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

[marcus_of_augustus]

... so this is where the cool kidz are hanging these days? 

[1714232144]

1714232144

[1714232144]

1714232144

[Soros Shorts]

To be fair, PR's expertise is in deterministic (ie exceedingly predictable), fine-grained in vitro analysis of ~trivially computable, small state-space macroscopic physical interactions.

Can somebody point me to his better non-Bitcoin publications? I found some old papers on robotics and neurosurgery but they were pretty lightweight and he was only a co-author.

[muyuu]

Peter R. Rizun "Peter_tRoll" is a charlatan of the highest degree. I don't remember who first called him that but it's extremely accurate. Charlatan.

I'm gonna go ahead and claim this one 

To be fair, PR's expertise is in deterministic (ie exceedingly predictable), fine-grained in vitro analysis of ~trivially computable, small state-space macroscopic physical interactions.

When confronted with a chaotic dynamical system such as Bitcoin (with its socioeconomic and meta overlays), his customary Bat-belt of cognitive tools utterly fails.

Radical things like meta-system transitions are far removed from his Poindexter purview.  That's why he can't see the non-linear herd for the spherical cows.

As a Ledger editor, it's useful to have his input because it's a fair representation of Bitcoin's 'disloyal opposition.'

If his trolling non-traditional POV disrupts Team Core groupthink (rather than consolidate anti-XT camaraderie) he'll help keep us on our best game.

And while we're at it, let's invite Trolfi too!   

Man you are coming across as moderate... or is it me that I've got carried away??

Anyway, this man is hard for me to take seriously:



And there I was thinking the objective is actual scalability and not having the block being bigger for their own sake?!

How much more does this man need to prove that he actually doesn't intend to debate anything, but just bombard us with sophomoric propaganda and sensational pictures? I don't even...

[muyuu]

More laughing material:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3p1dy5/sinking_deeper_into_the_red_zone_historical_chart/

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/visual-arguments-on-the-blocksize-cap-dev-decentralization-etc.122/

Thank you for shedding light.  You are the anti-censor.

You're welcome. Surely knowing the existence of these threads won't hurt anyone (much).

[iCEBREAKER]

To be fair, PR's expertise is in deterministic (ie exceedingly predictable), fine-grained in vitro analysis of ~trivially computable, small state-space macroscopic physical interactions.

Can somebody point me to his better non-Bitcoin publications? I found some old papers on robotics and neurosurgery but they were pretty lightweight and he was only a co-author.

I'm now sure how to connect "lightweight" with "robotics and neurosurgery."

But that just makes his Dunning-Kruger all the more insufferable.   

[tvbcof]

... so this is where the cool kidz are hanging these days? 

Seems that way.  I feel more at ease and comfortable when I can see my enemy.  I see a few of the clueless and probably unconnected dead-enders left, but the core kill-by-bloat folks have gone mighty quit.  I think it highly probable that they have formulated or are working on a new strategy.

[Zarathustra]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. If you scroll back a few pages you will see that actual arguments have been made. Read them and decide for your self what you believe, do not be fooled by ad hominen and sophistry.

A bunch of ad hominem pseudo bitcoiners whining about the posts of Peter_R the whole day and night. Unbelievable.

[muyuu]

This is how desperation and butthurt look like as of today.

[Zarathustra]

The adoption of big block implementations comes as soon as the stream of transactions is blocked. Which implementations will be ready and which not is not important.

[AceSevenFive]

Personally I believe that increasing block size should happen eventually, but only when the network can reach consensus. Perhaps when Bitcoin grows to VISA-size, then we can revisit this issue.

[Lauda]

Personally I believe that increasing block size should happen eventually, but only when the network can reach consensus. Perhaps when Bitcoin grows to VISA-size, then we can revisit this issue.

Bitcoin can not even get anywhere near Visa at the current state that it is in. At least you aren't trying to flame others in this forsaken thread. Basically Bitcoin has maximum of 7 tps (transactions per second) at the moment. In real world performance, it is more around 3 tps. In comparison Visa handles around 3000 tps, with a peak capacity of around 56 000 tps. It is pretty obvious that Bitcoin does not even come close.
This is why this "issue" is being discussed right now. There are different proposals out there and if you're interested you should look into them.

[muyuu]

Personally I believe that increasing block size should happen eventually, but only when the network can reach consensus. Perhaps when Bitcoin grows to VISA-size, then we can revisit this issue.

Bitcoin can not even get anywhere near Visa at the current state that it is in. At least you aren't trying to flame others in this forsaken thread. Basically Bitcoin has maximum of 7 tps (transactions per second) at the moment. In real world performance, it is more around 3 tps. In comparison Visa handles around 3000 tps, with a peak capacity of around 56 000 tps. It is pretty obvious that Bitcoin does not even come close.
This is why this "issue" is being discussed right now. There are different proposals out there and if you're interested you should look into them.

For me the VISA argument is already a counter-troll to the doritos in the chain or coffees in the chain argument.

Nobody same would set that target "or bust", because short term that means "bust". Currently there is no way in hell we can achieve that in raw transactions, and trying to will destroy the network as a decentralised entity with complete certainty.

[iCEBREAKER]

Be Ready at Any Hour
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
Matthew 24:36

You are such an easily mislead person.

Your Second Coming of XT Soon^® belief system is laughable.

Bitcoin has been near capacity for years.  Marginal cases unable to pay competitive tx fees are simply shunted off-chain, or to alt chains.  That's how it's supposed to work, using fee markets to determine optimal allocation of scarce resources.

The attempt to sell XT destroy decentralization using fear of "capacity cliffs" and "hard landings" and "ZOMG Fidelity" has utterly failed.

But please, keep living in your fantasy world where there is >zero propensity for successful defection from Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.

It's great for a laugh!   

[Lauda]

For me the VISA argument is already a counter-troll to the doritos in the chain or coffees in the chain argument.

Nobody same would set that target "or bust", because short term that means "bust". Currently there is no way in hell we can achieve that in raw transactions, and trying to will destroy the network as a decentralised entity with complete certainty.

I do agree with you to a certain degree. Honestly, people need to stop expecting to pay for everything using Bitcoin (e.g. small stuff like coffee). Does anyone buy coffee with a CC? I doubt it. It's usually bought with cash and I don't mind it staying that way.
I do want Bitcoin to be able to handle more transactions when necessary. However, we also need to consider what kind of transactions. If we let spam through, then anything under a infinite TPS will never be enough. I do like the idea of dynamic block size (with the right rules) as well. However, any predetermined growth pattern is pointless and probably will end up being harmful (what Gavin proposed).

[hdbuck]

For me the VISA argument is already a counter-troll to the doritos in the chain or coffees in the chain argument.

Nobody same would set that target "or bust", because short term that means "bust". Currently there is no way in hell we can achieve that in raw transactions, and trying to will destroy the network as a decentralised entity with complete certainty.

I do agree with you to a certain degree. Honestly, people need to stop expecting to pay for everything using Bitcoin (e.g. small stuff like coffee). Does anyone buy coffee with a CC? I doubt it. It's usually bought with cash and I don't mind it staying that way.
I do want Bitcoin to be able to handle more transactions when necessary. However, we also need to consider what kind of transactions. If we let spam through, then anything under a infinite TPS will never be enough. I do like the idea of dynamic block size (with the right rules) as well. However, any predetermined growth pattern is pointless and probably will end up being harmful (what Gavin proposed).

Well, alas everybody here agrees somehow.

It is Hearndresen's childish noobish proposals that are mocked, whilst social bloaters like peter r's mask is coming off as highlighted in the latest caption of his post urging big blocks just for big blocks and despite all the technical and socioeconomic impact such thing would have upon Bitcoin's network and sustainability.

These people are dangerous psycopaths, egomaniac sophists taht either doesn't have a clue about what they are talking about or puposedly mislead people to favor a not so covered agenda of destabilizing bitcoin.

I personally would opt for the latter, since sane people would not spend as much time and effort to continuously vomit their nonsense and calls for censorship.

But then again, they lost their XTurd war and their future highjacking attempts won't succeed as well.

Power to Bitcoin!

[muyuu]

For me the VISA argument is already a counter-troll to the doritos in the chain or coffees in the chain argument.

Nobody same would set that target "or bust", because short term that means "bust". Currently there is no way in hell we can achieve that in raw transactions, and trying to will destroy the network as a decentralised entity with complete certainty.

I do agree with you to a certain degree. Honestly, people need to stop expecting to pay for everything using Bitcoin (e.g. small stuff like coffee). Does anyone buy coffee with a CC? I doubt it. It's usually bought with cash and I don't mind it staying that way.
I do want Bitcoin to be able to handle more transactions when necessary. However, we also need to consider what kind of transactions. If we let spam through, then anything under a infinite TPS will never be enough. I do like the idea of dynamic block size (with the right rules) as well. However, any predetermined growth pattern is pointless and probably will end up being harmful (what Gavin proposed).

(Above I mean't "nobody sane" - typo).

In Europe it's common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. Most coffees are paid for with CC, for sure, in at least UK, Denmark, Netherlands or Sweden.

I can see that in the US, CC companies fleece users so badly, that avoiding these fees can be seen like the killer application of Bitcoin. But let's take a step back and look at what is the truly revolutionary idea of Bitcoin. It's not saving a few pennies.

As Paul said in the conference: to have a debate first we need to have a target function, otherwise this is just a helpless yelling at each other.

[Lauda]

In Europe it's common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. Most coffees are paid for with CC, for sure, in at least UK, Denmark, Netherlands or Sweden.

I can see that in the US, CC companies fleece users so badly, that avoiding these fees can be seen like the killer application of Bitcoin. But let's take a step back and look at what is the truly revolutionary idea of Bitcoin. It's not saving a few pennies.

Are you sure? I'm in Europe and I have never witnessed this. For example students usually buy coffee from those vending machines which only accept cash (obviously). I do agree that it is common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. I have one as well that is NFC enabled, and I can usually pay with a 2-3 second touch (pretty good).

Well, alas everybody here agrees somehow.

Not everyone, but most of us do.

I personally would opt for the latter, since sane people would not spend as much time and effort to continuously vomit their nonsense and calls for censorship.

As for the censorship:

[muyuu]

Are you sure? I'm in Europe and I have never witnessed this. For example students usually buy coffee from those vending machines which only accept cash (obviously). I do agree that it is common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. I have one as well that is NFC enabled, and I can usually pay with a 2-3 second touch (pretty good).

From vending machines maybe... but man that is absolute rubbish.

Go to any coffee shops for instance in the countries I mentioned, and count how many people pay with cash. I did the experiment right now (I'm in one) since last post and from 15 customers or so, I was the only one to pay cash. I'd say it was a bit of a coincidence, but generally there's at least 75% customers paying with credit or debit cards.

Some people who have gone full Bitcoin for whatever reason might be worried about being charged fees. In day to day small transactions, cash is fine (for now).

[hdbuck]

Are you sure? I'm in Europe and I have never witnessed this. For example students usually buy coffee from those vending machines which only accept cash (obviously). I do agree that it is common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. I have one as well that is NFC enabled, and I can usually pay with a 2-3 second touch (pretty good).

From vending machines maybe... but man that is absolute rubbish.

Go to any coffee shops for instance in the countries I mentioned, and count how many people pay with cash. I did the experiment right now (I'm in one) since last post and from 15 customers or so, I was the only one to pay cash. I'd say it was a bit of a coincidence, but generally there's at least 75% customers paying with credit or debit cards.

Some people who have gone full Bitcoin for whatever reason might be worried about being charged fees. In day to day small transactions, cash is fine (for now).

where i live, you cant even always pay with CC as merchants have a minimum amount required (around 15€).


ps: lmao for the censorship comic.

[muyuu]

Are you sure? I'm in Europe and I have never witnessed this. For example students usually buy coffee from those vending machines which only accept cash (obviously). I do agree that it is common to pay for tiny stuff with CC. I have one as well that is NFC enabled, and I can usually pay with a 2-3 second touch (pretty good).

From vending machines maybe... but man that is absolute rubbish.

Go to any coffee shops for instance in the countries I mentioned, and count how many people pay with cash. I did the experiment right now (I'm in one) since last post and from 15 customers or so, I was the only one to pay cash. I'd say it was a bit of a coincidence, but generally there's at least 75% customers paying with credit or debit cards.

Some people who have gone full Bitcoin for whatever reason might be worried about being charged fees. In day to day small transactions, cash is fine (for now).

where i live, you cant even always pay with CC as merchants have a minimum amount required (around 15€).


ps: lmao for the censorship comic.

Yes, in several countries in the continent it's like that. Many small shops in Italy, France or Spain won't take CC under 10 or 15 euro.

It seems like in other northerly countries were the family business is basically dead (they belong to franchises or chains, even the most homely looking) there are deals with the main banking networks so that they keep most of the transactions within their system. It's an interesting phenomenon, but here certainly you won't undercut them, and that incentive completely goes away for better or worse. Maybe for the better since you would never be able to compete on raw throughput, you want the user to be aware that his privacy is lost completely instead and that is the price he or she is paying.

Thanks to cash it's not the most critical thing.