A Core Defense Strategy

[meono]

I don't see why defend Core if Core XT better serves the needs of the market. Can you enlighten me?

Someone?

There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well.

Quote to add a note of another XT bashers.

Go on. I'm compiling a data of all the XT Bashers, it help to show the community what drives them

[Westin Landon Cox]

I don't see why defend Core if Core XT better serves the needs of the market. Can you enlighten me?

Someone?

There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well.

The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction.  

You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin.

>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.


Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own. 

Satoshi

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html

[Quantus]

The best defense is a good offense.  
We should start compiling lists of targets susceptible to Ddos attacks like mining pools and exchanges.
... we could put a hit out on Gaven

[Westin Landon Cox]

Tsk, tsk. No hits on anyone. This war will be fought with hashing power and game theory.

And maybe some ddos.

[knight22]

I don't see why defend Core if Core XT better serves the needs of the market. Can you enlighten me?

Someone?

There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well.

The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction.  

You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin.

>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.


Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own. 

Satoshi

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html

I don’t think anyone here would support whitelisting or anything like that. Bitcoin itself is international so it should remain agnostic, fungible and permissionless. I’m also pretty sure most of the big players recognise that as well. If such a thing would happen, then we’ll have the ability to fork it again if the numbers are there. That’s pretty much what XT is demonstrating right now with the scalability issue.

[meono]

I don't see why defend Core if Core XT better serves the needs of the market. Can you enlighten me?

Someone?

There are different markets that have different needs. If the intended market is mainstream online payments, PayPal and Visa already serve this market quite well.

The same is true with XT indeed but mainstream adoption of bitcoin have always been part of the plan. If you want a niche coin there are plenty of them out there. Big players that have invested millions in bitcoin related companies are on the side of mainstream adoption and XT has made the first move in that direction.  

You may be right about this. It's easy to imagine a future in which Coinbase is the norm, tracking coins and closing accounts. Whitelisting addresses associated with government identities and blacklisting those that are not. That may be what's required to go mainstream and XT may be a first move in that direction. All I can say is that I won't be a part of it, and I won't call it Bitcoin.

>You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.


Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of
freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled
networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be
holding their own. 

Satoshi

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09971.html

I don’t think anyone here would support whitelisting or anything like that. Bitcoin itself is international so it should remain agnostic, fungible and permissionless. I’m also pretty sure most of the big players recognise that as well. If such a thing would happen, then we’ll have the ability to fork it again if the numbers are there. That’s pretty much what XT is demonstrating right now with the scalability issue.

The funny thing is that has nothing to do with the "blacklist" code.....

Some ppl are really twisted, no help for them.

[iCEBREAKER]

So, your solution to a forked blockchain is to fork it into three pieces instead of two?

XT will create a block that is bigger than CORE or CD will accept.
CD will create a block that is lower difficulty than CORE or XT will accept
CORE will create blocks that both XT and CD will accept as long as it can create the blocks faster than XT or CD.  If it can't create blocks fast enough, then its blocks will simply be orphaned and ignored on the faster systems.

Yes. And I know from reading your posts here that you technically understand what I'm suggesting. Your summary here is perfect.

CD would be a strategic move to discourage people from voting for XT. The existence of CD would make it less likely that CORE would survive if it's a competition between XT, CD and CORE. However, CD would make it clear beforehand that XT will not be the only surviving chain. Since having more than once surviving chain is considered to be an unacceptable outcome by many people, this makes people less likely to vote for XT. The consequence? CORE survives. The intended outcome.

Well done.  What do you think about a CoreDefence wallet, designed to make it easy to double spend XTcoins (should anyone be brave enough to accept them) while keeping Bitcoin safe?  (Why should MPEX have all the fun shorting Gavincoins?)

There could also be a CD pool, where anyone can donate to a fund which provides lower (perhaps negative) fees to miners.

[Quantus]

I think a large number of core supporters would compromise to the tune of a 2mb block size if they get some kind of guarantee black-listing and ip reporting is taken out of the code.

XT supporters need to understand Core supporters are stubborn fuckers who will never agree to 8mb blocks.


Consensus is everything.
We need a fee based system not a free system. If its free to use the system then its free to spam the system.
May the Ddos be with you.

[desired_username]

Hey, spreading lies, fear mongering and censoring is not enough?

Pathetic.

[danielW]

Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network.

Too be fair, trying to push a fork through with only 75% hash power (or less as Hearn suggested using checkpoints) is just as divisive.

Bitcoin was designed so a majority cant enforce their rules on a minority.

It should be 90-95 % at least.

Gavins single pool argument was dishonest too. Miners can switch pools.

[iCEBREAKER]

Why would you actively work to divide the community? If the majority supports XT, why continue to fight the majority? Regardless of your views, one cannot argue that the wrong blocksize is more detrimental to Bitcoin than dividing the community. I dont understand how one can believe such stubbornness is beneficial to the network.

Too be fair, trying to push a fork through with only 75% hash power (or less as Hearn suggested using checkpoints) is just as divisive.

Bitcoin was designed so a majority cant enforce their rules on a minority.

It should be 90-95 % at least.

You are expecting too much understanding of How Bitcoin Works from the XT troll.

Fairness is not a concept Gavinistas use, otherwise GavinCoin would have its own independent launch and genesis block instead of hijacking Bitcoin's.

Mike "Final Call" Heam will even use checkpoints to get his way.

If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary.