...

[turvarya]

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!  

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.  

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

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

[1714046530]

1714046530

[1714046530]

1714046530

[1714046530]

1714046530

[iCEBREAKER]

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

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.  

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

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

Here you go:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3iacvf/the_hard_fork_will_bitcoin_xt_take/cuezquz

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3id0rf/slush_gets_another_bip_101_371472/cufg7bg

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

[JorgeStolfi]

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?

[onemorexmr]

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

correct

[mallard]

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]

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.

[canth]

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!  

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.  

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

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]

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

correct

^^-- 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.  

[btbrae]

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]

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]

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.

[BrianM]

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.

[canth]

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]

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.  

[canth]

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.  

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]

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

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. 

[marky89]

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

correct

^^-- 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?

[canth]

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

correct

^^-- 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?

[marky89]

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

correct

^^-- 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?

That's very cute. The point I was responding to and the general subject of discussion here (see thread title) is XT. I'm not sure why you are implying that my comments are out of place.

BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.

How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"?  There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns.