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

[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"?

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.

That's not the point though. Are you suggesting that Gavin was on the dark side from the beginning?

[brg444]

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"

Yes. Trolls on reddit did confuse careful considerations of block increase as somehow dictatorial and ill-advised "blocking" of such development. Reddit is kind of retarded in its own right... what else is new? Surely an educated person like you could not possibly observe the events unfolding and judge that to be true?

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

"We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov

[brg444]

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. 

No, but in the event of a spam attack increasing your fee enough to be well above the attackers' transactions your relieve you of any problem.

[brg444]

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.

It is over.

A majority of the mining network is now backing BIP100 and a certain significant portion are outright against 8MB increase.

[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.

It is over.

A majority of the mining network is now backing BIP100 and a certain significant portion are outright against 8MB increase.

BIP100 is still vaporware and the industry (market makers and payment processors) are still firmly supporting BIP101 which have a functioning code already. The race isn't over at all.

[brg444]

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

Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority":

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

As quoted above, it is pretty unlikely miners would arrive at a 8MB vote in any near future as some are outright opposed to it.

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

[brg444]

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.

It is over.

A majority of the mining network is now backing BIP100 and a certain significant portion are outright against 8MB increase.

BIP100 is still vaporware and the industry (market makers and payment processors) are still firmly supporting BIP101 which have a functioning code already. The race isn't over at all.

Read above, BIP101 is broken. Bitfury is against it. It has near epsilon chances of getting adopted. Better get with da program!

BIP100 is getting a formal proposition in probably no later than two weeks. Decision will likely hang between this and Gmax's yet-to-be-seen flex cap proposal.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

[brg444]

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

We?

It seems to me team Blockstream is leading the debate as we speak! Who do you represent? The 8MBers? Ewww.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

Wait... So you are now on our side    How did that happen? On the road to Damascus?

Someone call cointelegraph.com -  "brg444 in pro big block shocker"  

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

We?

It seems to me team Blockstream is leading the debate as we speak! Who do you represent? The 8MBers? Ewww.

You may be right, this block size capitulation makes their humiliation complete

[brg444]

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

Wait... So you are now on our side    How did that happen? On the road to Damascus?

Someone call cointelegraph.com -  "brg444 in pro big block shocker"  

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

[brg444]

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

We?

It seems to me team Blockstream is leading the debate as we speak! Who do you represent? The 8MBers? Ewww.

You may be right, this block size capitulation makes their humiliation complete

For your argument to make any sense you'd have to present actual proofs that the developers were ever against increasing the block size and swore to keep 1mb forever

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

Wait... So you are now on our side    How did that happen? On the road to Damascus?

Someone call cointelegraph.com -  "brg444 in pro big block shocker"  

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

You are now going through the denial phase of your grief.

hhhrrrmmfff...  I never said I was against bigger blocks... Some of my best friends are bigger blocks...  hhrrrmmppff

[brg444]

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

Wait... So you are now on our side    How did that happen? On the road to Damascus?

Someone call cointelegraph.com -  "brg444 in pro big block shocker"  

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

You are now going through the denial phase of your grief.

hhhrrrmmfff...  I never said I was against bigger blocks... Some of my best friends are bigger blocks...  hhrrrmmppff

Lambchop are you not satisfied trolling the speculation section you have to spread your ignorance here as well? 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

Wait... So you are now on our side    How did that happen? On the road to Damascus?

Someone call cointelegraph.com -  "brg444 in pro big block shocker"  

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

You are now going through the denial phase of your grief.

hhhrrrmmfff...  I never said I was against bigger blocks... Some of my best friends are bigger blocks...  hhrrrmmppff

Lambchop are you not satisfied trolling the speculation section you have to spread your ignorance here as well? 

Coming from you, I will take that as a huge compliment!!   Thanks, mate.   

But alas no, brony free zone here.

[Zarathustra]

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"

It's a spam attack. 28 (twentyeight) 'posts' today.

[Peter R]

Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority":

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

This blog post shows that the probability that BIP101 gets activated and it does not become the longest chain (due to variance) is less likely than the network hash power finding a SHA256 collision:



Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilwq1/bip101_implementation_flaws/

[brg444]

Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority":

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

This blog post shows that the probability that BIP101 gets activated and it does not become the longest chain (due to variance) is less likely than the network hash power finding a SHA256 collision:

*zip*

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilwq1/bip101_implementation_flaws/

This post shows the probability that BIP101 becomes the longest chain is 0:

"We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov BitFury

[knight22]

Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority":

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

This blog post shows that the probability that BIP101 gets activated and it does not become the longest chain (due to variance) is less likely than the network hash power finding a SHA256 collision:

*zip*

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilwq1/bip101_implementation_flaws/

This post shows the probability that BIP101 becomes the longest chain is 0:

"We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov BitFury

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know