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

[Holliday]

Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?

It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me.

Well, I wasn't talking about you but it's nice to know you're self-conscious. lol

I enjoy our banter, so I was compelled to respond!

[1714234620]

1714234620

[1714234620]

1714234620

[1714234620]

1714234620

[knight22]

Lightning Network, Sidechains, other off-(main)-chain solutions.

All of them are years away from being ready, tested and proven to be secure. None of them are acceptable solutions. Bitcoin will be forked way before that.

[VeritasSapere]

Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

[muyuu]

Lightning Network, Sidechains, other off-(main)-chain solutions.

All of them are years away from being ready, tested and proven to be secure. None of them are acceptable solutions. Bitcoin will be forked way before that.

Gigablocks known to be broken as a decentralised solution right now, so there's that.

It's fine, you can fork off at your earliest convenience. So long.

[brg444]

Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

Boring appeal to authority.

BTW had you no shame sharing the misleading "article" of a known scammer!?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=998257.msg12620721#msg12620721

[knight22]

Lightning Network, Sidechains, other off-(main)-chain solutions.

All of them are years away from being ready, tested and proven to be secure. None of them are acceptable solutions. Bitcoin will be forked way before that.

Gigablocks known to be broken as a decentralised solution right now, so there's that.

It's fine, you can fork off at your earliest convenience. So long.

Yeah sure, I wonder how your coin that doesn't scale will look like after that.

[muyuu]

Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?

It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me.

Well, I wasn't talking about you but it's nice to know you're self-conscious. lol

I enjoy our banter, so I was compelled to respond!

The interesting thing is that currently we know better than at the time Satoshi released his original client. We're past miners being included in every node, we're past CPUs and GPUs, and pooled mining. Among other things. So, even though I carry the gospel of Satoshi everywhere, the cool thing about this project is that not even Satoshi has full power or authority. The network has (so far at least).

[knight22]

Not to specifically call any person out but, have you guys read Satoshi's whitepaper recently?

It's been a few months. I don't consult the writings of Karl Benz when I talk about automobiles either! Shame on me.

Well, I wasn't talking about you but it's nice to know you're self-conscious. lol

I enjoy our banter, so I was compelled to respond!

The interesting thing is that currently we know better than at the time Satoshi released his original client. We're past miners being included in every node, we're past CPUs and GPUs, and pooled mining. Among other things. So, even though I carry the gospel of Satoshi everywhere, the cool thing about this project is that not even Satoshi has full power or authority. The network has (so far at least).

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

As I have already responded to sgbett in a similar way, I will say it again that Satoshi didn't put a timeline on that particular configuration. We can likely start aiming in that direction once democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions" and the global internet infrastructure doesn't run the risk of being censored with regards to Bitcoin's increased traffic.

[VeritasSapere]

I was just pointing out that this is the original vision of Bitcoin, not increasing the block size is actually the change, in order to keep Bitcoin the same we must change it.

I do think that we should stick with the fundamental original vision of Bitcoin. I also think that if we do want to fundamentally change Bitcoin then this is best done within an altcoin. Since this would not betray the original social contract of Bitcoin.

We should embrace alternative cryptocurrencies as an extension of the concept of voluntarism. I do think that for the people here that are preaching one megabyte blocks forever, it would be better if they adopt an altcoin instead since that would create less conflict and division as opposed to trying to force your beliefs onto Bitcoin, which I do think some of the Core developers are presently doing as well. Bitcoin is peer to peer digital cash. Bitcoin is also a commodity and a currency. Bitcoin is trust without decentralized authority which can be applied to many different applications. I do not agree with the concept of restricting Bitcoin to just one of these use cases. Bitcoin can and should do all of these things, especially when there is no good reason to restrict its use.

I want decentralization and financial freedom as well you know, please keep that in mind, most of us are and should be on the same side, we are all Bitcoiners together and we share these principles in common at least.

[VeritasSapere]

Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

As I have already responded to sgbett in a similar way, I will say it again that Satoshi didn't put a timeline on that particular configuration. We can likely start aiming in that direction once democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions" and the global internet infrastructure doesn't run the risk of being censored with regards to Bitcoin's increased traffic.

