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

[muyuu]

For very high values of zero-per-thousand, and if you are enough of a charlatan, they have a mining supermajority and the market has spoken  

[Zarathustra]

lmao.

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

but butt butthole?!

Quality before quantity.

Yes. Much quality and much quantity is better than no quality and no quantitiy.

[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.

[hdbuck]

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.

heh, concur!!

The motivation of investors is the value of the coin. The general rule about Bitcoin upgrades, therefore, is that upgrades which increase Bitcoin's value will be adopted and those which do not will not. Therefore, Bitcoin is not likely to be upgraded in ways which make it easier to regulate because that would decrease the value of the coins. Bitcoin might be upgraded in ways that make it more anonymous because a more anonymous coin would likely be more valuable. An upgrade which allows for larger block sizes is also likely to be adopted because the current limit of 1 MB will eventually limit Bitcoin's value as a form of money. Obvious bug fixes are likely to be adopted, whereas cockamamie schemes which do not clearly improve Bitcoin's value-such as proof-of-stake mining or changing the block reward schedule-have no real chance of succeeding and are therefore hardly worth talking about.

This is not to say that Bitcoin is a divine substance or some immaculate bit of quintessence. It just means that Bitcoin upgrades must be a clear improvement to Bitcoin as an investment or else they face a sharp uphill battle to adoption.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/#selection-85.49-85.947


but you cant seriously think BIP101, BIP100, bitcoin XT or Unlimited are somehow credible, if anything they are likely to be dumped into oblivion. ^^

[Peter R]

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.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

[brg444]

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.

Maybe you need to read it again:

"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."

If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals who make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered.

The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors".

As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient.

[hdbuck]

ffs peter, enough with your gifs already 

[brg444]

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

 

What is this? A popularity contest 

[Lauda]

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.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

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.

Well I'd even go with BIP101 in Core, but I'd never go with XT. It comes with a lot of baggage and a CEO.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all. My answer is, why would we? Exactly what do you think this will achieve aside unnecessary complexity; less control for Core?

[brg444]

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.

Go away.

edit: thanks for the laugh  "Inform yourself and decide for yourself using reason, here's my "informative" opinion"

[muyuu]

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.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

Isn't reporting the same inane nonsense all the time a bannable offence around here? You have posted the same exact thing countless times ever since the run up to Montreal, and your reponse to criticism is posting the same thing again. Do you have a mental illness? I heard you are in the medical field, get checked.

[brg444]

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.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

See that's precisely how broken this argument is.

XT being the only implementation currently supporting bigger blocks it would take near unanimous adoption by every full nodes to enable its "vision"

What would happen then is you'd merely switch Core for XT in your little gifs.

[hdbuck]

@muyuu probably took him so much time to make these gifs, so he might be a little sensitive about letting them go.

[Zarathustra]

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

 

What is this? A popularity contest  

Currencies are a popularity contest. Bitcoin is not very popular until today compared to the US$. But the times, they are a changin.
That will also be true for dev decentralization. You've got choice. Whether you like it or not.

[VeritasSapere]

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.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact.

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.

Well I'd even go with BIP101 in Core, but I'd never go with XT. It comes with a lot of baggage and a CEO.

You can easily just patch BIP101 into Core yourself, or run a BIP101 only version of XT. Only the blocksize increase is consensus critical, everything else is optional, so there is no "extra baggage" as you claim.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all. My answer is, why would we? Exactly what do you think this will achieve aside unnecessary complexity; less control for Core?

Because it is an extension of the ethos of decentralization and yes this would lead to Core having less control, that would be the desired effect indeed. Reduced control/influence for any singular development team would be a great achievement and milestone for the development of Bitcoin.

[Peter R]

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

My answer is, why would we? Exactly what do you think this will achieve aside unnecessary complexity; less control for Core?

Yes, less control for Core and more voice of "exit" for users.  

For example, imagine that today there were three dominant implementations each with about 1/3rd node share.  Perhaps one of these implementations proposes BIP101 as a solution, another proposes a one-time raise to 2 MB, while the third proposes to retain 1 MB.  Users would migrate to the implementation that met their needs with less friction--people would vote with their feet.  Finally, in an effort to retain their dwindling node share, the other implementations would cave in and make fork-wise compatible changes.

[Zarathustra]

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.

Why does XT have to "take over"?  Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

Isn't reporting the same inane nonsense all the time a bannable offence around here? You have posted the same exact thing countless times ever since the run up to Montreal, and your reponse to criticism is posting the same thing again. Do you have a mental illness? I heard you are in the medical field, get checked.

As if you are not reporting your same ad hominem nonsense all the time.

[brg444]

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

 

What is this? A popularity contest  

Currencies are a popularity contest. Bitcoin is not very popular until today compared to the US$. But the times, they are a changin.
That will also be true for dev decentralization. You've got choice. Whether you like it or not.

Yes, you can have the popular idiots 

[brg444]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

Won't you get off us you fucking psycho. The mad house is over there : https://bitco.in/forum/

[Peter R]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin: