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

[knight22]

I'm pretty sure the market will come up with cheap specialised harware for running nodes simply because there is an incentive. There is a fairly large amount of poeple and companies that wants to run full nodes. Bitseed is just the fist iteration of these kind of devices.

[brg444]

 

 

 

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-two-guys-at-the-heart-of-bitcoins-crisis?utm_source=mbtwitter

[onemorexmr]

 

Come on now... if you really believe that might as well use Paypal..

So you'd be alright if Google, Microsoft, hell the NSA ran the few nodes behind the Bitcoin network?

ofc not. but as i said, they are not that expensive and many people like me will run one.
why do you think if a node cannot be run on a home pc then only google, ms and nsa can run one?

[sgbett]

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

I'm very tired of hearing "argument to authority" used as some reason why its OK to ignore the smartest person in the room.

The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you.

So yes anyone who doesn't have egomaniacal tendencies would not automatically dismiss Satoshi's opinion because it disagrees with their own.

Its a cheap trick, using it hurts your credibility. I went back and reread pages of discussion on cyphers thread the other day, because I wanted to re-evaluate my own views. I wanted to try and better understand some of the arguments against block size increases.

What i did find were some great posts by you about LN, Blockstream sidechains etc. prior to the block size debate. Very well argued, fact based, impersonal.

This is in stark contrast to the posts I have seen from you about the block size issue, which I think you have been much more 'emotional', personal attacks, outright rejection of dissenting ideas, less reasoned posts. I don't know if thats a conscious decision and I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way, its just what I have observed. I think having ICE as your 'team-mate' doesn't help as he sets a pretty bad example in this regard. The disdain you are showing for Gavin and Mike seems entirely disproportionate and based on your opinion of them rather than their actions. The XT fork is no more dangerous than any other core upgrade *unless* those that oppose core explicitly and deceitfully sabotage it. Yet you argue they are the bad guys.

You've repeatedly taken up opposition to those who would argue for a block size increase now, claiming its too soon, unneccessary. Arguing about bloat, dismissing any analysis with hypothetical 'centralisation' issues. At the same time have been vary careful to never say you aren't explicitly against a block size increase (a point which you repeatedly remind people of). The nearest thing I have seen to an actual opinion (as opposed to fairly indiscriminate opposition) is that you think 2MB would be ok.

You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something?

I can tell you from personal experience being wrong is just as important, if not more, than being right. Don't take this to mean I think you are wrong - I honestly don't know what is for the best, I just *think* that its a block size limit increase sooner rather than later. I think that actual block sizes should be decided by miners (either Peter R style through economic incentive, or even BIP100 style - though i think the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and in reality it will end up being a combination of both). I think the threat of bitcoin stalling because the network falls over is greater than the threat of centralisation because the blockchain is suddenly going to become bloated. I think those things - I accept others don't, but lets not pretend anyone actually knows for sure.

Maybe BIP100 is the answer, maybe it isn't. Be great to see some code (whilst respecting the fact that devs aren't obliged to produce any!) and then we shall see what we will.

Until there is a BIP100 based solution its still a binary choice between "no increase at all" (core) or BIP101 (XT). If they are the only options I'll take my chances with XT and the 2 developers who, whilst they may not be perfect, seem to be at least honest about what they are doing.

Sure they might prove me wrong, but thats for a another day. You make choices based on the information you have at the time. Then if you find out you are wrong you reevaluate and learn from your mistakes.

Hypothetical scenario: What happens as Jan Approaches and blocks are regularly full from natural traffic and theres no BIP100 on the horizon...? How long are people going to keep voting BIP100 whilst dealing with the problems of full blocks and transaction backlogs. Are miners prepared to risk failure of BTC, or will the capitulate and go BIP101 to ensure ongoing profitability can be maintained (these are business owners, there job is typically about reducing risk!). Will LN be ready? So many variables. To suggest "its all over" shows an astonishing lack of understanding for the fundamental nature of probabilistic outcomes! I can't even tell you with certainty what I'm having for dinner tomorrow.... how can you predict the emergent behaviour of hundreds 6 months out to a final outcome. Keep it real eh

[VeritasSapere]

Well said, I agree entirely with the points you make here. Except for one which is relating to how we should perceive the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto and therefore Bitcoin.

The argument for why we should stay true with Satoshis vision of bitcoin is not an "argument to authority". However to say that "The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you." is also not a good reason to follow "his" vision. I would argue instead that if we did sway to much from the original vision of Satoshi that this would to a certain extend break the social contract of Bitcoin and therefore part of the underlying value proposition. Furthermore since Satoshi did clearly think that we should have bigger blocks when they are needed, and our choice now is between Core and XT. I would argue that Bitcoin XT is more in line with the original vision of Satoshi, since not increasing the block size can be seen as breaking the social contract to a certain extend. Since it would change the underlying vision and promise of what Bitcoin should become. To leave the blocksize where it is now is therefore a radical change in another direction, and wanting to increase the blocksize can be considered the more conservative position. Even though it might not seem this way to many people.

This is because the status quo so to speak is opposed to the increase. This actually highlights part of the problem, to think that the status quo should in terms of development carry so much weight in terms of the importance of their opinions is to a certain extend in conflict with Bitcoins decentralized nature. There should not be a “official” client, there should be many competing clients, this is of political necessity, since as I have pointed out before such thinking leads to a centralization of power within the Core developer team. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335

[Liquid71]

Aaaaand how Core devs ignoring a large group of the market asking for scalability solution in a timely manner is not totalitarianism?

Blocks aren't full now, why do you need a TEMPORARY solution now when the problem doesn't yet exist? And larger block sizes aren't a sustainable long term scalability solution.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Aaaaand how Core devs ignoring a large group of the market asking for scalability solution in a timely manner is not totalitarianism?

Blocks aren't full now, why do you need a TEMPORARY solution now when the problem doesn't yet exist? And larger block sizes aren't a sustainable long term scalability solution.

So you are saying that reactionary solutions  are to be preferred over pro-active solutions?  Can you give me an example?

Larger blocks address near term limitations imposed solely by the arbitrary 1mb limit.  There are other scalability issues that bitcoin will face on its way to wider acceptance and use, but to be honest, we cant make plans for 5 billion users when we barely have 3 transaction per second right now. 

[marky89]

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

I'm very tired of hearing "argument to authority" used as some reason why its OK to ignore the smartest person in the room.

The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you.

So yes anyone who doesn't have egomaniacal tendencies would not automatically dismiss Satoshi's opinion because it disagrees with their own.

To me, Satoshi's thoughts on block size limit never seemed to imply that we should consider increasing capacity by 8000 times when we haven't even maxed out the original limit (unknowns be damned).

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

Let's keep block limit increases in line with realistic capacity needs, not some arbitrary application of Moore's Law.

[brg444]

The disdain you are showing for Gavin and Mike seems entirely disproportionate and based on your opinion of them rather than their actions. The XT fork is no more dangerous than any other core upgrade *unless* those that oppose core explicitly and deceitfully sabotage it. Yet you argue they are the bad guys.

If you can't see clearly through Gavin & Mike at this point then I really can't help you. Their actions are well documented and provide enough insight into their motives and intentions. The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one using populist tactics and propaganda. Yes, they are the bad guys.

You've repeatedly taken up opposition to those who would argue for a block size increase now, claiming its too soon, unneccessary. Arguing about bloat, dismissing any analysis with hypothetical 'centralisation' issues. At the same time have been vary careful to never say you aren't explicitly against a block size increase (a point which you repeatedly remind people of). The nearest thing I have seen to an actual opinion (as opposed to fairly indiscriminate opposition) is that you think 2MB would be ok.

You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something?

I fail to see what problem you have with my position. If you have went over my posts you surely have noticed I mainly entered the debate following the release of XT. If it isn't clear enough that is what I am opposing. That and the equivalent BIP101. Why? Because it is not a sensible proposition and has little legitimate technical backing to support it. If we are to increase the blocksize 800% I expect we should be provided considerable testings and carefully considered justifications. Gavin & Mike failed to provide that. Instead they have resorted to propaganda, fear mongering, false urgency & a battery of half-baked "models" and technology extrapolations. Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

These are the same guys who tried to push for 20MB based on the previously mentioned broken tests and seeing the clear opposition "compromised" into the 8MB limit because...it's a chinese lucky number!??!?

Some will argue any number is arbitrary. That isn't wrong but there are major differences and I believe Nick Szabo had quite some good reflections about this on Twitter yesterday:

If they are the only options I'll take my chances with XT and the 2 developers who, whilst they may not be perfect, seem to be at least honest about what they are doing.

I'm sorry to hear that. I have a lot of respect for you and equally enjoy reading your thoughts on here but it has become evidently clear by anyone with an hint of deduction that these two are up to no good.

[VeritasSapere]

The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one

Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

This is a political problem and not a technical one. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory. These are fundamental questions of who is in charge of Bitcoin, and how do we, and how should we reach consensus decisions. This question is as important as the block size debate itself, this question is more political in nature then it is technical, which is why I think we need to compromise some of our technical ideals in favor of political goals.

Since I have a backround in political philosophy. I have written more on this subject here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

I also thought that this video was very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

[brg444]

The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one

Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

This is a political problem and not a technical one. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory. These are fundamental questions of who is in charge of Bitcoin, and how do we, and how should we reach consensus decisions. This question is as important as the block size debate itself, this question is more political in nature then it is technical, which is why I think we need to compromise some of our technical ideals in favor of political goals.

Since I have a backround in political philosophy. I have written more on this subject here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

I also thought that this video was very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

I have read your word salad full of blatant lies and misconstruction of the events. I am not interested.

We don't need no reconsideration of Bitcoin governance. Bitcoin governs itself. The blocksize question is absolutely technical. XT has turned it into a governance coup on the premise of "decentralizing" development and "inclusion". That's not happening

[VeritasSapere]

The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one

Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

This is a political problem and not a technical one. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory. These are fundamental questions of who is in charge of Bitcoin, and how do we, and how should we reach consensus decisions. This question is as important as the block size debate itself, this question is more political in nature then it is technical, which is why I think we need to compromise some of our technical ideals in favor of political goals.

Since I have a backround in political philosophy. I have written more on this subject here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

I also thought that this video was very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

I have read your word salad full of blatant lies and misconstruction of the events. I am not interested.

We don't need no reconsideration of Bitcoin governance. Bitcoin governs itself. The blocksize question is absolutely technical. XT has turned it into a governance coup on the premise of "decentralizing" development and "inclusion". That's not happening

"We don't need no reconsideration of Bitcoin governance." Oke, so you think we should not consider the political aspects of what is happening here, because according to you this should be a purely technical debate.

"XT has turned it into a governance coup on the premise of "decentralizing"." development and "inclusion"." Then how come you are using terms like "governance coup"? Even though these are political concepts.

Can you see the contradiction in what you have said here?

Since if this was a coup we certainly should consider the political aspects of what is happening here, so that we can be better informed on what side we should be on. Because sometimes coupes or revolutions are necessary, and this should also certainly be true for Bitcoin, after all that is why this political mechanism already exists within the Bitcoin protocol itself. Since it is required in order for Bitcoin to remain truly free and decentralized.

[brg444]

"We don't need no reconsideration of Bitcoin governance." Oke, so you think we should not consider the political aspects of what is happening here, because according to you this should be a purely technical debate.

Yes, because hijacking the debates using politics is a poison for the mind and a terrible distraction from productive work. There is no issue with Bitcoin governance hence there should be no discussions or debate about it.

"XT has turned it into a governance coup on the premise of "decentralizing"." development and "inclusion"." Then how come you are using terms like "governance coup"? Even though these are political concepts.

  You seem very dense.. I'm using the terms because these XT clowns have opened the political pandora box like some idiots who don't know any better.

Since if this was a coup we certainly should consider the political aspects of what is happening here, so that we can be better informed on what side we should be on. Since sometimes coupes or revolutions are necessary, and this should also certainly be true for Bitcoin, after all that is why this political mechanism already exists within Bitcoin.

There is no contradiction. I am against making this a political debate but that doesn't mean I can't express my disappointment when ill-advised people turn this issue into one. Coups and revolution necessarily mean somehow is behind them, who are these people and why should we trust them? For someone who likes talking about politics so much it seems to me you are sorely lost as to how Bitcoin works in that sense.

[VeritasSapere]

"There is no issue with Bitcoin governance hence there should be no discussions or debate about it."

I'm using the terms because these XT clowns have opened the political pandora box like some idiots who don't know any better.[/b]

who are these people and why should we trust them? For someone who likes talking about politics so much it seems to me you are sorely lost as to how Bitcoin works in that sense.

If there is no discussion or debate about Bitcoin governance how would we even know if there was an issue with it in the first place? In political terms you have contradicted your self again.

I think that you are correct about opening the political pandoras box, however once the pandoras box has been opened it can never be closed again.

Bitcoin is a trust less protocol, one of the great innovations behind Bitcoin is that we can achieve trust without centralized authority. However when people start thinking in terms of who they should trust for the development of the Bitcoin protocol then we are already in trouble, since this comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin governance should work. Similarly to how a democracy functions within a nation state, it can be undermined if the majority of the population becomes apathetic and ignorant of these political realities.

[marky89]

Bitcoin is a trust less protocol, one of the great innovations behind Bitcoin is that we can achieve trust without centralized authority. However when people start thinking in terms of who they should trust for the development of the Bitcoin protocol then we are already in trouble, since this comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how Bitcoin governance should work.

This is only a problem if people grant affirmative trust. By default, we trust no one. Expressing distrust of Gavin and Hearn is not problematic at all. Hearn has a history of pushing proposals that are very antithetical to bitcoin, and that would put its fungibility (and therefore any value attributed to bitcoin) at great risk. Gavin's opinions show that he lacks the technical foresight to plan for all contingencies in scaling bitcoin's capacity by 8000x over 20 years, and his rhetoric around the XT project make it clear that he values his personal vision of a scaled consumer payment protocol far above consensus.

When it is clear that our ethics and beliefs (political or technical) are at odds, distrust has a fine connotation.

The problem I see is more so this-- People have largely been persuaded in favor of increasing the block size limit, but since XT/BIP 101 is the only implementation that can be hard forked at this time, people conflate their support of increasing block size with support of XT. In many cases, it's clear that this has resulted in blind trust of Gavin and Hearn, particularly exhibited when people defend centralizing / trust-adding features that are built into XT.

Here's a good post that spells out why the TOR IP list issue -- even though substantively not a problem yet -- is legitimately controversial. It is a centralized solution based on trust that is completely unnecessary. Yet it is clear as day from the rhetoric around here that XT supporters are justifying this as a non-issue -- no matter how antithetical it is to bitcoin -- because they are so loyal to XT.

@VirosaGITS

LOL
You can even add all the possible IPs to the list, then they will have all the same priority, and just during a DoS attack  

Do you know that will happen when a dev will add other IP to this list? Someone will see it because ... it's an open source project!

Do you check every day what devs add to the Bitcoin Core?

Again, it isn't a black list, it is a "low priority list", that enable it self only IF there is a DoS attack.

Actually, it fits the definition of a blacklist quite well, particularly if you consider why the list was compiled in the first place:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=definition+blacklist

But this is just a silly semantic issue.

