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

[brg444]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node. 

[1714317810]

1714317810

[1714317810]

1714317810

[1714317810]

1714317810

[1714317810]

1714317810

[marcus_of_augustus]

I wonder if Coinbase has been caught net short a significant number of bitcoins (that it holds in custody for it's users) and is now wanting to lower the price to buy back it's obligations? Creating angst over blocksize has been used as a convenient vehicle for driving price lower in the past.

[VeritasSapere]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.

I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors at work which can influence and effect the different possible outcomes to this question.

[brg444]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.

I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors that determine the possible outcomes.

Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage

[MbccompanyX]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.

I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors that determine the possible outcomes.

Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage

XD Veritas, so you don't care if for make a full node there will be a budget of 100,000$ only in eletricity? I agree with brg444 in this case because all what you just wrote not only is meaningless but even stupid

[iCEBREAKER]

The amount of FUD just for pushing back the temporary anti-spam limit is astonishing. It really is.

Economic reality is not FUD.

Now hush child, the adults are talking.

[VeritasSapere]

Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases.  I'll do mine on a sidechain and enjoy the solidity of real Bitcoin backing it without destroying the solution.

Bloating Bitcoin right into the waiting arms of corp/gov so you can have some nebulous benefit of having a record of your piss-ant transaction recorded in every copy of the blockchain and in-perpetuity is beyond retarded.

"My transaction is more important than your transaction"

Soon to be on a bumper sticker in front of you.

Good!  I pay roughly a $10-ish transaction fee when I do a real Bitcoin transaction.  If I am sucking hind teat that means that other user's are compelled to pay more and it means that as a core solution Bitcoin is in a sweet-spot where it is not profitable enough to justify giant datacenters but is interesting enough to keep small and medium sized players around the world providing infrastructure support.

In day-to-day use, I expect to use sidechains and make infrequent and periodic native Bitcoin transactions for the sole purpose of balancing risk.  I can easily afford to pay $10 once in a while to perform such operations.  In fact, it's a steal for a genuinely robust solution!

You do realize that even if you pay a ten dollar transaction fee, or lets say hypothetically even a thousand dollar transaction fee. Then even if everyone pays their thousand dollar transaction fee and the network is for example overloaded by a factor of two then half of those transactions will still not be confirmed even if you have payed your thousand dollar transaction fee. Over the long run you will have to out compete banks and payment processors in order to transact on the bitcoin blockchain directly, for most people this would be impossible, effectively turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for banks payment processors and other large institutions. At that point what would even be the point of running a full node for the banks if we can not even transact on the Bitcoin blockchain our selves.

Over the long run you won't be transacting directly on the Bitcoin blockchain  

The point is to check your balance without dialing your intention to the NSA as well a having the option to fully validate the more important transactions you participate in.

If the blocksize is not increased, then we will not be transacting over the Bitcoin blockchain directly over the long term, you are correct in saying this. This is why the blocksize should be increased. This is why the blocksize will be increased, incentives are aligning.

The block size is not to be determined by the demand for transactions, which is infinite, but by the costs of the option to run a full node.

I disagree, I think that the blocksize should be determined by the technological limitations in terms of not compromising the principles of decentralization and financial freedom. Which are metrics which can not be measured by only considering a single variable like the cost of running a full node, since there are many variables and factors at work which can influence and effect the different possible outcomes to this question.

Another worthless post full of meaningless verbiage

XD Veritas, so you don't care if for make a full node there will be a budget of 100,000$ only in eletricity? I agree with brg444 in this case because all what you just wrote not only is meaningless but even stupid

I do not go around calling people stupid if you have not noticed, though you saying that a node would cost that much to run just in electricity would certainly qualify. Such extremist rhetoric is not helpful, eight megabyte blocks would still allow most people in the developed world to run full nodes. It certainly would not cost $100,000 as you claim it would.

[muyuu]

Edit your super-nested quotes. Your posts are insufferable enough without the extra text.

[LiteCoinGuy]

[MbccompanyX]

that image explains the fact that only during stress test the size almost reach the limit of 1Mb while in other days it doesn't, i suppose that now everybody will understand that increasing the size isn't a good idea and period for ever

[muyuu]

Gavin Andresen does manage to sound daft sometimes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3riaa5/designing_for_success_gavin_andresen/

As this guy in reddit said:

Gavin has most certainly been pushing a hard fork(by throwing his weight behind XT) and now he has admitted that he was doing it before the protocol could handle the results of the hard fork.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Gavin Andresen does manage to sound daft sometimes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3riaa5/designing_for_success_gavin_andresen/

As this guy in reddit said:

Gavin has most certainly been pushing a hard fork(by throwing his weight behind XT) and now he has admitted that he was doing it before the protocol could handle the results of the hard fork.

just think it is kind of ironic he titles his blog post "Designing for Success" when his P2SH BIP was found to be buggy and bitcoin now has to live with it (forever?)

[muyuu]

just think it is kind of ironic he titles his blog post "Designing for Success" when his P2SH BIP was found to be buggy and bitcoin now has to live with it (forever?)

He's an "ideas man" now, which probably suits him better. Give Bitcoin 101 classes to kids in MIT and collect a paycheck, etc. Instigate hard fork attempts and collect VC rewards, and so on.

----

Adam Back gets it in /r/bitcoin

I have at this point taken reward from negative clear insta bot votes: it means I wrote something insightful that the bot / brigaders were afraid others might see and be influenced by. Insta -30, wow I managed to say something clear and useful.

https://archive.is/iJn3e#selection-2799.1-2841.244

[Carlton Banks]

Edit your super-nested quotes. Your posts are insufferable enough without the extra text.

Yeah, I've tried to encourage that before. It's almost as if some people don't care how unreadable the thread becomes. knight22 takes first prize for this, he met my exhortations with the one-liner "Gotcha!" (I think he was attempting to subvert the meaning to suggest I was proposing "self-censorship" lol)

[hdbuck]

Edit your super-nested quotes. Your posts are insufferable enough without the extra text.

Yeah, I've tried to encourage that before. It's almost as if some people don't care how unreadable the thread becomes. knight22 takes first prize for this, he met my exhortations with the one-liner "Gotcha!" (I think he was attempting to subvert the meaning to suggest I was proposing "self-censorship" lol)

them renlentless shills/noob last resort is to burry the thread and awesome lulz-points that are being made with dozens of their irrelevant verbiage.
the sooner we get to a new page, the better for them, hiding under the carpet their shameful arguments..

veritaswannabe seems to be particularly good at this too.

[MbccompanyX]

Edit your super-nested quotes. Your posts are insufferable enough without the extra text.

Yeah, I've tried to encourage that before. It's almost as if some people don't care how unreadable the thread becomes. knight22 takes first prize for this, he met my exhortations with the one-liner "Gotcha!" (I think he was attempting to subvert the meaning to suggest I was proposing "self-censorship" lol)

them renlentless shills/noob last resort is to burry the thread and awesome lulz-points that are being made with dozens of their irrelevant verbiage.
the sooner we get to a new page, the better for them, hiding under the carpet their shameful arguments..

veritaswannabe seems to be particularly good at this too.

Yeah i agree that veritassapere is good only to make lolz supporting things that doesn't make any sense, anyway i hope all those lolz will end after the end of the year when XT and BIP101 can be declared ultra-busted

[muyuu]

Yeah i agree that veritassapere is good only to make lolz supporting things that doesn't make any sense, anyway i hope all those lolz will end after the end of the year when XT and BIP101 can be declared ultra-busted

I think it's more of a matter of them simply refusing to wake up to reality, to be honest. It will probably take Core introducing changes that are essentially incompatible to BIP101 and then they will have to declare defeat. Thus the desperation, because those changes might be about to come in the next couple of months.

Their declared nodes are at 7.7% now, blocks remain ridiculously low.

[MbccompanyX]

Yeah i agree that veritassapere is good only to make lolz supporting things that doesn't make any sense, anyway i hope all those lolz will end after the end of the year when XT and BIP101 can be declared ultra-busted

I think it's more of a matter of them simply refusing to wake up to reality, to be honest. It will probably take Core introducing changes that are essentially incompatible to BIP101 and then they will have to declare defeat. Thus the desperation, because those changes might be about to come in the next couple of months.

Their declared nodes are at 7.7% now, blocks remain ridiculously low.

Yeah i agree that who still supports XT at this point is dreaming or is on despair and wants other to drop in that dream / despair (Almost reminds me of some random game but maybe i can't make a good connection) and anyway i hope to see some changes on 0.12 that will end this useless fight for the time really being because is damm early even with the tecnology to break the 1Mb block size wall

[yayayo]

Yeah i agree that veritassapere is good only to make lolz supporting things that doesn't make any sense, anyway i hope all those lolz will end after the end of the year when XT and BIP101 can be declared ultra-busted

I think it's more of a matter of them simply refusing to wake up to reality, to be honest. It will probably take Core introducing changes that are essentially incompatible to BIP101 and then they will have to declare defeat. Thus the desperation, because those changes might be about to come in the next couple of months.

Their declared nodes are at 7.7% now, blocks remain ridiculously low.

I think reality is slowly sinking in on Gavin, that's why he is currently launching another FUD campaign to avoid to be buried in oblivion.

The number of true XT-nodes is probably a greatly overestimated, because of NotXT.

ya.ya.yo!

[VeritasSapere]

Everyone should read this:
https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

These are also informative:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Inform yourself and decide for yourself using reason.