive non-payment use too, because it can be easily crippled by a spam attack.

[ The five largest Chinese miners already accepted larger blocks ] were approached directly by the XT goons and their response?

Yes, Gavin actually talked to them, as well as to the other major players.  That is what Adam calls "populist tactics". While the Blockstream devs intended to introduce changes by a different political process: secure commit control of the Core, and buck the community.

that can be obtained by setting fixed fees that clients know in advance; and clients who pay must get what they paid for.

No it can't. Nothing controls the fees that pools/miners will accept but each pool/miner themselves.

Yes, bitcoin still has several design flaws that need to be fixed before it can achieve its design goal.  Like that one. Or the lack of inflation or demurrage, that got it appropriated by a legion of speculators and snake oil salesmen.

[kano]

...

that can be obtained by setting fixed fees that clients know in advance; and clients who pay must get what they paid for.

No it can't. Nothing controls the fees that pools/miners will accept but each pool/miner themselves.

Yes, bitcoin still has several design flaws that need to be fixed before it can achieve its design goal.  Like that one. Or the lack of inflation or demurrage, that got it appropriated by a legion of speculators and snake oil salesmen.

So why are you here?
You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.
None of what you stated there is bitcoin.

[canth]

So you completely missed the entire point of what I said ... the issue is they are using a too low 75% ...

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

False.

Bitcoin mining is random statistics.
It's not 10 minutes per block, every block.

Edit: and to give an example:
My pool mined 17 blocks at under 30% difficulty - yep luck was on a roll when that happened.
At the time, if there was any voting happening, for that period of time my pool would have effectively voted at over 300% of it's hash power.

Have you actually done the math? The likelihood that luck plays a major part in 750/1000 blocks is not high at all. http://bitco.in/forum/threads/triggering-the-bip101-fork-early-with-less-than-75-miners.13/

[JorgeStolfi]

why are you here?  You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

None of what you stated there is bitcoin.

Like any species or company, bitcoin must be able to evolve, or it will become extinct.  Bitcoin would still be unquestionably bitcoin with 1 MB size limit or with 8 MB limit, just as it was bitcoin with 32 MB limit until late 2010.  That is because bitcoin is not a protocol or an implementation, but is a set of people cooperating with somewhat compatible goals.   Bitcoin will be what those people decide that it is.

Bitcoin is an open source project without any official leadership: not just by Satoshi's choice, but because it must be that way to be decentralized.  Blockstream's pretense to be "the guys who define what bitcoin is"  is totally against that idea.   When they say "changes must be decided by consensus" they clearly mean "consensus among us Blockstream developers", not among the users, miners, or other independent developers...

[sgbett]

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your stupid.
A few things:
1) blocks can be anywhere from a second to well over an hour, so no, your stats are only theoretical expectations.
2) XT being 75% doesn't mean it can't lose - there's a reason why core uses higher than 75% ...
3) 'XT' have stated they will use block markers to force people to stay on XT and not switch to Core, if however, Core is above 50% and gets ahead of XT, everyone on XT will be royally screwed
4) It only takes one 'XT only' block to be mined to keep everyone using XT off Core

but more importantly, XT wont happen.

Yes my stats are based on averages. The stats are theoretical probabilities, you can throw variance in there as a red herring but it doesn't alter the fact that after an hour there is virtually no chance of core having a longer chain. I think you do understand this, and so you *are* being disingenuous.

I get you don't want bigger blocks,  but its clouding your ability to see the truth.

How exactly do you *know* XT won't happen? I certainly don't know if it will or it won't.

You talk of centralised control as if core isn't already? This fork is exactly the essence of decentralised. Why are you so afraid of it?

[teemus]

Things that restrict and limit you are always camouflaged as tools crafted to make you safe, it is disgusting approach. What we are seeing now is a lot like government action against bitcoin, including the core protocol. 

[tvbcof]

why are you here?  You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

Thanks for being honest.  I inferred that you see it as a duty (and a self-serving one) to destroy an autonomous solution which threatens your sponsorship in even a modest way.

Throwing your weight behind a solution like XT which is pretty much guaranteed to end up augmenting rather than threatening anything about the public/private (state/corporate) partnerships which animate our fiat currency systems makes perfect sense.

The systems you champion with it's gigantic web of derivatives and such are getting due for the re-set which is part of the formula.  Tough break for your side that crypto materialized out of the ether when it did.  I don't blame you for trying to neutralize the threat, but I'll do my best to see that your efforts won't succeed.

While I am drifting off-topic and into the metaphysical, let me add that at this point we are all just playing pocket-pool.  It is in the recovery phase when the rubber meets the road.  Without something like crypto, whatever the state decides to re-build will be what the masses have to accept.  With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.  That should put the fear of God into your run-of-the-mill statist.

[hdbuck]

why are you here?  You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

lol no, you should advise taxpayers that you are one hell of an ignorant statist tit sucker and that the money spent to pay you would be better off financing some carnaval's hot potato stand.

[tvbcof]

why are you here?  You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

lol no, you should advise taxpayers that you are one hell of an ignorant statist tit sucker and that the money spent to pay you would be better off financing some carnaval's hot potato stand.

Mis-quote BTW.  But I'd happily take credit for the attributed as I find it amusing and fairly spot-on.

[JorgeStolfi]

I inferred that you see it as a duty (and a self-serving one) to destroy an autonomous solution which threatens your sponsorship in even a modest way.

No, sorry to disappoint you, it doesn't threaten my sponsorship at all.  On the contrary, if I were to assimilate into the Borg I could perhaps make some good money on the side by consulting for bitcoin startups, like Antonopoulos at Neo & Bee; or for some cryptocoin "better than bitcoin", like Peter Todd at Viacoin.

