BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[VeritasSapere]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click

You might think that both options are stupid but if you are running a full node or if you are mining Bitcoin then you do have to choose.

"Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other." The ability to hard fork in this way represents the process that allows us to arrive at such an agreement.

"XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol" This has been shown not to be true many times now, I will say it again. It is a ddos protection method that is only activated when your node is under a DDOS attack, so the alternative to not using the DDOS protection method when under attack is that Bitcoin will not be able to connect to the network. It does not leak IP's and it is disabled by default when connecting through TOR. Furthermore this option is entirely optional, you can turn it off within XT, or even run a version of XT that does not have this feature, or you could even run Core with a BIP101 patch.

"My Position is not to worry about it." If you are running full nodes or if you are mining, such a position is the same as a vote for Core. If the majority of full nodes and miners felt this way we would have one megabyte blocks forever IMHO.

[1715342643]

1715342643

[1715342643]

1715342643

[1715342643]

1715342643

[1715342643]

1715342643

[ashour]

We as the bitcoin community should remove the git right of any bitcoin core developers who are on the BlockStream  paycheck list. BlockStream is and will be toxic for the bitcoin development as long as they have influence in changing the block size.

[hdbuck]

We as the bitcoin community should remove the git right of any bitcoin core developers who are on the BlockStream  paycheck list. BlockStream is and will be toxic for the bitcoin development as long as they have influence in changing the block size.

point is most of them dont want to change it..

[brg444]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

[jonald_fyookball]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

[brg444]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

[jonald_fyookball]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

Can you read?

I asked you explain it.

If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument.
Are you posting to hear yourself type?  Or you want to influence opinion?
If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position.

Me, I'm interested in the truth.  If you show me where I've been wrong,
perhaps I'll take your side.

Proofs?  What proofs?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

[brg444]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

Can you read?

I asked you explain it.

If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument.
Are you posting to hear yourself type?  Or you want to influence opinion?
If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position.

Me, I'm interested in the truth.  If you show me where I've been wrong,
perhaps I'll take your side.

Proofs?  What proofs?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

When a user uses a sidechain it requires a transaction to a special output. A script is involved in the transaction so as to make the validation between chain. The SPV proof. These proofs/transactions are sometimes considerably larger than regular transactions.

Currently they are researching advanced cryptographic methods so as to reduce the size of these proofs given existing block space constrain. Raising the block size could significantly accelerate the deployment of the actual model of sidechains by delaying the eventual need for very efficient proofs.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

[onemorexmr]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

afaik core-devs said that sidechains are not a scaleability solution
(though i dont know there reasoning)

to me it seems that a transaction which only happens inside a sidechain is not recorded on the bitcoin blockchain at all (only converting transactions which moves btc to sidechain and vice-versa are)

[brg444]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

[RoadTrain]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

While brg444 is talking about sidechains, I'd also want to comment on the Lightning Network and its relevance to the blocksize limit.
Here's a quote from its paper:

While it may appear as though this system will mitigate the block size increases in the short term, if it achieves global scale, it will necessitate a block size increase in the long term. Creating a credible threat that spamming the blockchain to encourage transactions to timeout becomes imperative.

Here's my elaboration:

In short: the LN allows the transaction throughput to rise without increasing blocksize, but only to a point -- if transactions on the blockchain are choked (as you suggest), the LN becomes unreliable as there's an attack vector which works when there's a transaction backlog. The LN depends on there being enough space in blocks.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it.
(If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.)

Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases").

[onemorexmr]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it.
(If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.)

Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases").

no Lightning network and sidechains are too different concepts.

actually i like lightning network very much, but it depends on bigger block (to be exact: it depends on the availability of blockspace.)

sidechains are more like an altcoin which value is pegged to bitcoin.

[turvarya]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like
I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense.
As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about.

[brg444]

I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like
I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense.
As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about.

