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

[hdbuck]

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...

So far, an extensive list of Bitcoin companies, individuals and institutions have joined the Blockchain Alliance. Apart from the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center, this includes Bitcoin XT and former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen; Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik; MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative head Brian Forde; bitcoin exchanges BitFinex, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken and CoinX; payment processors BitPay and Bitnet; wallet services Blockchain(.info), Circle and Xapo; API-provider BitGo; mining specialist BitFury and liquidity provider Noble Markets.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

[brg444]

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...

So far, an extensive list of Bitcoin companies, individuals and institutions have joined the Blockchain Alliance. Apart from the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center, this includes Bitcoin XT and former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen; Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik; MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative head Brian Forde; bitcoin exchanges BitFinex, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken and CoinX; payment processors BitPay and Bitnet; wallet services Blockchain(.info), Circle and Xapo; API-provider BitGo; mining specialist BitFury and liquidity provider Noble Markets.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

"Bitcoin needs us!"

 

[VeritasSapere]

Absolutely everything is off up there, I'm not going to even bother. You are seriously measuring the downloading of 1 block to do your calculations, which says it all.

Mathematics is not my specialty, so please correct this calculation if you think you can do it better. Like I said before I have a background in political philosophy not mathematics and computer networking. It would be valuable for all of us here to have a better understanding of the actual situation based on empirical evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38fym5/20mb_block_sizes_requires_at_most_26_mbps/

I based my calculation on the discussion on this thread. As you can see my calculation was much more conservative then the OP. If anyone could show how to best calculate what the actual numbers are in regards to blocksize and bandwith I would love to see those numbers, a link or explanation would be great.

Because of protocol overhead, there will be additional data transmitted and received beyond the block contents.  There will also be multiple copies of some data transmitted because of multiple connections to/from the node.  There will also be dead time in which the bandwidth can not be used because a computer is "computing" and the link is idle.  The simple calculations place a lower bound on the bandwidth needed to receive blocks, which is the minimum needed to run a verifying node.  If the node is to contribute to the network then it will need additional bandwidth, e.g. to upload data.  (If there isn't sufficient upload bandwidth to support the block size, then the node will necessarily be leaching.)

For 10 months I ran a full node off a residential DSL service, including through the spam/loadtests. My DSLservice had approximately 15 Mbps download capability and 1 Mbps upload capability.  I limited the number of connections to 30, which seemed to allow slightly more upload bandwidth consumed in a month vs. download bandwidth, i.e. the node was not leeching. So that my other uses of my DSL service didn't choke, I enabled QoS on my router to limit  upload bandwidth from the node to 500kbps when there was conflict with other upstream traffic. Based on what I saw, it looks like this node had sufficient network bandwidth to have been able to keep up with 20 MB blocks, at least on average, but it would be close, depending on overhead factors. I would have continued to run this full node to support the network, but after upgrading to bitcoinXT in August the node was DDoSed.  I decided to no longer run a full node because of this experience.  I did not want to risk the possibility that my ISP would be taken  down again by criminals.

In my opinion the only way to settle the question of how much bandwidth is required will be to conduct actual experiments.  This will probably show up bottlenecks that simplistic calculations tend to ignore.  In addition, it will be necessary to decide what the purpose of the node is, because this will affect the load on the node and the impact of any queuing delays.  Mining on my node would be a poor idea even with 1 MB blocks due to a high orphan rate.  It would be, and was, more productive to mine with a solo mining pool.)  The proper way to do these experiments is to construct a test network of dedicated nodes, DSL simulators, etc... and come up with test workloads, measurement tools, etc...  This is a big task, not suitable for hobbyists.  With all the VC money out there, however, this is certainly something that could be done.

I do realize that my calculation was overly simplistic, which is in part why I was so conservative. I just think it would be useful to know what these numbers are, even if it is just a rough estimate. Since then we can say with more certainty that X percentage of people will be able to run full nodes even with an increase, which would hopefully dispel some of the irrational fear that no domestic full nodes will be able to operate at eight megabytes for example, which obviously is not true. In regards to this calculation it should indeed be for a "verifying node" so to speak.

I was thinking of starting a new thread that could attempt to answer this question, or at the very least construct the best rough estimate that we can. Hopefully some people that know much more then I do about mathematics and computer networking will be able help us to get a better grasp of these numbers. Unless such a thread already exists?

I would absolutely support such extensive testing, hopefully these tests will be performed before we need to increase the blocksize in order to avoid transactions becoming unreliable and prohibitively expensive.

[muyuu]

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...