I agree with you that the timing of this transition is important, and I know that we do agree at least in our long term vision of Bitcoin. I do not think that time should be when democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions". I think in order to get to that point in the first place we need to increase the blocksize somewhat at least, just so that blocks do not become consistently full which would lead to higher fees and rendering transactions unreliable, this would not be good for adoption. So it is definitely somewhat of a chicken before the egg problem so to speak but I suspect that a middle ground in terms of a blocksize increase will be the best solution in the near term.

I also do not think there is necessarily a conflict of interest with the "big block institutions". Which would explain why I favor the concept of allowing the free market to "rule" Bitcoin.

[muyuu]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

[knight22]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

The conditions today are very different to when Satoshi established the blocksize limit, and they will continue to change. Keep in mind that the one megabyte blocksize limit was always just intended as a temporary measure.

[thejaytiesto]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

If there was no limit, the consequences would be even worse in theory, because it would be like having no brake, so you would be pushed against a cliff without no way to stop. The bloat is a defense mechanism in a way. We need a good intermediate solution and raising the blockchain to a ridiculous level doesn't seem like one.

[coalitionfor8mb]

I was just pointing out that this is the original vision of Bitcoin, not increasing the block size is actually the change, in order to keep Bitcoin the same we must change it.

I do think that we should stick with the fundamental original vision of Bitcoin. I also think that if we do want to fundamentally change Bitcoin then this is best done within an altcoin. Since this would not betray the original social contract of Bitcoin.

We should embrace alternative cryptocurrencies as an extension of the concept of voluntarism. I do think that for the people here that are preaching one megabyte blocks forever, it would be better if they adopt an altcoin instead since that would create less conflict and division as opposed to trying to force your beliefs onto Bitcoin, which I do think some of the Core developers are presently doing. Bitcoin is peer to peer digital cash. Bitcoin is also a commodity and a currency. Bitcoin is trust without decentralized authority which can be applied to many different applications. I do not agree with the concept of restricting Bitcoin to just one of these use cases. Bitcoin can and should do all of these things, especially when there is no good reason to restrict its use.

I want decentralization and financial freedom as well you know, please keep that in mind, most of us are and should be on the same side, we are all Bitcoiners together and we share these principles in common at least.

Of course, we are all in this together!

I like the idea of altcoins better than changing the current front-runners without the overwhelming understanding and consensus among many users. The fact that we are arguing about how to proceed and what directions to take means that we don't really know what we are doing. The longer we keep the rules the more we can learn about the system in its different modes of operation and the more data we can collect about the way competitors react to the increasing pressure. The change will be simple when the target is clear, but for now the Core remains beautiful.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kJRLSuZ1b4s/maxresdefault.jpg

[muyuu]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

No. The recent spam attacks prove the limit is fine. Fees increased. No catastrophe happened because of touching the limit. My nodes worked just fine throughout.

Also, for those solutions that Bitcoin is not ready to solve at the moment, there is a clear way other than forking or using an altcoin: working off-chain http://www.coindesk.com/remittance-firm-toast-pivots-from-bitcoin-raises-850000/

[brg444]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

The spam attack proved the spam limit is useless 

[muyuu]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

The spam attack proved the spam limit is useless 

The spam attack proved some people are immune to logic and reason 

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi was being realistic about its own design unlike all of you small blockists who didn't had the genius to invent bitcoin. He obviously wasn't locked up in a prison of fear.

The conditions under which Satoshi himself established a block size limit, remain today.

No. The recent spam attacks prove this wrong. The limit is useless.

If there was no limit, the consequences would be even worse in theory, because it would be like having no brake, so you would be pushed against a cliff without no way to stop. The bloat is a defense mechanism in a way. We need a good intermediate solution and raising the blockchain to a ridiculous level doesn't seem like one.

In theory it could also be better with an increased blocksize, since with an eight megabyte blocksize it would theoretically be eight times more expensive to attack Bitcoin by overloading the network. From my perspective the limit represents the cliff that causes transactions not to be confirmed when the network becomes overloaded.