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

[iCEBREAKER]

I think it is time for this thread to die.

You also thought it was time for the 1MB cap to die.

And you thought it was time for Blockstream and theymos's positions of recognized expertise and extant authority to die.

So pardon me when I dismiss your latest attempt to control the narrative as yet another failed attempt at self-serving wrongheadedness.

I'm not surprised your preference is we not continue to milk you Gavinista lolcows.   

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off and join the other 5 or 6 zero-percenters online at Frap.doc's Lonely Island of Disgruntled Gavinwhores.

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

[Zarathustra]

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off ...

Too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off.

[coalitionfor8mb]

It's all about the Blockchain, people, the Blockchain!!! Don't lose sight of it.
He who holds the "keys" makes the rules.

[muyuu]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

[hdbuck]

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off ...

Too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off.

lol how old are you even?

tss we are not phrokers. you and your XTshill buddies are.

this smells the poor 16yo troll running out of arguments.

so yea, ph0rk off.

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

[muyuu]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

Yeah but that is academic. When we say dead we mean... really dead for all practical purposes. Not going to happen. XT only seems like it could happen if Mike was actually a man and did as he said, do it in a mining minority with a checkpoint. But he's a little bitch, so it won't happen. He wants to keep on "influencing" actual Bitcoin.

[coalitionfor8mb]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

The point is, with the current load in the network (under 1MB blocks still) people in some places already have hard time keeping up when running full nodes continuously due to the fact that data needs to be transmitted multiple times between many peers. So in the case of XT, if the new rules become active and blocks get even slightly bigger, you won't be able to run that wonderful XT client anymore. You are effectively voting yourselves out of Bitcoin.

That's the irony of it, that's why it has ">>(e)X(i)T" in its logo, go check it out!
Of course, people always have a choice, but paradoxically within that choice is also an option to give it away.
Being able to validate the blockchain is an important part of Bitcoin's original core value proposition, it needs to stay that way.

[knowhow]

Those xt just crashed the market how can a team has two vision and instead to ask community to choose  they tryed to force us into darkness.Its time to the real satoshi nakamoto returns and take this project ahead ,before those team kill it.

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

The point is, with the current load in the network (under 1MB blocks still) people in some places already have hard time keeping up when running full nodes continuously due to the fact that data needs to be transmitted multiple times between many peers. So in the case of XT, if the new rules become active and blocks get even slightly bigger, you won't be able to run that wonderful XT client anymore. You are effectively voting yourselves out of Bitcoin.

That's the irony of it, that's why it has ">>(e)X(i)T" in its logo, go check it out!
Of course, people always have a choice, but paradoxically within that choice is also an option to give it away.
Being able to validate the blockchain is an important part of Bitcoin's original core value proposition, it needs to stay that way.

Personally I can support running a full node with much bigger blocks from my home. Though it does obviously depend on where you live and the quality of your connection, so from my perspective running XT is not voting myself out of Bitcoin. Running a full node is also not a requirement for most people to use Bitcoin. I also do think that if people can not run a full node from their home, they can just run a full node from a data center instead, since some people that do not have good connections in their homes are already doing this presently. I hope that you can agree with me that every user running a full node is not feasible and should not be a design goal for Bitcoin especially since that is not even the case today. After all Satoshi Nakamoto himself did say that "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale".

[knight22]

Those xt just crashed the market how can a team has two vision and instead to ask community to choose  they tryed to force us into darkness.Its time to the real satoshi nakamoto returns and take this project ahead ,before those team kill it.

Bitcoin crashed because speculators realised bitcoin is going nowhere. Surprise surprise

[coalitionfor8mb]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

The point is, with the current load in the network (under 1MB blocks still) people in some places already have hard time keeping up when running full nodes continuously due to the fact that data needs to be transmitted multiple times between many peers. So in the case of XT, if the new rules become active and blocks get even slightly bigger, you won't be able to run that wonderful XT client anymore. You are effectively voting yourselves out of Bitcoin.