So far, an extensive list of Bitcoin companies, individuals and institutions have joined the Blockchain Alliance. Apart from the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center, this includes Bitcoin XT and former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen; Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik; MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative head Brian Forde; bitcoin exchanges BitFinex, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken and CoinX; payment processors BitPay and Bitnet; wallet services Blockchain(.info), Circle and Xapo; API-provider BitGo; mining specialist BitFury and liquidity provider Noble Markets.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

The problem is that these people are small men who won't dare do what they said they would: fork forcibly in mining minority if necessary, with checkpoints. So we have to endure them still.

Big blocks, small men.

[hdbuck]

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...

So far, an extensive list of Bitcoin companies, individuals and institutions have joined the Blockchain Alliance. Apart from the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center, this includes Bitcoin XT and former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen; Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik; MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative head Brian Forde; bitcoin exchanges BitFinex, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken and CoinX; payment processors BitPay and Bitnet; wallet services Blockchain(.info), Circle and Xapo; API-provider BitGo; mining specialist BitFury and liquidity provider Noble Markets.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

The problem is that these people are small men who won't dare do what they said they would: fork forcibly in mining minority if necessary, with checkpoints. So we have to endure them still.

Big blocks, small men.

its like we're stuck in this corporatist paradigm:

"Bitcoin needs us!"

friggin matrix, if you ask me.

[brg444]

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...

So far, an extensive list of Bitcoin companies, individuals and institutions have joined the Blockchain Alliance. Apart from the Chamber of Digital Commerce and Coin Center, this includes Bitcoin XT and former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen; Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik; MIT Media Lab’s Digital Currency Initiative head Brian Forde; bitcoin exchanges BitFinex, Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken and CoinX; payment processors BitPay and Bitnet; wallet services Blockchain(.info), Circle and Xapo; API-provider BitGo; mining specialist BitFury and liquidity provider Noble Markets.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

The problem is that these people are small men who won't dare do what they said they would: fork forcibly in mining minority if necessary, with checkpoints. So we have to endure them still.

Big blocks, small men.

its like we're stuck in this corporatist paradigm:

"Bitcoin needs us!"

friggin matrix, if you ask me.

I was pretty late to the party (late 2013) but it seems to me back then the "community" was not so bent on sucking up to corporations and bankers. Fast forward to nearly two years and millions of dollars of VC money later the redditards seemingly can't imagine a world without these parasites, their exchanges, their payment processors and web wallets.

Quite disturbing.

[VeritasSapere]

We do not need to be overly concerned about corporations and banks getting involved. They will still have to play according to the same rules of the Bitcoin protocol, if anything we should be happy that they are getting more involved since that might make these banks and corporations more transparent and responsible, while also strengthening the network. As long as the fundamental rules are not changed then we have nothing to fear from such institutions. I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold. It would be more useful discussing the pros and cons of such a change in the light of the principles of decentralization and financial freedom as opposed to creating such an overly simplistic and false narrative. After all not everything Goldman Sachs does is wrong, it is flawed to say that something is wrong just because they support it, this overly simplistic and flawed logic. In same sense for example you could say that the Nazis supported and liked sandwiches, which does not then mean that supporting and liking sandwiches is wrong.

[hdbuck]

^

join the Blockchain Alliance !


(and fork the sh@t out of it)

[brg444]

We do not need to be overly concerned about corporations and banks getting involved. They will still have to play according to the same rules of the Bitcoin protocol, if anything we should be happy that they are getting more involved since that might make these banks and corporations more transparent and responsible, while also strengthening the network. As long as the fundamental rules are not changed then we have nothing to fear from such institutions. I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold. It would be more useful discussing the pros and cons of such a change in the light of the principles of decentralization and financial freedom as opposed to creating such an overly simplistic and false narrative. After all not everything Goldman Sachs does is wrong, it is flawed to say that something is wrong just because they support it, this overly simplistic and flawed logic. In same sense for example you could say that the Nazis supported and liked sandwiches, which does not then mean that supporting and liking sandwiches is wrong.

 

Good one.

[hdbuck]

We do not need to be overly concerned about corporations and banks getting involved. They will still have to play according to the same rules of the Bitcoin protocol, if anything we should be happy that they are getting more involved since that might make these banks and corporations more transparent and responsible, while also strengthening the network. As long as the fundamental rules are not changed then we have nothing to fear from such institutions. I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold. It would be more useful discussing the pros and cons of such a change in the light of the principles of decentralization and financial freedom as opposed to creating such an overly simplistic and false narrative. After all not everything Goldman Sachs does is wrong, it is flawed to say that something is wrong just because they support it, this overly simplistic and flawed logic. In same sense for example you could say that the Nazis supported and liked sandwiches, which does not then mean that supporting and liking sandwiches is wrong.

 

Good one.

[Carlton Banks]

I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold.

False? False how? False in the way that Goldman Sachs etc are heavily invested in the Bitcoin companies that promote growth schedules that would turn Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0?

How can you make such a statement when you know the financial fat cats that Bitcoin is designed to escape from are backing that very same position?

[Meuh6879]

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

it has survived to altcoin.
industry circle is like rain ... it don't stay.

[VeritasSapere]

I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold.

False? False how? False in the way that Goldman Sachs etc are heavily invested in the Bitcoin companies that promote growth schedules that would turn Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0?

How can you make such a statement when you know the financial fat cats that Bitcoin is designed to escape from are backing that very same position?

Increasing the blocksize is not the equivalent of turning Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0. This is exactly what I mean with false narratives.

You have also completely missed my point, just because these companies support these specific proposals it does not follow that these proposals therefore lack merit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

[brg444]

I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold.

False? False how? False in the way that Goldman Sachs etc are heavily invested in the Bitcoin companies that promote growth schedules that would turn Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0?

How can you make such a statement when you know the financial fat cats that Bitcoin is designed to escape from are backing that very same position?

Increasing the blocksize is not the equivalent of turning Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0. This is exactly what I mean with false narratives.

You have also completely missed my point, just because these companies support these specific proposals it does not follow that these proposals therefore lack merit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

False? False how? False in the way that Goldman Sachs etc are heavily invested in the Bitcoin companies that promote growth schedules that would turn Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0?

Increasing the blocksize is not the equivalent of turning Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0. This is exactly what I mean with false narratives.

[Carlton Banks]

I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold.

False? False how? False in the way that Goldman Sachs etc are heavily invested in the Bitcoin companies that promote growth schedules that would turn Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0?

How can you make such a statement when you know the financial fat cats that Bitcoin is designed to escape from are backing that very same position?

Increasing the blocksize is not the equivalent of turning Bitcoin into Fiat 2.0. This is exactly what I mean with false narratives.

You have also completely missed my point, just because these companies support these specific proposals it does not follow that these proposals therefore lack merit.

Really? Bitcoin is set to usurp one of the oldest, most entrenched, most conservative and easily the most profitable businesses of all time, and you trust the proposals of those who have everything to lose? A man with self-admitted lack of talent/imagination with mathematics? Aren't you kind of depending on either Blockstream or Goldman Sachs being honest with you about their technical analysis when your math is poor?

I'm sensing I know which is true and which is the falsehood here.

[Zarathustra]

My original thread ended up moderated into the Altcoins sub, but I'm taking the content to the main forum anyway....

"Libertarian" bitcoiners are beginning to out themselves as XT/101 shills:

Because Libertarians and anarchists would never support a ridiculous, corporatist 1MBcap fee subsidy.
That's something for subsidiots.

[muyuu]

As the "official wiki" says, it's technically an altcoin.  

https://archive.is/rjhmO

Since it is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol, it is technically an altcoin, but due to an unusually large economic acceptance it may potentially become a "new Bitcoin" some day.

If insufficient mining hash power runs XT to reach supermajority then nothing will happen. If enough does, XT users will follow a new blockchain and cease to be using and trading bitcoins.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_XT

Warning: you will be banned if you try to vandalise the wiki.

[MbccompanyX]

As the "official wiki" says, it's technically an altcoin.  

https://archive.is/rjhmO

Since it is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol, it is technically an altcoin, but due to an unusually large economic acceptance it may potentially become a "new Bitcoin" some day.

If insufficient mining hash power runs XT to reach supermajority then nothing will happen. If enough does, XT users will follow a new blockchain and cease to be using and trading bitcoins.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_XT

Warning: you will be banned if you try to vandalise the wiki.

Only stupid people would vandalise a wiki, anyway the fact that Bitcoin XT is considered an altcoin instead of a protocol of bitcoin makes a huge difference and i suppose XT supporters doesn't accept that difference

[VeritasSapere]

Saying that XT is an altcoin is factually incorrect, this is also a false narrative. Bitcoin XT is compatible with the Bitcoin blockchain. The fork will only be triggered once a majority of mining power supports it, which means that post fork Bitcoin XT will still be compatible with the largest surviving Bitcoin blockchain. There is a fundamental difference between a blockchain fork and an altcoin. It is wrong to equate these two separate phenomena.

[muyuu]

Saying that XT is an altcoin is factually incorrect, this is also a false narrative. Bitcoin XT is compatible with the Bitcoin blockchain. The fork will only be triggered once a majority of mining power supports it, which means that post fork Bitcoin XT will also be compatible with the largest surviving Bitcoin blockchain. There is a fundamental difference between a blockchain fork and an altcoin. It would be wrong to equate these two separate phenomena.

That entirely depends on what the actual definition of altcoin is, this is an evolving space and definitions are being settled.

If Feathercoin is an altcoin then so would be XT.