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

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to.

Yes.

Noosterdam

It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development.

[1714230341]

1714230341

[1714230341]

1714230341

[1714230341]

1714230341

[1714230341]

1714230341

[1714230341]

1714230341

[Carlton Banks]

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community. Just a veneer.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

The cost to reputation and credibility of Gavin and Mike H. has been significant. Instead of being merely suspicious behaviour they are now clearly in "cannot be trusted" basket. Not even "trust but verify" with those two, default position is "don't trust, don't even bother verifying".

[Zarathustra]

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community.

It is not a community. These are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other.

[bambou]

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community.

It is not a community. That are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other.

Ahah. Whatever rocks your boat kiddo.

[Carlton Banks]

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community.

It is not a community. These are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other.

Well, it depends on which capitalist ideology you subscribe to. Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society".

However, you're right to say that consensus doesn't govern, supermajority does. Who represents the supermajority opinion in the transaction scaling debate? It's not the BIP101/XT contingent, is it? Are you really going to try to pretend that even 51% of Bitcoiners support your views? You're in the fringe, and will remain there.

[Zarathustra]

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

Except that, in respect of the divide and conquer aspect, I don't think they've accomplished anything. The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community.

It is not a community. These are communist fantasies and fairytales. A community is a selfsufficient, nuclear, consensus ruled Dunbar community. A society (interacting with aliens) is not based on consensus, but on power/force/forks and supermajority decision making. A capitalist society is ruled by economic and political competition and the power behind it: banning, openness, censoring, liberalism, totalitarianism and all those duopolist forces and tactics that compete against each other.

Well, it depends on which capitalist ideology you subscribe to. Margaret Thatcher famously said "There is no such thing as society".

However, you're right to say that consensus doesn't govern, supermajority does. Who represents the supermajority opinion in the transaction scaling debate? It's not the BIP101/XT contingent, is it? Are you really going to try to pretend that even 51% of Bitcoiners support your views? You're in the fringe, and will remain there.

The views of the Bitcoiners are changing from time to time. My view is that the supermajority will decide to leave the 1MB cap behind next year and that Gavin and BIP101 triggered the turning tide:

It wasn't a mistake. Gavin did the right thing by exerting exit pressure (XT) rather than voice pressure (staying in Core), because having one monolithic implementation has already become Bitcoin's weak point. People think XT needs to reach 75% of mining power for it to succeed, but it doesn't. It just needs to hang over Core's head. Exit pressure is stronger than voice pressure, and it helps crack the centralization weak point of Core. Short term, we suffer some pain due to delayed blocksize increase, but long term we are spared greater pain by entering billion or trillion dollar market caps without the millstone of centralized development. (Noosterdam)

The core of the core devs will be forced to finally present one proposal instead of trying to prolong the stalemate by presenting several 'proposals'.

[muyuu]

However, you're right to say that consensus doesn't govern, supermajority does. Who represents the supermajority opinion in the transaction scaling debate? It's not the BIP101/XT contingent, is it? Are you really going to try to pretend that even 51% of Bitcoiners support your views? You're in the fringe, and will remain there.

I think it's even stricter than that. If dev and mining majorities both have a supermajority against something, it's definitely not going to happen whatever the rest of the Bitcoin space thinks about it.

Agreeing against something is considerably easier than agreeing to a concrete proposal.

[hdbuck]

However, you're right to say that consensus doesn't govern, supermajority does. Who represents the supermajority opinion in the transaction scaling debate? It's not the BIP101/XT contingent, is it? Are you really going to try to pretend that even 51% of Bitcoiners support your views? You're in the fringe, and will remain there.

I think it's even stricter than that. If dev and mining majorities both have a supermajority against something, it's definitely not going to happen whatever the rest of the Bitcoin space thinks about it.

