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

[coalitionfor8mb]

Regarding the idea of Bitcoin driven by "the market", we need to understand one important aspect of the current setup. For as long as there are active players in the global arena with the ability to print banknotes at their own discretion (we might as well call them "the big block institutions"), the notion that "the market" will decide what is best for Bitcoin basically translates to the question: "Hey, bitcoiners, how much for your Core values?". "Not for sale" seems to be the answer.

The fact that we are seeing so much resistance to premature block size increase (which in turn comes with a risk of setting up a precedent and a trend for eventual centralization) is perfectly in line with the reason Bitcoin was created in the first place, namely to serve as a counter-balance to those same institutions that are now actively promoting the increase. If Bitcoin takes on that path it may at some point begin contradicting itself and lose the trust it has gained so far.

So, when entertaining the idea of the market-driven hypothesis, one mustn't easily discount the ideological weight of Bitcoin as a counter-measure to present day fiat and the value it derives from it. Changing the rules of the game must be the last resort option considered only when another similar system gains enough momentum and provides competitive characteristics servicing the same market. The path to The Future of Bitcoin is through people's Goodwill.

[muyuu]

Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not.
Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably.

Are you going to Peter R's school of science?

You probably should to finally get a clue.

You most probably should.

[sgbett]

Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not.
Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably.

Are you going to Peter R's school of science?

Your science can prove it either way? Go ahead.

Ill continue to look at uncertainty in terms of probability.

[muyuu]

Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not.
Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably.

Are you going to Peter R's school of science?

Your science can prove it either way? Go ahead.

Ill continue to look at uncertainty in terms of probability.

I'm not the one making stuff up, so I don't have to prove it.

I know that even 1MB strains a lot of nodes out of the network, so it's unlikely that an eight-fold increase would help the situation. I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

[brg444]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

[hdbuck]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

[brg444]

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

[knight22]

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

You are now confusing fees and subsidy?

Are you sure you know how economics work?

[mallard]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

[brg444]

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

You are now confusing fees and subsidy?

Are you sure you know how economics work?

 

You are so simple. What are you? 15 years old?

[sgbett]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

[muyuu]

Of course they can hard fork upwards, and even soft fork downwards much more easily. Currently transactions are strongly under cost, so it's much more likely that they would soft fork down than they hard fork up.

http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-block-size-risk

[sgbett]

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

When you can't prove someone wrong, then pretend they said something silly and call them retarded. Solid.

If you can't tell the difference between fundamental rules and temporary DDoS measures then you are on thin ice calling other people stupid.

[muyuu]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

[brg444]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

[knight22]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

[sgbett]

Of course they can hard fork upwards, and even soft fork downwards much more easily. Currently transactions are strongly under cost, so it's much more likely that they would soft fork down than they hard fork up.

http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-block-size-risk

Why would they soft fork downwards? Fee pressure?

I'm not the first to think it but I thought the 'stress tests' were fee pressure too.

[brg444]

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

When you can't prove someone wrong, then pretend they said something silly and call them retarded. Solid.

If you can't tell the difference between fundamental rules and temporary DDoS measures then you are on thin ice calling other people stupid.

It's not about proving you wrong, it's trying to shine the light on how stupid your understanding of Bitcoin is.

If you can't tell the difference between a few retarded miners forking to their own chain and a hard fork then I absolutely should insist on calling you stupid.

[sgbett]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

[brg444]

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean.....

Do you even economics?