The Anti-XTers Are Harming Bitcoin

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  If BIP101 (whether through XT, Core or some other implementation) gains 75% of hash power support, it will become the longest chain and thus it will empirically be "Bitcoin."  The other chain--assuming it doesn't die very quickly--would IMO become largely irrelevant.    

Amazing, so if I create DelekCoin using the same blockchain than Bitcoin but processing transactions like: Inputs are outputs, satoshis value are multiplied by 3.1415962 and every address starting with 1DELEK gets all fees from every transaction it will be part of Bitcoin?, AMAZING. I will do that. Ooooppss, but I will not have consensus   Bingo, that's what is happening with altcoin-Bitcoin XT!!!!!!!!!

Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.'

Like Frap.doc, he's decided to double down and picked XT as the hill on which he wishes to die.

Good.  I told both of them XT would be #R3KT like Stannis at Winterfell, and that's what happened (20MB blocks were Gavin's Baratheon's opening gambit disastrous Battle of the Blackwater).

I also told Frap.doc "he'll be buried soon" and that's also exactly what happened:

Doctor Frappe already got rekt.  He just has too much pride to admit losing so much face.

The last nails for the coffin lid are being pounded in, and he'll be buried soon:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633012686230437889

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633023200922746880

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

And now here's Szaboshi, throwing the first handful of dirt on the Gavinista's mass grave:

After months of Frap.doc calling me "greedy" (despite the fact I'm the only one who thinks he deserves to keep his LeBron coins), revenge is a dish best served iCE cold:

[keepdoing]

If BIP101 is activated......

And?  Care to elaborate on why the power to stop XT relatively dead in its tracks (which this most likely would do) isn't being used?  Seems like you have the gun and don't want to use it. 

Lots of games going on.

[Peter R]

Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.'

No I didn't.  The longest chain composed exclusively of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  Read the last full sentence in the image below: "Nodes always consider the longest chain as the correct one and will keep working on extending it."



There is no mention of a block size limit in the Bitcoin white paper. 

[Peter R]

If BIP101 is activated......

And?  Care to elaborate on why the power to stop XT relatively dead in its tracks (which this most likely would do) isn't being used?  Seems like you have the gun and don't want to use it. 

Lots of games going on.

I'm not sure I understand your question.  Can you re-phrase it?

[keepdoing]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

it's so easy to be against something, especially something with a label like "XT," and especially when there seems to only be two people behind it and the rest of the core developers are against it.

It's got a label which suggests it's fundamentally different that Bitcoin! Only Gavin and Hearn are pushing it! The rest of the developers are against it! I'm against it too! It smells fishy! There must be some nefarious intention behind it!

The above logic is ignorant. What anti-XTers fail to do is present a LOGICAL ARGUMENT against XT. They appeal to emotion. Gut feelings. Fear. They do not provide coherent argumentation based on facts and evidence.

what is dangerous for bitcoin is this RIFT which threatens to split bitcoin into two chains. They argue that after 75% of the community sides with XT they will hold strong, as the lonely 25% that got it right, and they will maintain their Bitcoin Core with their 1 MB block size limit, and we will just have two bitcoin chains after that.

This is so dangerous to bitcoin that it requires VERY GOOD REASON AND JUSTIFICATION which I have seen not a single shred of. All I have seen is attacks on gavin's character, attacks on hearn's character, appeals to fear, ridiculous speculations that the CIA and the NSA are behind XT based on pure fabricated fear mongering, what I have not seen is a single LOGICAL ARGUMENT that is in the least convincing which suggests that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

Many if not all of the core developers have financial incentive to maintain lower block sizes because they are invested in alternative solutions such as BlockStream. Yes the lack of consensus of the core developers suggests malpractice and misplaced priorities but we cannot just assume that the malpractice and misplaced priorities are behind XT because it is the "change" it is the "new addition" it is the "new proposal" so it must be bad! No, perhaps it is good! and perhaps those developers who oppose it do so for reasons of underlying malpractice and misplaced priorities. Perhaps they are more invested in the success of BlockStream than they are in the success of Bitcoin! These things must be considered!

What I am saying is that this split is very dangerous, and those who are perpetuating it by threatening to SPLIT BITCOIN IN HALF after 75% agrees that XT is the best solution have some explaining to do! We need LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, not appeals to fear, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, ad hominem attacks, and other fallacies. Bring out the evidence, bring out the facts, and lay out an argument dammit! You are threatening to destroy bitcoin without good reason otherwise!

The core developers did not start this rift. Mike Hearn did by using his commit access to publish Bitcoin XT with a trigger threshold of only 75%. Even Charlie Lee feels Bitcoin XT is "dangerous and irresponsible" see the reddit post.

After a week of publicity xtnodes.com shows nodes running XT have leveled off at just less than 900 out of 6500. Only slush's pool has mined a total of three blocks using XT.

[Peter R]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

[iCEBREAKER]

This thread (as well) should be moved into the correct subforum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

I fully agree, Theymos is taking an odd position. Being inconsistent like this harms his reputation, and doesn't help the issue he favours, as the XT threads he leaves in Discussion are attracting more attention this way.

Even though it's his forum and he can do as he likes, and that's my overriding attitude to the issue, I really wish it wasn't like this. Can't have it all I suppose.

