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

[HostFat]

Bitcoin: Oligarchy 2.0

[johnyj]

Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status, and gas is getting cheaper and cheaper, so unless the government force the gasoline engine to quit market (they must use global warming as an excuse), it just can not go mainstream due to its terrible charging time (time is the most valuable resource for anyone)

[sgbett]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

There is now a recurring theme of cripplecoiners just reusing arguments levelled against them. What you wrote is pretty much exactly what has been said about those who would block development in the area of block size increase (the dictators) and those on the forums who tirelessly post anti XT rhetoric to try and convince everyone that Mike and Gavin are the enemy.

Then hilariously you suggest they should be allowed release code that stands on its own. Which is exactly what has been said about lightning.

Cut and paste designed to muddy the waters. You are a relentless poster, unnaturally so IMHO. So tell me is this propaganda?

"XT has already lost"

[madjules007]

Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status

Why do so many people paint this situation as "XT vs the status quo?" That's part of the problem. There are other solutions than BIP 101 (let alone XT), so what's with this perpetual misinformed characterization?

BIP 100 came before BIP 101, ya know....

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

There is now a recurring theme of cripplecoiners just reusing arguments levelled against them. What you wrote is pretty much exactly what has been said about those who would block development in the area of block size increase (the dictators) and those on the forums who tirelessly post anti XT rhetoric to try and convince everyone that Mike and Gavin are the enemy.

Then hilariously you suggest they should be allowed release code that stands on its own. Which is exactly what has been said about lightning.

Cut and paste designed to muddy the waters. You are a relentless poster, unnaturally so IMHO. So tell me is this propaganda?

"XT has already lost"

Sobett, brg444 is a disciple of the Wences Casares school of "Bitcoin-as-a-ponzi-scheme', where he will get rich because - 5 Billion People, right?  There is little or no argument you can make to people like that, They feel that if enough fools can be induced into buying bitcoin simply as a store of value, that the early adopters all get fabulously wealthy. They have no plan for bitcoin as a token of exchange or as a viable economic infrastructure. They are the stupid, greedy minority, who feel the world owes them a living for doing nothing.

He has no interest in bitcoin ever being used as a peer-to-peer cash system as Satoshi set out to create, and that those on both sides of the blocksize debate are trying to create.  To him it is a ponzi scheme that will make him rich.

In my opinion there is only a minority of people that care to use Bitcoin for daily transactions. Most people "hoard" it as a store of value and to speculate.

[madjules007]

You know, it's pretty tough to have a fruitful discussion with so much ad hominem being thrown around. Some of you really need to grow up. You're not rooting for your home team here. There are a lot of stakeholders to consider regarding BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102 and...... XT. Those who want to have constructive discussions about the future of decentralized, transferable money are simply becoming disgusted watching some of you make so much noise with nothing but insults.

[johnyj]

Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status

Why do so many people paint this situation as "XT vs the status quo?" That's part of the problem. There are other solutions than BIP 101 (let alone XT), so what's with this perpetual misinformed characterization?

BIP 100 came before BIP 101, ya know....

The question is: Why change at all when it works?

The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet

[knight22]

Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status

Why do so many people paint this situation as "XT vs the status quo?" That's part of the problem. There are other solutions than BIP 101 (let alone XT), so what's with this perpetual misinformed characterization?

BIP 100 came before BIP 101, ya know....

The question is: Why change at all when it works?

The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet

Have you tried to make a transactions during that stress test? Mines got back logged 1-2h before getting a confirmation with standard fee. Increasing the fees doesn't adds up capacity btw. 

[manselr]

It's not fully over yet. The big spam attack still has to happen in september, it may cause panic again and get some random newbies that are clueless supporting XT or BIP101. Only after the spam attacks are over we will be able to say the hijacking attempt is over and buried, until then lets keep our eyes open.

[knight22]

It's not fully over yet. The big spam attack still has to happen in september, it may cause panic again and get some random newbies that are clueless supporting XT or BIP101. Only after the spam attacks are over we will be able to say the hijacking attempt is over and buried, until then lets keep our eyes open.

The spam attack won't attract any noobies and that's not the goal. It's to highlight how pathetic the system currently is.

[sgbett]

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

At least with BIP100 something could potentially happen sooner (though we are still going to have the whole issue about getting a majority to run it). I'd be happy to pin my colors to a BIP100 based solution if it meant that block size increases could happen sooner rather than later - even though I think that block size as a function of miner voting is totally unnecessary and overly complex.

I'm interested in how the anti-XT crowd feel about a BIP100 implementation that could very well facilitate 8MB blocks even sooner?

Its pure speculation I know - I'm used to the other board in this respect - but I suspect a lot of people went XT on the 8MB blocks issue (its the only reason I switched). If in fact XT is being 'rekt' are people overlooking the fact that there is still large support for 8MB blocks amongst those 'rekkers'.

With regards short term block size increase, it may be that the only difference between BIP100 and BIP101 is that the latter requires 75% on XT (or xt-compatible) whereas the former requires 80% of miner votes to be 8MB.

I wonder if the anti-XT crowd may end up being the ones that get the block size increase implemented even sooner! That would be ironic

[knight22]

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken?

[HostFat]

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken?

The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code.
The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date.

[onemorexmr]

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken?

The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code.
The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date.

does anyone of you know some details of how it is implemented?
eg. (to take your example) BIP101 would get implemented in core right now but no pool would produce a bigger block until january.

in january one pool mines a bigger block: would core and xt be compatible in this case?

(the answer of this interests me also for all different kind of blocksize-bips)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You know, it's pretty tough to have a fruitful discussion with so much ad hominem being thrown around.

You ask this on a thread titled "Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)" and see no irony at all.  

[sgbett]

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken?

The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code.
The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date.

Thats a good point! I suspect an immediate deployment of Core + BIP101 would then mean XT needs to also pull the date forward.

I doubt core is suddenly going to deploy BIP101 though any time soon! I'm not even sure if they could deploy a BIP100 solution - unless the devs reached a consensus on it? Which I guess includes Gavin still?

Perhaps that was the job of XT all along though, to help that consensus form....

... ok I'll get me tinfoil hat!

[btcusury]

Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event.  There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it.  If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people.

If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"?

I defended the guy for years past his 'best before' date.  My bad.  Believe it or not I have to be pretty confident about the rottenness of someone or something before I really open up on them/it.

If Gavin planned to foster good-will in doing his early facet stuff as a PR stunt, it was one of the most brilliant moves in Bitcoin history.  I still doubt that he did and still feel it mostly likely that his elevation was one of those accidents of caprice.  And also that if Bitcoin survives him it will be one of the epic saves of all time.

I've never supported Gavin and made that clear for years. Oh, not for intellectual or philosophical reasons but because he looks like one of those kids I used to beat up in high school. lol

Meaning that you notice that he seems to be someone who strongly believes in authority?

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Your question reflects a misunderstanding about the possible effects of an unnecessary hardfork:

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
[...]
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency?

[source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)]

[IIOII]

Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event.  There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it.  If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people.

If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"?

Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity.

Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed.

[sgbett]

Burn the witch! 

[Lauda]

If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"?

Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity.

Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed.

I completely agree on the first part. Just because satoshi invented something amazing (which started a revolution), that does not mean that he can not make mistakes trusting people. His ownership of a alert key needs to be re-evaluated, but I do not think that the commit access needs to be removed.