In your proposal, transactions go to a chain based the addresses involved.We can reasonably assume that different people's wallet will tend to be
distributed uniformly over several sidechains to hold their transactions (if they're not, there is no scaling benefit anyway...). That means that
for an average transaction, you will need a cross-chain transfer in order to get the money to the recipient (as their wallet will usually be
associated to a chain that is different from your own). Either you use an atomic swap (which actually means you end up briefly with coins in the destination chain, and require multiple transactions and a medium delay), or you use the 2way peg transfer mechanism (which is very slow, and reduces the security the recipient has to SPV).

Whatever you do, the result will be that most transactions are:
* Slower (a bit, or a lot, depending on what mechanism you use).
* More complex, with more failure modes.
* Require more and larger transactions (causing a total net extra load on all verifiers together).

And either:
* Less secure (because you rely on a third party to do an atomic swap with,
or because of the 2 way peg transfer mechanism which has SPV security)
* Doesn't offer any scaling benefit (because the recipient needs to fully
validate both his own and the receiver chain).

In short, you have not added any scaling at all, or reduced the security of the system significantly, as well as made it significantly less convenient
to use.

So no, sidechains are not a direct means for solving any of the scaling problems Bitcoin has. What they offer is a mechanism for easier experimentation, so that new technology can be built and tested without needing to introduce a new currency first (with the related speculative and network effect problems). That experimentation could eventually lead us to discover mechanisms for better scaling, or for more scalability/security tradeoffs (see for example the Witness Segregation that Elements Alpha has).

--
Pieter

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008617.html

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?

Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

You ignoramus. Just answer the question.

By limiting the blocksize, they create an artificial upwards price pressure between high value users. This will eventually make the price of putting a low value transaction on the native bitcoin blockchain uneconomic. Low value users will be forced on to alternatives - conveniently implemented using sidechains. Yhe value proposition of side chains is their use for frequent, low value transactions, and fixing the block size at 1mb will ensure demand.

your point above is bullshit - if you move 80% of traffic off-chain,  you have enough room to bloat the chain as much as you like. You could put a 100kb spv proof script in there if you like, there will be nothing else in the block except a few sidechain consolidations.

[RoadTrain]

You ignoramus. Just answer the question.

By limiting the blocksize, they create an artificial upwards price pressure between high value users. This will eventually make the price of putting a low value transaction on the native bitcoin blockchain uneconomic. Low value users will be forced on to alternatives - conveniently implemented using sidechains. Yhe value proposition of value chains is their use for frequent, low value transactions, and fixing the block size at 1mb will ensure demand.

your point above is bullshit - if you move 80% of traffic off-chain,  you have enough room to bloat the chain as much as you like. You could put a 100kb spv proof script in there if you like, there will be nothing else in the block except a few sidechain consolidations.

What is exactly a low value transaction? Your definition. Because some low value transactions have been uneconomic for a long time already. The definition of low value is subjective and is constantly changing.

And what's more important - how Blockstream is supposed to monetize on sidechains if their motives are selfish?

[silkylove]

"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

Overly general quote, but it does sum up the reason why I currently support XT.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You ignoramus. Just answer the question.

By limiting the blocksize, they create an artificial upwards price pressure between high value users. This will eventually make the price of putting a low value transaction on the native bitcoin blockchain uneconomic. Low value users will be forced on to alternatives - conveniently implemented using sidechains. Yhe value proposition of value chains is their use for frequent, low value transactions, and fixing the block size at 1mb will ensure demand.

your point above is bullshit - if you move 80% of traffic off-chain,  you have enough room to bloat the chain as much as you like. You could put a 100kb spv proof script in there if you like, there will be nothing else in the block except a few sidechain consolidations.

What is exactly a low value transaction? Your definition. Because some low value transactions have been uneconomic for a long time already. The definition of low value is subjective and is constantly changing.

And what's more important - how Blockstream is supposed to monetize on sidechains if their motives are selfish?

You re right - it is entirely subjective. The user may feel that they get more economic value by putting it on a sidechain. But at least they will have the choice.

I'm sure they can figure out a way to monetize it when they roll out well developed  shrink wrapped sidechain implementations