Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[knight22]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.  

The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.

[brg444]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.  

The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.

A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives 

In what world do you live in !? 

[hdbuck]

problem is here people tend to forget the essential:




this coin will be on the longest VALID chain. now where my bet pater?

[knight22]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

[img]http://-snip-[img]

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.  

The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.

A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives  

In what world do you live in !?  

A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side.

[brg444]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.

[img]http://-snip-[img]

Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

That's a possibility but a split fork is more probable IMO simply because it would be easier to achieve.  

The final results are pretty much the same nonetheless.

A fork easier to achieve then readily available alternatives  

In what world do you live in !?  

A consensus fork is hard but a split fork would be fairly easy as consensus is already reached on both side and both side would be willing to lose the other side.

You really don't realize what this implies, do you?

This would effectively destroy any trust that exist into your fork and the value of your altcoin would plummet and likely never recover. If you don't have the support of the economic majority your coin is worthless.

In fact I'm all for it and will support you in this endeavor. As hdbuck has repeatedly mentioned I can only hope your little clique of corporate shills fork yourselves away from us so we can't never hear from you again. What a spectacle this will be!

[hdbuck]

btw "economic majority" = "people with the moar coins".

roughly a handfull of persons.
but they are also very riskaversed..
likely to "step aside" (if not "dumping the fork") in case of some hasty coup..

hardcore bitcoiners here.. with much patience.

[brg444]

"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"

"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"

"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk

Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.

btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.

[brg444]

"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"

"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"

"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk

Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.

btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.

"We need to target people looking for monetary sovereignty, not cutting costs"

This guy needs an award or something

[knight22]

"Why do people hire Bitcoin, what job do they need done?"

"We need to go after people willing to pay the most money, with the highest margins, those are the type of customers that we want when hiring Bitcoin. We don't just want people using Bitcoin to make a bunch of de minimis economic transactions and not willing to pay anything for it. We need people who are really willing to pay a lot of money to hire Bitcoin"

"We need to remove the smell from bitcoin"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHXfEJD6DUk

Trace Mayer, as usual, hits the nail right on the head.

btw "the smell" = knight22 and his clique.

"We need to target people looking for monetary sovereignty, not cutting costs"

This guy needs an award or something

Translation: "We need to get rid of market spectrums"

[hdbuck]

lost ph0rked coins makes ours worth moar.

because secured, as in secured from the noobs and their consumerist dreams as we also get less exposed to all corporate scams.

so bring it on b!tches

[brg444]

"I was having 5 hours dinner with Gavin, Greg Maxwell & Adam Back"

"Why do we hire Bitcoin"

Greg & Adam: "Monetary sovereignty"

Gavin: "Because when I make a payment I feel good"

  Oh god my sides

[hdbuck]

lol reminds me of what i red down on the www.bitcoin.com page:




"you are missing the point of bitcoin if you feel left out" (<- GOLD), blabla just go do whatever you do! Mkae-a-paymunt! XD


no but, seriously who buys this crap?

[Peter R]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it. 

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees. 

[Peter R]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.

im just waiting he finally and "validly" formulates his bet, taking into consideration the only relevant parameter the original idea of "the longest blockchain" thing he keeps on invoking and instead of twisting it to fit his bs.

I don't see why miners would extend chains that are invalid according to their protocol rules.  Anyways, my bet is that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  You said the chain needs to be "valid" too, and then you'll consider taking the bet.

OK, I'll play along, would you care to define what you mean by valid?  

[knight22]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.  

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

[brg444]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it. 

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees. 

It most certainly isn't.

Bitcoin offers a unique value proposition and whatever the block supply will be there will be competition for it and lesser economic interests might be driven away but there is an enormous amount of capital that will bid for this service.

[brg444]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.  

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

[knight22]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.  

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

[coalitionfor8mb]

it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

There are three limitations that play against each other in the considerations above.

1) The limit on block size in any particular system.
2) The network effect of the first mover serving as a limit incurring costs to switch.
3) The limit on bandwidth in home networks defining the playing field.

Bitcoin can leverage its first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

That's why Bitcoin only needs to move when any other similar system begins to approach its effective transaction volume while running on home networks.

[brg444]

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?

If you read the thread, you'd see that I posted a two-sentence "proof" (<-- I used the scare quotes to indicate that it probably wasn't a proof), and then asked people to poke holes in it.  

I agree with @molecular.  The economic pressure can also be relieved, for example, by people voluntarily leaving the economic system.  This would drop the supply curve such that it meets the demand curve at a point near the quota (Qmax).

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.  

Of course if bitcoin becomes too much expensive to use other cheaper systems will get their shares of the market reducing the usage of bitcoin. I don't see how this could be good for bitcoin in any possible way.

It is good because Bitcoin was never about serving the cheap transactions market. People who cannot pay for the security and censorship-resistance it offers are not valuable clients.

Here again:

What is interesting, is that either way (by fork or by people leaving the system), somehow the result is that Q* ends up to the left of Qmax!  If this simple result is true, it would imply that it is not possible to use a block size limit to drive up fees.

It also means less people will indirectly hold bitcoins.

The result is not true so I'm not even sure why you would bring this up. Trace Mayer even addressed this exact situation during the interview:

Another thing that's interesting to look at is looking at a chart, not just of transactions but of transaction fees normalized to USD and comparing that chart to the market cap of Bitcoin. You know what? The market cap follows almost exactly how much people are willing to spend on transaction fees. So the conclusion we can draw is the more people are willing to spend the higher market cap. Then we get to see who's actually willing to pay to use it. That's a hard cost that people incur using the Bitcoin network.

I think it's great to see more hard cost because then we get to filter who the real users are because they are willing to pay money to use  it.