Throwing your weight behind a solution like XT

I am not pushing for XT.  I am only pointing out that driving the network into congestion will render bitcoin unusable for the only purpose that it was designed for, and vulnerable to relatively cheap spam attacks.

The block size limit must be raised: that is just an obvious technical conclusion.  It doesn't matter which software is used, as long as it allows blocks to grow ahead of the the demand, and leaves enough spare capacity in the network to make spam attacks very expensive for the attacker.

(While I don't have particular admiration for Gavin and Mike, I do think that Blockstream are the bad guys in this war.  They have been using every dirty trick to preserve their control of the protocol -- from FUD, DDoS of XT sites, and censorship of /r/bitcoin, to posting anti-XT messages on /r/buttcoin while pretending to be legitimate buttcoiners.)

(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable.  As Napoleon would say...)

The systems you champion with it's gigantic web of derivatives and such are getting due for the re-set which is part of the formula.  

Are you referring to the stock market?  Where did you get the idea that I "champion" derivatives and complicated financial instruments?  I dislike them for the same reason that i dislike bitcoin-as-investment: they are either gambling or swindles, depending on whether the losers understand what is going on or not.

statist

Well, since my salary comes out of the sales tax of the State of São Paulo, I must admit that you got that part right.  


[/quote]

[tvbcof]

I inferred that you see it as a duty (and a self-serving one) to destroy an autonomous solution which threatens your sponsorship in even a modest way.

No, sorry to disappoint you, it doesn't threaten my sponsorship at all.  On the contrary, if I were to assimilate into the Borg I could perhaps make some good money on the side by consulting for bitcoin startups, like Antonopoulos at Neo & Bee; or for some cryptocoin "better than bitcoin", like Peter Todd at Viacoin.
...

I concede that one can do quite well as an consultant without knowing jack-shit about the domain.  You just need to know a few buzzwords more than the principles.  A degree or two on your resume goes a long distance in running such scams.  Even if you run your client into the ground you just make sure that you get paid before this happens.  Such a thing is as common as not in high-tech-land, especially when it is awash in VC money.

I say you should go for it.

[bitboy11]

This foundational concept is very clear in Satoshi's paper:

"the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required"    

So what does that say about asking us to TRUST Blockstream & their off-chain transactions?
Both Core & XT have valid arguments against each other...Core needs to increase the block-size in order to stay in this game and XT shouldn't be blacklisting shit!!!

At the end of the day, one issue immediately needs addressing and that is the block-size.

[madjules007]

This foundational concept is very clear in Satoshi's paper:

"the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required"    

So what does that say about asking us to TRUST Blockstream & their off-chain transactions?
Both Core & XT have valid arguments against each other...Core needs to increase the block-size in order to stay in this game and XT shouldn't be blacklisting shit!!!

At the end of the day, one issue immediately needs addressing and that is the block-size.

Why so polemic? Whether we should be coding a centralized blacklist into the protocol says nothing about Blockstream. And Blockstream has nothing to do with BIP 100, BIP 101, or BIP 102. So let's stick to the block size debate, rather than turning a legitimate criticism of XT into a polemic attack on Core.

[bitboy11]

With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.

Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen!

When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today.

How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos?
These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services.

This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now.

All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!"

[Carlton Banks]

With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.

Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen!

When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today.

How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos?
These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services.

This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now.

All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!"

One person suggested a different way out of the blocksize debate: cutting the interval between blocks in half to target 5 minutes instead of targeting 10. So you're doubling the effective transaction rate for the current blocksize limit. It was established at 10 minutes as a way to cut down on orphan blocks when mining, but maybe today it's too conservative; now the miners use a specially designed block relay network that's not part of Bitcoin Core, and I think the way that's changed things might justify it. Interested to hear opinions on this.

Not sure what happened to that proposal in the end though, I liked it as a different angle on the problem, but I guess it wasn't that popular. They should look at it anyway IMO

[brg444]

(While I don't have particular admiration for Gavin and Mike, I do think that Blockstream are the bad guys in this war.  They have been using every dirty trick to preserve their control of the protocol -- from FUD, DDoS of XT sites, and censorship of /r/bitcoin, to posting anti-XT messages on /r/buttcoin while pretending to be legitimate buttcoiners.)

(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable.  As Napoleon would say...)

FUD FUD FUD

I haven't seen any proof of core devs sponsoring or condoning the censorship moderation.

You do understand there is a difference between "the Blockstream guys" and users against an irrational block increase?

Of course you do, you're just being your usual disingenuous self.

I'd also argue "the Blockstream guys" are more competent engineers than Gavin & Mike. They're the one who have been pushing the limits of innovation for the last few years while Gavin was twiddling thumbs in politics at the Bitcoin Foundation posing as "Chief Scientist".

Your "congestion" bs is just more fud which I won't bother to address as I'm quite obviously wasting my time.

[brg444]

With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.

Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen!

When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today.

How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos?
These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services.

This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now.

All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!"

The developers at Blockstream have been busy actually scaling Bitcoin by process of making its code more efficient in various ways that doesn't include the lazy bloating solutions of bigger blocks. By the sound of it they have lately turned their focus toward block increase solutions but given that unlike Gavin or Mike they intend to test theirs rigorously it might take longer.

I think Adam wrote on Twitter or Reddit that we should expect significant progress to be presented at the upcoming Scaling Bitcoin workshop in Montreal. I'm talking about revised BIP1xx proposals, potentially a formal proposition of Greg Maxwell's flex cap idea and possibly new alternatives.

This stuff takes times and crying for urgency doesn't help in the process.

[kano]

...
One person suggested a different way out of the blocksize debate: cutting the interval between blocks in half to target 5 minutes instead of targeting 10. So you're doubling the effective transaction rate for the current blocksize limit.
...

A long ago discussion regarding reducing block times
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.0