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

[RoadTrain]

If we cannot trust that the majority of the mining power will do what is best for Bitcoin then Bitcoin has already fundamentally failed which I do not think is presently the case. In order to orphan all non-abiding blocks a single entity would need to be able exert control over more then fifty one percent of the mining power, if this happens Bitcoin has already been undermined anyway. I do not think it will be possible to enforce such policy across every jurisdiction in the world, this is however more of a question for geopolitics.

My point still stands: larger blocks increase mining centralization pressures. Truth is, even with a single miner you can trust that it will do what's best for Bitcoin. But it doesn't have to. It's all based on incentives. Mining centralization is hard to prevent, as the past tells us, and even harder to undo. You likely won't notice until the bad happens.

I agree with you that mining centralization is difficult to prevent, because of centralization of manufacture and economies of scale among other reasons, to a certain extend I have accepted this reality however. I still do not think that increasing the blocksize would increase mining centralization since miners do not run full nodes.

In my position for instance I just point my hashing power towards a pool of my choice that I think reflects my beliefs well and acts responsible, increasing the block size does not effect my mining operation whatsoever and the majority of the hashing power is under the control of people that are in a similar position to myself.

Increasing the blocksize does introduce centralization pressures but not in regards to mining. Keeping the blocksize at one megabyte also introduces centralization in the form of an increased reliance on third parties. So for me considering this balancing act, increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option with everything considered.

You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure.

You are claiming that you can vote with your feet, and I hate to repeat that a lot of hashing power is industrial scale, and is attached to a particular pool. Whether there is a million 1 GH/s miners going back and forth is irrelevant, their combined hashpower is what matters. I don't have any statistical data, but I suspect the majority of hashpower is already industrial-scale and is rigid w/r/t to pools.

I think you could simply state that you don't agree with all of the above, and I will be okay with that. I just don't want to waste my time engaging in a unproductive discussion.

In response to the incident of Antpool SPV mining and causing a fork a few months back, since then Antpool has lost a lot of its mining power which proves my point exactly, such a pool is incentivized to attract more miners by acting responsibly and when they act irresponsibly they lose support, proving the points that I have been making. I very much doubt that Antpool would make such a mistake again since they lost a lot of money because of the reward and reputation that was lost, if miners understand one thing it is profit.

I believe this is a common logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc. Moreover, I couldn't find anything that can support your claim. According to organofcorti, there were no significant plunges in AntPool hashrate during June-August, and it has risen over that two-fold in the period. And has risen since then as well.

[1714288095]

1714288095

[1714288095]

1714288095

[1714288095]

1714288095

[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.

I think, you're being too critical about Peter & Mike.

You know very well who is somebody and who is not. Nobody is discussing the 'ideas' of the two notorious ad hominem clowns here (despite full time propaganda spamming by brg).

[Carlton Banks]

What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options?  If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?

Multiple implementations of the consensus rules will elicit unplanned chain forks, and the chaos that would ensue. This is clearly what you intend Peter; to kill Bitcoin with "kindness".

Before you attempt to repudiate this, I'd also recommend you attempt to explain why you and your band of truth distorters reprensent the only tiny minority people that believe your version of reality.

[Carlton Banks]

notorious ad hominem clowns here

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above? 

[RoadTrain]

What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options?  If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?

How exactly are you gonna make it easier? By hijacking core discussions with your GIFs? I suspect no amount of GIFs and fancy charts can convince competent developers to follow your ideas.

We already have multiple implementations, we have core forks like XT. Where are they? If you believe in free markets, then maybe you just need to accept that these alternatives have failed to deliver, in the eyes of the majority?

[Peter R]

What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options?  If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?

Multiple implementations of the consensus rules will elicit unplanned chain forks, and the chaos that would ensue.

If the probability of forking could be understood and made arbitrarily small, would you agree that multiple implementations were a positive think for Bitcoin?

This is clearly what you intend Peter; to kill Bitcoin with "kindness".

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

[Zarathustra]

You dumb fucks can fork off to infinite altcoins you delude yourselves with.

Yes you can! And you will! Your stalinist and bolshevik ideas of 'consus' within a Politbüro, fearing competition as hell, censoring opposition, will be forked off into nirvana.

[Holliday]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Zarathustra]

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective.
We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By.

Thanks just got into the debate and wanted to see if I fully understood what the problem was about... so why can Gaven not see this? I mean it took me like an hour to get the facts down and realize its a bad idea right now? whats his view?

You can't possibly have missed all this lulz ?  

Gavin has been compromised by Mike Hearn and his merry band of socialist shills who are attempting to press urgency under the pretense that the cap is stalling Bitcoin MAINSTREAM adoption.

Everybody knows that the year around the last halving (Spring 12 - spring 13) saw a tenfold increase of txs. This will be prevented next year if the Politbüro will be successful to block the stream with the limit. But they won't. We will have alternate clients that are ready.

[Peter R]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Haha fair enough. 

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

[Carlton Banks]

What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options?  If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?

Multiple implementations of the consensus rules will elicit unplanned chain forks, and the chaos that would ensue.

If the probability of forking could be understood and made arbitrarily small, would you agree that multiple implementations were a positive think for Bitcoin?

I already agree that multiple implementations are a good thing; I use them. But you're being devious as usual, Peter: you don't mean "multiple implementations", you mean "different versions of consensus critical code". So I haven't answered your question directly (a dangerous proposition, bitkids).

This is clearly what you intend Peter; to kill Bitcoin with "kindness".

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

Peter, your demonstration of sociopathy is genuinely disturbing to normal people. That you can so casually make statements like the above when the concealed intent of your behaviour is so poorly concealed is in itself concerning. It's incredibly obvious, and incredibly odious.

Are you sure you really want to continue with this Peter? What you're doing could possibly be analysed and remembered as a crucial part of early 21st century history. Are you up for the inevitable consequences that could stem from that? Considerable amounts of responsibility can be attributed to a picture of your face.

[Holliday]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

[Zarathustra]

I have been trying to avoid ad hominems, but XTers on the mailing list today look like a pure sect. Why are devs wasting time with them...
Peter R's invented gridlock https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02501.html

Can't agree more with BtcDrak - this is toxic.

It's all well planned of course; Peter can make a censorship victim claim if they ban him too, or they can continue to tolerate his sophistry. Banning is better IMO,

Yes, the stalinist/fascist mentality of you and your idols will be exposed better that way. You should repeat banning and censoring as much as you can.

[hdbuck]

I have been trying to avoid ad hominems, but XTers on the mailing list today look like a pure sect. Why are devs wasting time with them...
Peter R's invented gridlock https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02501.html

Can't agree more with BtcDrak - this is toxic.

It's all well planned of course; Peter can make a censorship victim claim if they ban him too, or they can continue to tolerate his sophistry. Banning is better IMO,

Yes, the stalinist/fascist mentality of you and your idols will be exposed better that way. You should repeat banning and censoring as much as you can.

bitcoin is not a democracy.

[hdbuck]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

development is already decentralized. hello, open source software here.

its not because you (peter) dont know how to code and hence never contributed to the github repo that it is centralized.

seriously, you pathetic prick (peter).

[Zarathustra]

Everybody out there is talking about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

Everybody out there is laughing about the 'spherical blockchain' ideas of Peter R.

Which is no surprise.

Of course, that's why they are forced to censor him. Poor core devs and mods.

[Peter R]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

You deleted the phrase "(e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)."  Are you opposed to multiple forkwise-compatible implementations of the Bitcoin protocol?

[Carlton Banks]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Haha fair enough.  

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Peter, do you know what "sophistry" means? Humour me, provide a definition in a reply to this post

[hdbuck]

Everybody out there is talking about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

Everybody out there is laughing about the 'spherical blockchain' ideas of Peter R.

Which is no surprise.

Of course, that's why they are forced to censor him. Poor core devs and mods.

censoring a toxic verbalist that in no way has ever contributed to bitcoin code is more than deserved.

[Peter R]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Haha fair enough.  

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Peter, do you know what "sophism" means? Humour me, provide a definition in a reply to this post

Sophism is a fallacious argument, especially when used to deceive.

In what way do you think I am trying to deceive?