That's the irony of it, that's why it has ">>(e)X(i)T" in its logo, go check it out!
Of course, people always have a choice, but paradoxically within that choice is also an option to give it away.
Being able to validate the blockchain is an important part of Bitcoin's original core value proposition, it needs to stay that way.

Personally I can support running a full node with much bigger blocks from my home. Though it does obviously depend on where you live and the quality of your connection, so from my perspective running XT is not voting myself out of Bitcoin. Running a full node is also not a requirement for most people to use Bitcoin. I also do think that if people can not run a full node from their home, they can just run a full node from a data center instead, since some people that do not have good connections in their homes are already doing this presently. I hope that you can agree with me that every user running a full node is not feasible and should not be a design goal for Bitcoin especially since that is not even the case today. After all Satoshi Nakamoto himself did say that "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale".

I entertained that idea for a while and I partly agree that over time running a full node might become a fairly specialized kind of business that would require some skills and dedication and may even turn into a full time job for some, but at the same time I always felt a necessity for Bitcoin to have a static limit on block size in place in order to keep the costs of running a node manageable. The moment I noticed that BIP101 lacked this property I realized it was not the correct solution, as it featured an "escape trajectory" instead.

If the costs of running a node become too high over time, they will effectively restrict the access to blockchain for majority of the participants in the economy and the enforcement of consensus rules would become a privilege of select few. Keeping the entry-level for the network reasonably low is what allows it to accumulate enough mass of validators and as a result preserve the rules from being forged. Therefore the cost of running a node must oscillate around a particular constant value over long periods of time, otherwise the tendency for it to grow will result in the scenario I described above.

Now, because of the technological progress, the current static limit of 1MB will make the costs of running a node lower and lower over the years to come and therefore would need to be adjusted accordingly at some point in the future in order to keep the costs of transacting in the network competitive. These transitions need to be rare and discreet, otherwise the idea of the limit may begin to dissolve. Keeping in mind the current theoretical bandwidth targets of the competition, the 8MB figure seems appropriate for the next limit, however the exact timing for the transition depends on the competitive landscape and the state of technology.

In order for the new limit to be any good and serve its purpose, the current one needs to prove itself in action and hold long enough to create a precedent for further adjustments. Bitcoin can leverage its first mover advantage, the gravity of the original invention and the network effect that comes with it in order to play it safe with regards to the limit, while working out a solid plan for scalability issue with many aspects of the system tested against the new proposal. With the status that it holds in the ecosystem and the weight of its market cap, Bitcoin only needs to move when it absolutely has to.

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

BIP101 is at this point the deadest it could possibly be. I can also run a node with funky rules that will never be activated and claim it's not dead.

For as long as you are running that node you should not consider it dead either. As long as someone believes in the code it will continue to live, cryptocurrency is the same in that it can be sustained by peoples believe. I think it is difficult to tell how much traction BIP101 really has today, since it would make sense that the miners would be cautious until they are certain that the economic majority is on their side, so depending on the state of consensus we could see BIP101 gain more traction in the future, there is much uncertainty around this and I am certainly not in a position to even know this. However I am certain that if Core does take to long to increase the blocksize another implementation will instead.

The point is, with the current load in the network (under 1MB blocks still) people in some places already have hard time keeping up when running full nodes continuously due to the fact that data needs to be transmitted multiple times between many peers. So in the case of XT, if the new rules become active and blocks get even slightly bigger, you won't be able to run that wonderful XT client anymore. You are effectively voting yourselves out of Bitcoin.

That's the irony of it, that's why it has ">>(e)X(i)T" in its logo, go check it out!
Of course, people always have a choice, but paradoxically within that choice is also an option to give it away.
Being able to validate the blockchain is an important part of Bitcoin's original core value proposition, it needs to stay that way.

Personally I can support running a full node with much bigger blocks from my home. Though it does obviously depend on where you live and the quality of your connection, so from my perspective running XT is not voting myself out of Bitcoin. Running a full node is also not a requirement for most people to use Bitcoin. I also do think that if people can not run a full node from their home, they can just run a full node from a data center instead, since some people that do not have good connections in their homes are already doing this presently. I hope that you can agree with me that every user running a full node is not feasible and should not be a design goal for Bitcoin especially since that is not even the case today. After all Satoshi Nakamoto himself did say that "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale".

I entertained that idea for a while and I partly agree that over time running a full node might become a fairly specialized kind of business that would require some skills and dedication and may even turn into a full time job for some, but at the same time I always felt a necessity for Bitcoin to have a static limit on block size in place in order to keep the costs of running a node manageable. The moment I noticed that BIP101 lacked this property I realized it was not the correct solution, as it featured an "escape trajectory" instead.

If the costs of running a node become too high over time, they will effectively restrict the access to blockchain for majority of the participants in the economy and the enforcement of consensus rules would become a privilege of select few. Keeping the entry-level for the network reasonably low is what allows it to accumulate enough mass of validators and as a result preserve the rules from being forged. Therefore the cost of running a node must oscillate around a particular constant value over long periods of time, otherwise the tendency for it to grow will result in the scenario I described above.

Now, because of the technological progress, the current static limit of 1MB will make the costs of running a node lower and lower over the years to come and therefore would need to be adjusted accordingly at some point the future in order to keep the costs of transacting in the network competitive. These transitions need to be rare and discreet, otherwise the idea of the limit may begin to dissolve. Keeping in mind the current theoretical bandwidth targets of the competition, the 8MB figure seems appropriate for the next limit, however the exact timing for the transition depends on the competitive landscape and the state of technology.

In order for the new limit to be any good and serve its purpose, the current one needs to prove itself in action and hold long enough to create a precedent for further adjustments. Bitcoin can leverage its first mover advantage, the gravity of the original invention and the network effect that comes with it in order to play it safe with regards to the limit, while working out a solid plan for scalability issue with many aspects of the system tested against the new proposal. With the status that it holds in the ecosystem and the weight of its market cap, Bitcoin only needs to move when it absolutely has to.

I can actually agree with your criticism of BIP101, my position is that I support BIP101 until a better alternative is implemented. I would actually agree with your 8MB proposal as a compromise between these different positions, however I do think that it should be implemented before January 2016 even if just for political reasons.

I do not necessarily think that the situation would be as bad as you predict if the blocks became to large, to a certain extend it would be a symptom of Bitcoins success. However you do make good points and the blocks could increase in size faster then our technology can handle, which would lead to more centralization in full nodes. I do not think it would be as dire as you predict under the BIP101 schedule. However it is true that we can not predict whether eight gigabyte blocks in twenty years from now would be viable, I think it most likely would be if technology progresses at the same rate it has in the last twenty years. However we can not have certainty in this regard and this is certainly a valid criticism. Which is why I would prefer a more conservative version of BIP101, or BIP100 without the thirty two megabyte limit, there are also other good proposals. I do prefer more long term solutions compared to your eight megabyte proposal, my concern however is that increasing the blocksize would most likely be even more difficult in the future then it is today, this could potentially lead to a split when the blocksize needs to be increased again.

I only consider a proposal real until after it is implemented, this is how consensus should be reached. I look forward to seeing the coalitionfor8mb implementation and I am curious to see how the market will react to that. I do not agree with all of the things that you have said but you have some very interesting ideas, I have definitely enjoyed reading some of your posts.

[coalitionfor8mb]

I can actually agree with your criticism of BIP101, my position is that I support BIP101 until a better alternative is implemented. I would actually agree with your 8MB proposal as a compromise between these different positions, however I do think that it should be implemented before January 2016 even if just for political reasons.

I do not necessarily think that the situation would be as bad as you predict if the blocks became to large, to a certain extend it would be a symptom of Bitcoins success. However you do make good points and the blocks could increase in size faster then our technology can handle, which would lead to more centralization in full nodes. I do not think it would be as dire as you predict under the BIP101 schedule. However it is true that we can not predict whether eight gigabyte blocks in twenty years from now would be viable, I think it most likely would be if technology progresses at the same rate it has in the last twenty years. However we can not have certainty in this regard and this is certainly a valid criticism. Which is why I would prefer a more conservative version of BIP101, or BIP100 without the thirty two megabyte limit, there are also other good proposals. I do prefer more long term solutions compared to your eight megabyte proposal, my concern however is that increasing the blocksize would most likely be even more difficult in the future then it is today, this could potentially lead to a split when the blocksize needs to be increased again.

I only consider a proposal real until after it is implemented, this is how consensus should be reached. I look forward to seeing the coalitionfor8mb implementation and I am curious to see how the market will react to that. I do not agree with all of the things that you have said but you have some very interesting ideas, I have definitely enjoyed reading some of your posts.

Thanks!

One of the most important characteristics of decentralized systems is their evolutionary dynamics and the tendencies they develop over time. As the current situation shows there is no distinct leader who can take responsibility and adjust the system in one way or another. One may ask "who runs a star?" and the answer would seem to be "the star runs itself". That's why every decision that the collective agrees upon needs to be tested very carefully against various long-term properties of the system before any change can take effect.

In the situation with the block size limit, the cost to entry into the system is one of those long-term characteristics that needs to be dealt with in a responsible way. As the current limit hasn't been effective most of the time during network's operation for the last several years, the costs of running a node have risen to the point that we are now beginning to saturate average household connections. When the limit becomes active as more and more transactions enter the system, the costs of running a node should stabilize and begin declining with advancements in technology. This part of the cycle is absolutely necessary in order for the costs to stay within a certain range. The range can be considered acceptable if the entry into the network remains permissionless in a broad sense of this word.

What makes this particular characteristic so sensitive and fragile is the fact that the only demographic who's interests it represents is Bitcoin users. All other active profit-driven players (like miners and businesses) would most likely benefit from increasing the limit in a more aggressive way. Permissionless entry into the network is what made Bitcoin attractive in the first place and it remains one of its core value propositions till present day. If that part is lost then the current economic pressure may be released, but the new one never comes as the system would no longer be of interest to people who otherwise use fiat. That's why Bitcoin can only safely grow within its original framework or risk losing both its current user base and those potential newcomers. Understanding of system's properties and coherency in people's actions will become the key for Bitcoin's future success.

[Zarathustra]

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off ...

Too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off.

lol how old are you even?

tss we are not phrokers. you and your XTshill buddies are.

this smells the poor 16yo troll running out of arguments.

so yea, ph0rk off.

Your jargon is of an adolescent.

[hdbuck]

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off ...

Too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off.

lol how old are you even?

tss we are not phrokers. you and your XTshill buddies are.

this smells the poor 16yo troll running out of arguments.

so yea, ph0rk off.

Your jargon is of an adolescent.

im adjusting to your logic.

[Zarathustra]

But too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off ...

Too bad.  We're not going to stop.  If you don't like it, fork off.

lol how old are you even?

tss we are not phrokers. you and your XTshill buddies are.

this smells the poor 16yo troll running out of arguments.

so yea, ph0rk off.

Your jargon is of an adolescent.

im adjusting to your logic.

you are always acting like an adolescent. Memes, pictures, childish jargon.
But children are welcome at bitcoin.

[gentlemand]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

Hope and fear is the foundation of all good drama.

[coalitionfor8mb]

I suppose this thread refuses to die just like BIP101 is refusing to die. Since it represents both hope and fear for different people.

Hope and fear is the foundation of all good drama.

This is not a drill!

The economic pressure is coming... We need reinforcements in the outer shell...
Those 1MB full nodes at home may suffer... I repeat, they may get pushed out!

Buckle up, gentlemen(d), you're in the game!

Fork it, we brake for nobody!

Keep firing, assholes!