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

[brg444]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market).  Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described.   Here is a great post on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/

I think most of the people running full nodes understand that.

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

[1714289678]

1714289678

[1714289678]

1714289678

[1714289678]

1714289678

[1714289678]

1714289678

[brg444]

*educating*

wow, no kidding.

I know right  

Who holds the benevolent educator position?

You, Peter? 

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin is capped by DESIGN.

Yes:

It sounds like you don't realize how the network was designed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

[Peter R]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin.  

Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter?  

No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together.  We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly.  

[hdbuck]

*educating*

wow, no kidding.

I know right  

Who holds the benevolent educator position?

You, Peter?  

besides, hardly 5000 subscribers and 100 active users  over there at r/btc is NOT "bitcoin community"

also:



what a joke of a community.. 

[brg444]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive the small blockers as those trying to "save" bitcoin. 

How does that even compute?

The "small blockers" represent the status quo. If it wasn't for the agitprop propaganda us "small blockers" wouldn't even be having this debate.

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

http://trilema.com/2015/third-pass-addressing-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/

[Zarathustra]

*educating*

wow, no kidding.

I know right  

Who holds the benevolent educator position?

You, Peter?  

besides, hardly 5000 subscribers and 100 active users  over there at r/btc is NOT "bitcoin community"

also:



such delusions

Quality before quantity. Compare the discussions over there with the childish memegenerator chats here.
The most members here are discussing altcoins. This forum became more ore less an altcoin forum that censors bitcoin discussions.

[hdbuck]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin.  

Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter?  

No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together.  We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly.  

We dont give a heck about your ideas peter, you need to accept this.

You and your scam promoter cypherdoc have been ostracized from the real bitcoin community and into cryptoshame.
You, your fork, if not this whole bitcoin unlimited are a joke.
We are not debating here, we are making fun of you toxic clowns.

That's all

[VeritasSapere]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market).  Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described.   Here is a great post on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/

I think most of the people running full nodes understand that.

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

Bitcoin reflects the will of the economic majority, if the economic majority does not want freedom then Bitcoin could start to reflect that. My point being is that if you convince enough people that they do not have a choice and that they should rely on an authority instead of using their own judgement then Bitcoin can be subverted. In the same way that state democracies can also be subverted and become less free.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

[Carlton Banks]

Let the record state that Peter R is now bombarding the board, not with a torrent of bizarre treatise to create multiple sets of consensus rules on a consenus-driven network, but with conciliatory presentation of an essentially similar technical argument. Interesting.

[Zarathustra]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin.  

Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter?  

No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together.  We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly.  

We dont give a heck about your ideas peter, you need to accept this.

LOL. You prove the opposite every day by talking excessively about Gavin, Mike, Peter R. et alikes.

[brg444]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market).  Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described.   Here is a great post on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/

I think most of the people running full nodes understand that.

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

Bitcoin reflects the will of the economic majority, if the economic majority does not want freedom then Bitcoin could start to reflect that. My point being is that if you convince enough people that they do not have a choice and that they should rely on an authority instead of using their own judgement then Bitcoin can be subverted. In the same way that state democracies can also be subverted and become less free.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

You have consistently proven unable to understand who the Bitcoin's economic majority is so your opinion on the subject is worth about the same thing as if I'd ask the hobo down the street.

[Peter R]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive the small blockers as those trying to "save" bitcoin.  

How does that even compute?

The "small blockers" represent the status quo. If it wasn't for the agitprop propaganda us "small blockers" wouldn't even be having this debate.

For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure.  The free-market equilibrium block size Q* was smaller than this limit.  From my vantage point, Q* < Qmax is the status quo.  

I see the small blockers as the ones who are trying to introduce a new idea: that Qmax should be less than Q* and used as a policy tool by Core Dev to balance fees with the rate of blockchain growth.

[brg444]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin.  

Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter?  

No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together.  We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly.  

We dont give a heck about your ideas peter, you need to accept this.

LOL. You prove the opposite every day by talking excessively about Gavin, Mike, Peter R. et alikes.

In absence price action one has to entertain himself with something  

[MbccompanyX]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market).  Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described.   Here is a great post on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/

I think most of the people running full nodes understand that.

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

Bitcoin reflects the will of the economic majority, if the economic majority does not want freedom then Bitcoin could start to reflect that. My point being is that if you convince enough people that they do not have a choice and that they should rely on an authority instead of using their own judgement then Bitcoin can be subverted. In the same way that state democracies can also be subverted and become less free.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

You have consistently proven unable to understand who the Bitcoin's economic majority is so your opinion on the subject is worth about the same thing as if I'd ask the hobo down the street.

Then why are you still giving "water" to VeritasSapere? He will always open his mouth about this thread until there will be nothing more to talk about or he will end the sources of fake news about bitcoin or just will destroy the keyboard from doing all this......

[brg444]

This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is doing just fine.

I suppose this is the crux of the debate.  I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive the small blockers as those trying to "save" bitcoin.  

How does that even compute?

The "small blockers" represent the status quo. If it wasn't for the agitprop propaganda us "small blockers" wouldn't even be having this debate.

For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure.  The free-market equilibrium block size Q* was smaller than this limit.  From my vantage point, Q* < Qmax is the status quo.  

I see the small blockers as the ones who are trying to introduce a new idea: the Qmax should be less than Q* and used as a policy tool by Core Dev to balance fees with the rate of blockchain growth.

It still does.

"The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it."

"Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it."

"Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!"


GO AWAY

[hdbuck]

inb4 buncha blog posts like this one pops up once they created a social media forking precedent: https://medium.com/@twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946

this is a governance coup, by the state, for the state.

and it will has fail, you guys are too late, sry.


now back in your bitco.in cryptoshame cave. hush hushh.

[brg444]

"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things. Related to this, let us reiterate those ancient points about Bitcoin :

TALKING ABOUT BITCOIN, EVEN IF IN A GROUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU PART OF BITCOIN.

This pretty much sums up the "debate".

[hdbuck]

"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things. Related to this, let us reiterate those ancient points about Bitcoin :

TALKING ABOUT BITCOIN, EVEN IF IN A GROUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU PART OF BITCOIN.

This pretty much sums up the "debate".

+1 add emphasis.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

Yes, basically miners serve as a proxy for investors (in fact miners are a kind of investor as well, but investors pushing up the price incentivize miners to mine). Since investors are who control Bitcoin, miners are also part of "who control Bitcoin" both by proxy and directly. If we cannot trust the market of investors or we cannot trust the market of miners, we cannot trust Bitcoin.

This should be no surprise, really, as Satoshi originally spoke of users voting with their CPU power (now read: hashing power) to choose which fork they like. Bitcoin was always an emergent phenomenon of the market, not a planned phenomenon of certain developers.

It's easy to confuse this, because certain economic parameters in Bitcoin were planned by Satoshi...but it was not the dev Satoshi who made them part of the World Wide Ledger. It was the market. The market just happened to like his parameters. The market has not expressed an opinion on blocksize because it has never had a chance nor a reason to.

Forks give it the chance, and full blocks will soon give it the reason. Combine the two and



or maybe nothing. We will see. I happen to think the market will choose a substantial increase.