Agreeing against something is considerably easier than agreeing to a concrete proposal.

also, the majority of nodes have/will reject such increase because it will simply drive their cost up..

and since they are the ones propagating the blocks, it is likely nothing will come up as to such matter if they would not get retribution of some sort in the first place.

so i dunno which planet these forkers live on.. with their conflated inabilities and authoritarian adorations.

if only they could really fork off tho.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I support BIP101 because it best represents the true and original Bitcoin and the principles it stands for. Satoshi had always intended to increase the block size back up again, the one megabyte limit was always intended to be a temporary limit. Therefore XT is the true Bitcoin, since it will increase the blocksize and presently Core has no plans to do so. Today both XT and Core are Bitcoin, this will remain true until the date of the fork at which point we will have bigger blocks if that is what the economic majority chooses. This freedom, this volunteerism is Bitcoin, whether you like it or not.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I support BIP101 because it best represents the true and original Bitcoin and the principles it stands for. Satoshi had always intended to increase the block size back up again, the one megabyte limit was always intended to be a temporary limit. Therefore XT is the true Bitcoin, since it will increase the blocksize and presently Core has no plans to do so. Today both XT and Core are Bitcoin, this will remain true until the date of the fork at which point we will have bigger blocks if that is what the economic majority chooses.

That's really well contrived, but the reality is that decentralised, "sound" money is what Satoshi proposed as the USP for Bitcoin originally, and XT is an open threat to that, the lead developer says so proudly.

This freedom, this volunteerism is Bitcoin, whether you like it or not.

This is the only true statement you made. It has so far been XT's undoing and will continue to be so: you've hit the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, but none of it's working, as we can distinguish between falsehoods and the truth. XT popularity is low and continuing to decline.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I support BIP101 because it best represents the true and original Bitcoin and the principles it stands for. Satoshi had always intended to increase the block size back up again, the one megabyte limit was always intended to be a temporary limit. Therefore XT is the true Bitcoin, since it will increase the blocksize and presently Core has no plans to do so. Today both XT and Core are Bitcoin, this will remain true until the date of the fork at which point we will have bigger blocks if that is what the economic majority chooses.

That's really well contrived, but the reality is that decentralised, "sound" money is what Satoshi proposed as the USP for Bitcoin originally, and XT is an open threat to that, the lead developer says so proudly.

I do not think that increasing the blocksize threatens the conception of decentralized "sound" money. I actually think that the opposite is true, not increasing the block size is what most threatens the conception of decentralized "sound" money. Since not increasing the blocksize would lead to transactions becoming unreliable and more expensive, so much so that it would most likely lead to increased reliance on third parties, that is if decreasing the competitiveness of the Bitcoin blockchain does not deter further adoption.

This freedom, this volunteerism is Bitcoin, whether you like it or not.

This is the only true statement you made. It has so far been XT's undoing and will continue to be so: you've hit the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, but none of it's working, as we can distinguish between falsehoods and the truth. XT popularity is low and continuing to decline.

I am glad that you can at least agree with the underlying conceptions of freedom, that ultimately it is up to individuals to choose what kind of a Bitcoin they want, even if that means that they might end up making the wrong choice.

In regards to you calling my theories propaganda, I could say the same about many of the small blockists on this forum. What people decide is propaganda and what is not, what is truth and what is falsehood, people can decide that for themselves, at least I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority like many of the small blockists on this forum do.

[Carlton Banks]

I support BIP101 because it best represents the true and original Bitcoin and the principles it stands for. Satoshi had always intended to increase the block size back up again, the one megabyte limit was always intended to be a temporary limit. Therefore XT is the true Bitcoin, since it will increase the blocksize and presently Core has no plans to do so.

at least I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority like many of the small blockists on this forum do.

In which case, make a square out of the circle above.


And here's an underhand tactic you and others happily resort to: constant repetition of things that just aren't true. I can think of maybe 2 bitcointalk users that can't restrain themselves when it comes to specifically mocking the flawed logic of BIP101 advocates, but no-one is losing their temper so much as to level actual personal insults at other bitcointalkers (with the possible exception of hdBuck and Zarathustra). There's a difference between the two.

Show me the evidence: no-one has insulted anyone on the basis of anything personal, but they have insulted their ideas. I seem to remember the oh so prestigious Dr. Peter R. Rizun indulged in exactly the same behaviour, and perhaps the most childish example of all. Shall I dig up that little "Blocked-Stream" MS paint effort from Peter's history?

[muyuu]

[VeritasSapere]

I support BIP101 because it best represents the true and original Bitcoin and the principles it stands for. Satoshi had always intended to increase the block size back up again, the one megabyte limit was always intended to be a temporary limit. Therefore XT is the true Bitcoin, since it will increase the blocksize and presently Core has no plans to do so.

at least I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority like many of the small blockists on this forum do.

In which case, make a square out of the circle above.

I have never said that we should increase the blocksize because Satoshi said so, that would indeed be a flawed argument. I have already made my arguments independently from the founders vision, it just happens that I do agree with this original vision and the small blockists do not. I only pointed this out as a response to the claim that not increasing the blocksize is more inline with the original vision of Bitcoin. The argument can be made however that Bitcoin should follow this original vision, I have not made this argument however.

And here's an underhand tactic you and others happily resort to: constant repetition of things that just aren't true.

Please tell me specifically where I am wrong, in terms of the facts. Since I thought that our disagreement stems from a fundamental ideological disagreement, not one based on a flawed understanding of physical reality.

Show me the evidence: no-one has insulted anyone on the basis of anything personal, but they have insulted their ideas.

Why do I even need to prove this? I only said that I do not resort to ad hominem, which is not the same as saying that no one does, which would be a ridiculous claim to make anyway, certainly not one that I ever made.

no-one is losing their temper so much as to level actual personal insults at other bitcointalkers.

It seems like you are now making this ridiculous claim, I have been insulted and attacked on a continues basis since I have made my support of BIP101 public, this thread alone is already sufficient evidence of this.

[Melbustus]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

[hdbuck]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How would the market be free if users would not be able to run a bitcoin client by themselves?
Trusting *yet again* some third institutionalized party a la AWS?

Monetary sovereignty comes at a cost.

Your signature says it all btw, nice try.

[VeritasSapere]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How would the market be free if users would not be able to run a bitcoin client by themselves?
Trusting *yet again* some third institutionalized party a la AWS?

Monetary sovereignty comes at a cost.

Your signature says it all btw, nice try.

Just because the miners decide on the blocksize it does not follow that people will not be able to run full nodes. Miners will choose what they think is best for Bitcoin, if they think it is important that more people can run full nodes, they will make the blocksize smaller or keep it at its present size. The miners are the best group of people to make this decision because they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin, whatever that might mean at the time.

Melbustus is correct in saying that having the blocksize decided by the Core development team is anti-freemarket and the equivalent of economic engineering or centralized planning. Especially when compared to consensus through proof of work and or other more distributed decision making processes.

[hdbuck]

Besides, there is no "smallblockism".

This is a poor attempt at rationalizing the "bigblockersnao" view by opposing it to the rest (read vast majority) of bitcoiners, that pretty much don't care about such futilities. - sry not all bitcoiners go to reddit or even bitcointalk..

Big blocks needs to be justified, naturally. Only then a genuine consensus would arise, and implement it (arguably the outcome would still be very uncertain considering bitcoin's maturity and network effect)

Certainly not wrapping the matter up in some childish and alarming blog posts by coupla "benevolent dictators" working for Google and MIT. (deliberate social engineering here )

[tvbcof]

Bitcoin XT is basically a new bitcoin that is profitable for Coinbase. No one supported it from the beginning. No one will in the future. The original is the one and only, and no fake can best it. Bitcoin XT was never going to be a success, anyway.

I suspect XT has achieved exactly the effect "they" intended it to. I don't believe the real force behind the XT push ever intended or believed it would gain adoption.

Beat the price of BTC down, FUD and "divide & conquer", mission accomplished.

The cost to reputation and credibility of Gavin and Mike H. has been significant. Instead of being merely suspicious behaviour they are now clearly in "cannot be trusted" basket. Not even "trust but verify" with those two, default position is "don't trust, don't even bother verifying".

I've felt that way about Hearn's work since pretty near the time I took an interest.  I remember he being active on channel stuff.  At that time I struggled to understand it and was negative about it since I didn't trust him.  I failed to recognize some of the power and utility channels could have.  I still don't know what Hearn's interest in them might have been.  I suppose it's possible that it was one of the few of his interests which was not directed toward the destruction of Bitcoin.

For a long time I considered Gavin to be just a fairly naive clown who's heart was in the right place but who was pushing Bitcoin in the wrong direction and wasting resources, and I was happy that he seemed to be only marginally skilled and effective.  Only after his meeting with the CFR and his secrecy around the event did I decide that he may also be actively working toward the destruction of Bitcoin.  Whether there really was a shift at that point or whether I was mis-reading things earlier is unknown.  But it doesn't matter much at this point.  As you say, the appropriate position is at this point for both of them is 'don't bother'.