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

[iCEBREAKER]

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV.  The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream. Who cares if they use laptops or big servers?

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution. That no one can't really use anyway because it is either A. Too costly or B. Transactions get never confirmed.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger." Irrelevant to the question.

Competitive fees have never failed to get their transactions confirmed.  If they did fail, then Bitcoin isn't working the way it's supposed to.  But that's never happened.

Servers cost more than laptops.  Requiring an expensive server/pipe to operate a full contributing node would violate Bitcoin's core principle of giving ~everyone the option to act as their own financial institution, and damage the network's diversity/diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency.

BTC fees are still orders of magnitude lower than trivial, especially given the exceedingly valuable magical/revolutionary technology those sub-trivial fees grant access to.  As fees rise, they simply exclude marginal cases like gambling/spam/tips/coffee/paywalls.

That's a good thing.  And there's plenty of room for them off-chain or on alt/side chains.

Bitcon's survivability is never "irrelevant to the question."  Bitcon's survivability is central to the answer of every question.

That you feel survivability is "irrelevant" demonstrates you simply don't understand Bitcoin, and would perhaps be happier with an Android app for Paypal, Visa, or Square.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  -David Chaum 1996

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

The raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015

[Carlton Banks]

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV.  The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream.

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger."

A good example of where the anti-Blockstream people have a point IMO.

How will Lightning make money, and for who? How will that be structured? Will settling all Lightning channels on the blockchain provide enough revenue to keep miners incentivised?

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

[turvarya]

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.

Indeed, like simply having nodes deprioritize IPs that are actively attacking them. This is a simple, decentralized solution that requires no third party trust. Why aren't XT supporters at least lobbying Gavin Anderson and Mike Hearn to change this? Rather than arguing that it's "innocent?"

because that is what Hearn wanted to do all along and because it is not simple:

Please read the roadmap at the top. The next step is to handle multiple connections from single IPs better, and to allow user-configurable priority lists. Then a quick fix would be to drop your little botnet IPs into a file and give it lower priority than Tor. After that, Tor connections would evict the botnet.

Then after that, there needs to be ways for a node to figure out priorities automatically, for instance by defining a utility function that doesn't rate all mobile connections as low utility. This is very hard, especially as the code would be open source, but is obviously the gold standard to aim for.

This is all a lot of work. Contributions of some additional logic to get us further along the path would be appreciated.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6364

[LiteCoinGuy]

more than 14% of all nodes isnt a failure isnt it? they also push the development and force the devs to make a decision that we need.

good work gavin and mike!

[chek2fire]

the nodes of bitcoinXT thre days now has decline. Now is to 12% and i can see them lower in the next days when the free trials of vps will end.
 

[alani123]

more than 14% of all nodes isnt a failure isnt it? they also push the development and force the devs to make a decision that we need.

good work gavin and mike!

The node number isn't an indicator of how successful XT is given that it can be faked so easily (from both sides).

[tl121]

the nodes of bitcoinXT thre days now has decline. Now is to 12% and i can see them lower in the next days when the free trials of vps will end.
 

There has been a DDOS attack on XT nodes.  In addition, there may be nodes connecting to XT nodes to exhaust their connection capability so that they won't get counted.

[brg444]

Nick has been on a roll lately 

[Westin Landon Cox]

Nick has been on a roll lately 

That is brilliant.

[brg444]

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV.  The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream.

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger."

A good example of where the anti-Blockstream people have a point IMO.

How will Lightning make money, and for who? How will that be structured? Will settling all Lightning channels on the blockchain provide enough revenue to keep miners incentivised?

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

Lightning will make money for anyone running a hub. Anyone can run a hub. In a certain way hub can tend toward centralization since they benefit from liquidity but there are technological solutions to this problem.

The second part of your comment starts with the premise that we are urgently in need of a scaling solution that should be implement RIGHT NOW so any solution is good enough and we can't possibly wait 3-4 more months to decide on more alternatives. I find myself disagreeing with this urgency.

[Carlton Banks]

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

Lightning will make money for anyone running a hub. Anyone can run a hub. In a certain way hub can tend toward centralization since they benefit from liquidity but there are technological solutions to this problem.

That sounds like an acceptable structure; open access as with mining, only barrier to entry is the infrastructure and distinguishing yourself from the competitors (could Greg Maxwell's Confidential Transactions concept be implemented as instances of Lightning hubs, for instance?).

I guess the real question is: how much control over the tied up funds can the Lightning hubs exert? From the explanations I've looked at, participants can renege at any time they choose, but I can't help thinking there has to be some way to reprimand abusers of that mechanism, so indirect control could be exercised by the hub operator that way.

Lightning really needs a whole thread (or more) to itself, there's alot to consider. I am undecided as of yet, but it promises alot.

The second part of your comment starts with the premise that we are urgently in need of a scaling solution that should be implement RIGHT NOW so any solution is good enough and we can't possibly wait 3-4 more months to decide on more alternatives.

No it doesn't.

I find myself disagreeing with this urgency.

You're in good company, because that's what I think too.

[BayAreaCoins]

<snip>

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

You must not deal or look at altcoins much eh?

[brg444]

<snip>

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

You must not deal or look at altcoins much eh?

Do you know of any other altcoin which has not succeeded in mining any block, has exactly 0 transactions on its network and not 1 active user?

[VeritasSapere]

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV.  The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream. Who cares if they use laptops or big servers?

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution. That no one can't really use anyway because it is either A. Too costly or B. Transactions get never confirmed.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger." Irrelevant to the question.

Competitive fees have never failed to get their transactions confirmed.  If they did fail, then Bitcoin isn't working the way it's supposed to.  But that's never happened.

This will happen if the block size is not increased and there is increased adoption, since not all of the transactions can be confirmed and there will be no way to tell how much of a transaction fee you would even need to get your transaction confirmed, which would in effect make transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain very unreliable. The blocks where never supposed to fill up that is why when they do fill up Bitcoin is not working the way it is supposed to. To quote Satoshi Nakamoto:"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.""The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets."

Servers cost more than laptops.  Requiring an expensive server/pipe to operate a full contributing node would violate Bitcoin's core principle of giving ~everyone the option to act as their own financial institution, and damage the network's diversity/diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency.

Again it is actually the other way around, not increasing the block size can be considered as breaking the social contract since the origonal promise and vission was that the block size should be increased.

BTC fees are still orders of magnitude lower than trivial, especially given the exceedingly valuable magical/revolutionary technology those sub-trivial fees grant access to.  As fees rise, they simply exclude marginal cases like gambling/spam/tips/coffee/paywalls.

I do agree with you on this in principle however I do not think that time is now, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. This is a case where higher volume at low cost would be better then low volume at high cost. Since it would be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would help Bitcoins survival into the future. I do think however that there should be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house, would neccesarelly provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.

That's a good thing.  And there's plenty of room for them off-chain or on alt/side chains.

It would be better if everyone could use the Bitcoin blockchain directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

Bitcon's survivability is never "irrelevant to the question."  Bitcon's survivability is central to the answer of every question

Bitcoins survivability at this point is increased the most by increasing adoption not arbitarily restricting it.

These quotes that you have posted are good but I could easily argue that each and everyone one of these quotes actually supports my argument, they are mostly ambiguous to this discussion and do not support your arguments whatsoever.

[BayAreaCoins]

<snip>

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

You must not deal or look at altcoins much eh?

Do you know of any other altcoin which has not succeeded in mining any block, has exactly 0 transactions on its network and not 1 active user?

Mmmm perhaps Coinye.

[bambou]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

[VeritasSapere]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented. If the fork does succeed then we can consider the fork to be the 'original' Bitcoin since it is the fork that mostly closely represents the principles of the original vision and promise of Bitcoin. Then Bitcoin would truly triumph.

[brg444]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

[VeritasSapere]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

[bambou]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

I dont give a ph0rk about arguments. You or anyone else don't get to decide anything.

You dont get it, it is all about teh money. All about independance. All about screwing to the bone any sheeple, establishment or governance.

It's too late, Bitcoin is this way and there is no stopping it.

But i'm glad we are going to get rid of the n00bs and ph0rkers.

So plz go ahead and get your coins on any ph0rked blockchain.