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

[VeritasSapere]

The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised.

If the blocks became consistently full Bitcoin will not work as advertised. I do know that we are on the same page in regards to this point at least.

[1714805357]

1714805357

[brg444]

The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised.

If the blocks became consistently full Bitcoin will not work as advertised. I do know that we are on the same page in regards to this point at least.

Durrr. Wrong.

If blocks become full then de minimis transactions will either have to pay to play or leave their place to monetary transactions of more value.

[knight22]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

We can start discussing it when you accept that the "market need" is not some half-baked VISA competitor, until then.... back to your homeworks  

You can't dictate what those needs are and clearly there is a need for what you are suggesting.

[Carlton Banks]

... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

More nonsense appeals to authority.

The most authoritative organisation in the world is the United Nations.

Complete nonsense. The UN is ruled by a majority (of authoritative and less authoritative countries). It is authoritative, but clearly not the most authoritative. Saudia Arabia, North Korea et al. are more authoritative. Thinking before posting is never a disadvantage.

I understand the Nature journal isn't immune from giving a platform to total nonsense also. I'll refer you to your own advice  

[coalitionfor8mb]

The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised.

If the blocks became consistently full Bitcoin will not work as advertised. I do know that we are on the same page in regards to this point at least.

Why not? There is nothing in Bitcoin advertisements about blocks being half-empty! 

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/blogs/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/honeybadger-660x495.jpg

Riding blockchain without the block-size-limit is like driving an automobile without brakes.

[Zarathustra]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.

Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133

[brg444]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.

Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133

Boring

[Zarathustra]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.

Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133

Boring

I agree. Bitcoin will remain boring as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core".

[brg444]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.

Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133

Boring

I agree. Bitcoin will remain boring as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core".

[coalitionfor8mb]

I agree. Bitcoin will remain boring as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core".

Bitcoin will remain sustainable to survive long enough and be heard of from the Echoes Of Time.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/746UIteHVdfM5LPG7UQXKPgIRs86i-qz4z3IMS-1TNFZNF0ctdj7fiiR8irefYIl17VGxhfIPdQy8b3nHc-koyTtQA=w506-h285-n

[RoadTrain]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

[Carlton Banks]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department.

[brg444]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department.

Wouldn't be surprised if Peter & Mike privately pitched each other propaganda material & ideas.. Truly a disturbing merry bunch of sociopaths

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

[brg444]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

[Zarathustra]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department.

Wouldn't be surprised if Peter & Mike privately pitched each other propaganda material & ideas.. Truly a disturbing merry bunch of sociopaths

Whining nobodies.

[VeritasSapere]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. It is true that an increased blocksize will lead to it being more expensive to run a full node, but that in my opinion is better then the alternative, it should be a balancing act after all. I also do not think that Bitcoin is just a settlement network, it can be and is much more then just that. Bitcoin is many things and we should not restrict its use especially if we do not need to do so. Increasing the blocksize will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Bitcoin is a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of the ancient world.

This article explains well why we should increase the block size: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[brg444]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. It is true that an increased blocksize will lead to it being more expensive to run a full node, but that in my opinion is better then the alternative, it should be a balancing act after all. I also do not think that Bitcoin is just a settlement network, it can be and is much more then just that. Bitcoin is many things and we should not restrict its use especially if we do not need to do so. Increasing the blocksize will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Bitcoin is a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of the ancient world.

This article explains well why we should increase the block size: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

You didn't say anything worthy of my attention, again.

BTW

Gerald Davis (aka Death And Taxes) is wrong, here's why

[Carlton Banks]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department.

Wouldn't be surprised if Peter & Mike privately pitched each other propaganda material & ideas.. Truly a disturbing merry bunch of sociopaths

Whining nobodies.

*ahem*

Remember your empty complaints about being slandered? (which are meaningless in my case as I called you all out for exhibiting poor moral values in respect of your attempted coup)

[RoadTrain]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?