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

[Lauda]

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

-snip-

what a joke of a community..  

What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator.   Let's also not forget the advertising spam that Roger Ver is doing here, with AMA threads. If something gets done about it, incoming:"Censorship, dictatorship, tyranny by theymos!".  
All of this XT has just become a joke. What are their main arguments right now? Core won't raise the block size? If so, then you are really deluded.

[1714224445]

1714224445

[1714224445]

1714224445

[1714224445]

1714224445

[Holliday]

For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure.

If the block size limit is removed, what will serve as the anti-spam measure?

or

Has the spam problem been solved?

Apologies if I've already asked these questions, sometimes I don't remember if I've actually posted or just pondered.

I remember cypherdoc suggesting that the way to solve the spam issue is simply by including it in the permanent ledger that all full nodes must keep a copy of forever. That doesn't really sound like that great of an idea to me (considering how much bandwidth my full node currently eats in order to share this permanent ledger and how easy it is to create spam).

[MbccompanyX]

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

-snip-

what a joke of a community..  

What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator.   Let's also not forget the advertising spam that Roger Ver is doing here, with AMA threads. If something gets done about it, incoming:"Censorship, dictatorship, tyranny by theymos!".  
All of this XT has just become a joke. What are their main arguments right now? Core won't raise the block size? If so, then you are really deluded.

There aren't main arguments at the moment, the whole thread becamed just the cove of some XT supporters that still tries to make XT look serious with making even more laughs for who knows the facts

[Zarathustra]

"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".

Yes, you are talking about bitcoin here since 2014. If you come as one of the latest to a community you shouldn't come to the conclusion that you should talk the loudest and most now, spamming the 'community' full time with 100 posts a day. Bad strategy.

[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: 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!"

I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium.   According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term).  Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose.  This is what I disagree with.

Regarding your other quotes, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.  

[Zarathustra]

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

-snip-

what a joke of a community..  

What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator.  

Much better than applauding and cheerleading the censoring 'moderators'.

[VeritasSapere]

All of this XT has just become a joke. What are their main arguments right now? Core won't raise the block size? If so, then you are really deluded.

Core has not increased the blocksize and it has no definite plans to increase the blocksize either. If anyone is deluded here it certainly is not me. I also refuse to trust the Core development team to do so in good time. Since the only things that I trust within Bitcoin are the code, free market and how the protocol aligns incentive. I do not think we should rely on or trust any group of people with the future of Bitcoin, to do so would be antithetical to its design.

[brg444]

...
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

 



So what you're saying is "the market" is just not ready, heh?

Yet you fail to account for who "the market" is, which by definition is "the investors". It seems you understand this aspect yet fail to process exactly what this entails.

As such this quote begs to be emphasized:

"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."

Now having considered the statement above, please explain to me why the market of investors who make up the majority of Bitcoin investors would be pressed to "change" things in the even of blocks filling up?

[hdbuck]

lmao.

[VeritasSapere]

What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator.   Let's also not forget the advertising spam that Roger Ver is doing here, with AMA threads. If something gets done about it, incoming:"Censorship, dictatorship, tyranny by theymos!".  
All of this XT has just become a joke. What are their main arguments right now? Core won't raise the block size? If so, then you are really deluded.

There aren't main arguments at the moment, the whole thread becamed just the cove of some XT supporters that still tries to make XT look serious with making even more laughs for who knows the facts

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

[hdbuck]

yesus we are under attack!

open shill time!

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

[hdbuck]

[Peter R]

For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure.

If the block size limit is removed, what will serve as the anti-spam measure?

Personally, I don't believe the limit should be removed.  I think it should continue to serve its original purpose--that of an anti-spam measure that sits far above the free-market equilibrium block size.  I also think it should be viewed as an emergent phenomenon rather than as a top-down policy tool and that we should welcome its discussion rather than labelling it an "attack."

Has the spam problem been solved?

No.  That's why I like having some limit.  

That being said, the problem has been significantly reduced.  Due to the increased price of Bitcoin, the cost of creating a huge spam block is now much greater than it was in 2010 when the 1 MB limit was introduced.  For example, if we assume that their is no block size limit and that miners are viciously competing for fees, then it would still cost about 100 BTC for a miner to produce a single 128 MB spam block (because statistically, it would take him 5 tries before one "stuck").  

Apologies if I've already asked these questions

Have you seen my fee market paper or my talk in Montreal?  

[brg444]

I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium.   According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term).  Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose.  This is what I disagree with.

Regarding your other quotes, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.  

Stop twisting definitions until they fit your arguments it is getting really tiring.

The block size limit as it currently exist is dictated by the peers in the network. As such, it serves their motivation, whatever it is. Not the ones of the devs or whomever else.

Allow me a try at this game of words-twisting of yours   :

The top-down policy is an emergent property of the code run by the full nodes.

[Zarathustra]

lmao.

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

[Lauda]

Core has not increased the blocksize and it has no definite plans to increase the blocksize either. If anyone is deluded here it certainly is not me. I also refuse to trust the Core development team to do so in good time. Since the only things that I trust within Bitcoin are the code, free market and how the protocol aligns incentive. I do not think we should rely on or trust any group of people with the future of Bitcoin, to do so would be antithetical to its design.

Said who? Mike? He's feeding people nonsense. Just because a developer or two don't agree with increasing it, it does not mean that it is not going to happen. How else would they implement LN which would be more or less pointless at the current block size limit?

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

Increasing the block size != support for XT. I (e.g.) have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.

Stop twisting definitions until they fit your arguments it is getting really tiring.

I define my horses as unicorns. That doesn't change the fact that they're horses.

[hdbuck]

lmao.

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

but butt butthole?!

Quality before quantity.

[VeritasSapere]

Core has not increased the blocksize and it has no definite plans to increase the blocksize either. If anyone is deluded here it certainly is not me. I also refuse to trust the Core development team to do so in good time. Since the only things that I trust within Bitcoin are the code, free market and how the protocol aligns incentive. I do not think we should rely on or trust any group of people with the future of Bitcoin, to do so would be antithetical to its design.

Said who? Mike? He's feeding you nonsense. Just because a developer or two don't agree with increasing it, it does not mean that it is not going to happen. How else would they implement LN which would be more or less pointless at the current block size limit.

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

Increasing the block size != support for XT. I for one have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.

I actually favor a more moderate increase as well, however in the absence of a third alternative and when forced to choose between Core and BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if that means I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

[Peter R]

I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium.   According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term).  Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose.  This is what I disagree with.

The block size limit as it currently exist is dictated by the peers in the network. As such, it serves their motivation, whatever it is. Not the ones of the devs or whomever else.

I agree.

Allow me a try at this game of words-twisting of yours   :

The top-down policy is an emergent property of the code run by the full nodes.

I agree with this too.  I also suspect it's an emergent property that's on the cusp of changing