The larger issue is this: Why do people keep rationalizing a centralized solution to DDOS attacks? Compiling a centralized list introduces trust into an otherwise trustless system. That's downright foolish.

There is nothing wrong with deprioritizing IP addresses that are maliciously attacking you. Why don't we stick with that? Why can't a node determine when an IP address is spamming it, and deprioritize its access on that basis? Perhaps we can make it even easier for nodes to do that. What possible reason is there to justify using a [trusted] third party to compile a list of suspicious IP addresses that nodes will trust simply by virtue of running a node?

If there is a problem, use a decentralized solution. Nodes should be capable of identifying IP addresses that are attacking them without introducing third party trust.

Currently Tor exits are labelled as being lower priority than regular IP addresses, as jamming attacks via Tor have been observed

Perhaps if attacks are predominantly coming from Malaysia, we should begin deprioritizing Malaysian IP ranges. There are geo-IP services that we can trust as a third party to compile lists of such suspicious IP ranges, too.

All that some of us ask is that people stop supporting unnecessary centralized solutions. Just admit that there are better ways to approach DDOS attacks, so we can oppose this aspect of the XT implementation hand in hand and move onto the next issue of contention......

[VeritasSapere]

First of all I never said that you should not distrust anyone. I said that you should never have to trust a developer of a Bitcoin client that is open source. I think that the DDOS protection feature within XT is innocent, however I do not even need to argue that point, because it does not matter what we think about it in terms of consensus. Since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork, It makes the other changes within XT optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way they would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. You can turn off, any of the extra patches contained within Bitcoin XT inside of the client itself. There is even an alternative version of XT that does not include any of these other changes and only increases the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101, which would then be compatible with XT after the fork if the miners reach consensus.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

[marky89]

First of all I never said that you should not distrust anyone. I said that you should never have to trust a developer of a Bitcoin client that is open source. I think that the DDOS protection feature within XT is innocent, however I do not even need to argue that point, because it does not matter what we think about it in terms of consensus. Since only the block size increase is fundamental to the protocol in terms of it causing a hard fork, It makes the other changes within XT optional. Since anyone can create their own client and make it behave in any way they would want as long as it is consistent with the fundamental rules of the protocol, the only fundamental rule that is changed within XT is the increase of the block size. You can turn off, any of the extra patches contained within Bitcoin XT inside of the client itself. There is even an alternative version of XT that does not include any of these other changes and only increases the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101, which would then be compatible with XT after the fork if the miners reach consensus.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

Yeah, that's the standard answer. Assuming bitcoin is forked to BIP 101 and XT becomes mainstream -- unlikely, I know -- what percentage of people do you think will use the standard XT client with standard settings? You, I and everyone reading this knows that the vast majority of users will not be compiling their own code. It's up to the community to make people aware of such controversial patches to prevent XT from becoming the norm in the first place (as unlikely as that is).

To be clear, you don't actually deny that a third party uploading a list of deprioritized IP addresses is a centralized, trust-adding feature, do you? But I assume it's okay, because the apocalypse will happen if BIP 101 isn't implemented yesterday....right?

[iCEBREAKER]

Organ of Corti demonstrates XT as written will inevitably fall into NotXT's trap:

http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

#R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

Mike Heam on the defensive:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0

Deep in denial:

Some say that if XT had less stuff in it, that’d make it easier to increase the block size. I don’t think it’d make any difference

LOL REKT

[Zarathustra]

Mike Heam on the defensive:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0

Deep in denial:

Some say that if XT had less stuff in it, that’d make it easier to increase the block size. I don’t think it’d make any difference

LOL REKT

No chance for the 1MB-Blockians/Blockers. They'll be forked out of the game before the halving event in July 16.

Quote of the week:

'I don't know why he's invoking "blockstream" there'

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164429.msg12269236#msg12269236