Lighten up Francis!  

Let us have our fun with the Gavinistas, while it lasts.

Letting the XT vermin infest Discussion not only makes for productive lolcows, it also belies their histrionic claims of "censorship" and threats of Streisand Effect.

Don't expect the exact same rules here as on /r/.  Thermos is doing an excellent job of navigating between Scylla and Charybdis.

[jonald_fyookball]

thanks icebreaker for clarifying your position.  

I think waiting until actual congestion occurs
would be foolish and I think you are in the minority
as most people seem to want bigger blocks.

[jonald_fyookball]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

[Peter R]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

Maybe.  I'm pretty sure the other members of Core would object on the grounds of it being a "consensus breaking change" (even if it is only optional).  Perhaps it's worthwhile to attempt to bring some attention to this idea and see what happens. 

[Delek]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

Maybe.  I'm pretty sure the other members of Core would object on the grounds of it being a "consensus breaking change" (even if it is only optional).  Perhaps it's worthwhile to attempt to bring some attention to this idea and see what happens. 

Spock says that it seems logical.

[keepdoing]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

I think this really is what a lot of people on the fringes are wanting to know, and feeling left in the dark as to what is really going on.  Because it seems like such a easy solution to which there really is general consensus.  I think this is why so many people are getting pissed off.  If Core has an easy solution to end the war, then why not just get it over with.  Or is there more to it, in which case someone needs to come clean.

And silly childlike behavior like a few lines up from Icebreaker really does harm the overall cryptocurrency reputation.  People that aren't coders will always feela little bit of a need to trust those tecnologist that can make the changes.  Such immature Sh!tty "Gotcha" behavior sure isn't giving anyone confidence.

[iCEBREAKER]

Peter R astutely ignores the vital distinction between 'longest chain' and 'longest valid chain.'

No I didn't.  The longest chain composed exclusively of valid transactions is "Bitcoin."  Read the last full sentence in the image below: "Nodes always consider the longest chain as the correct one and will keep working on extending it."



There is no mention of a block size limit in the Bitcoin white paper. 

Anyone can easily make a longer chain, were validity not an issue.   

The "last full sentence in the image below" never mentions (the obviously implied) constraint of (prerequisite) validity to "the longest chain."

The Holy Whitepaper is a red herring here.  There are many things in the spec/implementation (speclementation?) which the brief/terse whitepaper does not mention.  Theory != practice.

[jonald_fyookball]

Who is in control of "plain vanilla".  Who can launch Core + BIP101?  Wouldn't it in and of itself be the compromise everyone seems to dance around? 

Any programmer should be able to pull the BIP101 (big-blocks only) patch into the latest version of Core (e.g., if they don't trust the people with commit access from XT). 

Unfortunately, for non-programmers, I believe the only choice right now is to use the one built by the XT team. 

I really wish the Core team would do something similar and create a Core + BIP101 branch and allow the community to decide which to run (although the code would be the same as if you just did this yourself). 

can we convince Gavin or Jeff to do this ?

I think this really is what a lot of people on the fringes are wanting to know, and feeling left in the dark as to what is really going on.  Because it seems like such a easy solution to which there really is general consensus.  I think this is why so many people are getting pissed off.  If Core has an easy solution to end the war, then why not just get it over with.  Or is there more to it, in which case someone needs to come clean.

And silly childlike behavior like a few lines up from Icebreaker really does harm the overall cryptocurrency reputation.  People that aren't coders will always feela little bit of a need to trust those tecnologist that can make the changes.  Such immature Sh!tty "Gotcha" behavior sure isn't giving anyone confidence.

probably the coding changes are minimal but obviously needs testing and really should be shepherded by someone with credentials like Jeff or Gavin so that the community can get behind it.

As I've been screaming about for the last 24 hours, do not expect anyone from Blockstream to support this.

[nagatlakshmi]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

[Liquid71]

The market says it's the pro XT crowd hurting BTC. The price dropped (flash crash) right after the first XT block was mined. 

[Liquid71]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

[TheAnalogKid]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

Neither.  Go read Jeffs BIP100 white paper.  I did earlier tonight and I'm glad I did.  I can fully support a proposal such as that - it's reasonable, and I think a very good solution to the block size issue, especially from the miners' perspective in being able to majority control the block size in a dynamic fashion.

This gets us to where we need to be, with Core, and without all the crap baggage that comes along with XT.  And, it doesn't go anywhere near the outrageous 8gb potential block size which will certainly aid centralization. 

[coinableS]

Bitcoin users and – in particular – miners are, therefore, faced with a choice. Will they support Bitcoin XT and vote for an 8 megabyte block-size limit – doubling every other year? Or will they stick to Bitcoin Core with 1 megabyte blocks, limiting the Bitcoin network to a maximum of seven transactions per second?

XT is about more than raising the block limit or I would support it. Hearn and Gavin will have complete control of the future of Bitcoin if XT succeeds. Saying those against XT are only against bigger blocks is missing the bigger picture.

This. People get blinded that XT = bigger blocks and then they ignore all the rest. I'm confident that core will come out ahead. Unfortunate for Gavin, after this hostile fork he tried, I believe his time as a bitcoin developer is over.