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

[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.

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 be confirmed when the network becomes overloaded.

As long as txs are included under cost, anything that raises fees is good for sustainability. With the spam attack, we saw the average fee raise. This is GOOD without any shadow of a doubt.

Ideally we should be having full blocks all the time and some backlog so there may appear a fee market. Especially after the halving as mining gaps will appear and they will weaken the network otherwise.

[1714294414]

1714294414

[1714294414]

1714294414

[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 be confirmed when the network becomes overloaded.

As long as txs are included under cost, anything that raises fees is good for sustainability. With the spam attack, we saw the average fee raise. This is GOOD without any shadow of a doubt.

Ideally we should be having full blocks all the time and some backlog so there may appear a fee market. Especially after the halving as mining gaps will appear and they will weaken the network otherwise.

I really do strongly disagree with this point, high fees and unreliable transactions would not be good for Bitcoin adoption and public perception. I really do think if people allowed this to happen to Bitcoin, which I do not presently think will happen, this would essentially not allow Bitcoin to effectively compete with other crypocurrencies and payment methods. Under such a scenario I would expect another cryptocurrency to become more dominant. I personally would be forced to stop using Bitcoin both because of the high fees and unreliable transactions. I would have to shift my activities over to another blockchain which would function in a similar way to how Bitcoin used to be, before the blocks became consistently full.

[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.

The spam attack proved the spam limit is useless 

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

Sure. The only thing that silly limit did is blocking miners to clear all the transactions at once. Mempools would not have grown that much and weaker nodes wouldn't be forced to shut down.

The limit is useless and is even proved to be a problem.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Yes.  The recent spam attacks proved Satoshi prescient.  The limit is invaluable.

Didn't you notice XT Redditard Army morale imploded after the "stress tests" not only failed to demonstrate the need for larger blocks (because appropriate fees always continued to prioritize tx accordingly), but backfired by strengthening Core's defenses (in the form of smarter wallet/pool/node software like RBF)?

In the presence of adversity, Bitcoin's fee markets simply started working like they were intended to since the Genesis Block.

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear"

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.

Off-(main)-chain solutions have been here for years.  Every alt chain proves you wrong.  Every off-chain exchange and service (looking at you SatoshiDice) proves you are an idiot.

SC/LN are closer than you think.  Hearn@sigint.google.mil tried to block BIP65/CLTV, only to get his sorry ass steamrolled and ban-hammered.

Progress on the code is rapid.  See for yourself:

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/commits/master
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements/commits/alpha

Team Core has the means ($21,000,000) and motivation (fuck Hearn and the former core dev he rode in on) to ramp up development by minting dozens of new core devs.

[VeritasSapere]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

[knight22]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

[brg444]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

[knight22]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

What's the point of running a full node if you can't use it because blocks are bloated anyway.

[VeritasSapere]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

[Holliday]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

[brg444]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

What's the point of running a full node if you can't use it because blocks are bloated anyway.

"Running a node is the only way to verify you balance privately without signaling your intention to the NSA"

Your full node is to be used in the future mostly to settle or resolve disputes between the numerous open source payment systems to come.

[VeritasSapere]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

I agree, however with one megabyte blocks at greater levels of adoption, it would lead to centralization in terms of the limited amount of competing third party payment processors or banks. Since in order to transact with the Bitcoin blockchain directly the average person would be priced out by having to compete with payment processors and banks over the limited space. I do not think that situation would arise because of the existence of competing altcoins however hypothetically this limited group of payment processors and banks could become points of censorship as well. Much worse obviously then a blockchain that more people can use directly.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[knight22]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Then every altcoin can fill that purpose no?

[VeritasSapere]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Then every altcoin can fill that purpose no?

That is true, no matter what happens to Bitcoin, the crypto revolution will stay alive because of altcoins.

[knight22]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

What's the point of running a full node if you can't use it because blocks are bloated anyway.

"Running a node is the only way to verify you balance privately without signaling your intention to the NSA"

Your full node is to be used in the future mostly to settle or resolve disputes between the numerous open source payment systems to come.

Which means running a full node will become useless for almost everybody but financial institutions to settle their interbank payments. Not very useful for you and me.

[brg444]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users.

Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions.

Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this.

Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful for retail transaction to happen on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.

Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be.

[knight22]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users.

Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions.

Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this.

Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.

Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be.

lol this is blatantly false and you know it.

[VeritasSapere]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users.

Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions.

Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this.

Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.

Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be.

lol this is blatantly false and you know it.

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume."

[sidhujag]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does niot live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users.

Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions.

Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this.

Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.

Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be.

lol this is blatantly false and you know it.

Ive already gone through all of this with you on why andd how bitcoin is a settlement system..

[brg444]

You think that most people should rely on off chain solutions? Needing third parties in order to transact in Bitcoin defeats part of the purpose. We should be able to use the Bitcoin Blockchain directly, off chain solutions do not truly increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain.

I think icebreaker missed that part:

What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.

The only way to use Bitcoin without relying on a third party is to run a full node. How else do you propagate your transactions privately.

The vast majority of Bitcoin users do not run full nodes, smart phones can not run full nodes after all. I also very much doubt that every user in the future that does not live in the developed world will be able to run a full node either. People can use Bitcoin without running a full node, while still holding their own private keys and being able to transact freely on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Yes, and it's a shame they pretend to be Bitcoin, a purely peer-to-peer form of electronic cash, users.

Of course no one is proposing you shouldn't run Bitcoin on your smartphone, but to be safe you should first be generally careful about doing that and the first sane thing to do is to still rely on your node to broadcast transactions.

Of course this is all irrelevant anyway seeing as it is all part of your repeated attempts to turn Bitcoin into a consumer product which does not fly. Yes you are free to spend Bitcoin and trust an SPV wallet using your smartphone but I frankly think at that point you might want to pull out your credit card. Again, I don't care about your ideology or "what you think", I'm just saying don't expect any typical retarded consumer to adopt this.

Soon enough it will seem economically wasteful to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain. Large scale open source payment systems will prove to be more efficient, flexible and almost as reliable as regular blockchain transactions. The experience will be unlike anything in the Bitcoin ecosystem right now. Payment addresses will be abstracted, transactions will be instant, privacy will be improved.

Bitcoin's blockchain will forever remain a low-velocity network settlement network. It is was it was engineeringly designed to be.

lol this is blatantly false and you know it.

Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:
"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume."

Yes, Satoshi had forethought of the payment channels and other open networks I'm referring to. I'm sure he knew someone would come up with something like Lightning.