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

[VeritasSapere]

Even BIP101 is within the Bitcoin improvement proposal scheme, that does not mean it will be implemented however. The fact is that none of the BIP proposals that intend to increase the blocksize have been implemented by Core and no definitive plans have been made by Core to implement any of these proposals in the future. Since Wladimir does have the final say in terms of what gets implemented into Core regardless of what anyone else thinks. So please refrain from calling me a liar, since even if I am wrong, if I am sincere I am not a liar. Calling me a liar implies that you know my intention and motivation which you do not, so please stop, since you are only making yourself look foolish by resorting to such attacks.

They are not able to realize their self-destruction with this kind of 'discussion'. As if notorious name calling ever could convince the community.

Not an intelligent community like the Bitcoin community at least, plenty of fascist dictatorships of the past have risen through just "name calling". I am confident however that the incentives of the Bitcoin protocol will align so that the blocksize will be increased one way or another, with or without Core, Bitcoin will be triumphant.

Decentralization and freedom for the world if that is what we choose. We will always have the choice no matter what happens now, governments can suppress many things but eventually the progress of technology is something they can not reverse no matter how hard they might try.

[1714229256]

1714229256

[1714229256]

1714229256

[1714229256]

1714229256

[1714229256]

1714229256

[1714229256]

1714229256

[muyuu]

Learn to quote properly, don't be so fucking lazy.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Learn to quote properly, don't be so fucking lazy.

I think the brg44 school of creative quoting is having a 10% off coupon this week.

[Cconvert2G36]

...

The inflation rate is already governed by the market.  The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards.  I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer.

not the market you dummy.. the protocol.
the very same that you cant change with your stupid gif.

The market defines the protocol. One small dev team is not the market.

lel nope. try again.
im done explaining such basics to you idiot.

Another gem from the hdbuck school of rational debate. How deep does this mine go?

With friends like this...

[muyuu]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

[brg444]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

[VeritasSapere]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

Agreed.

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

Agreed, until the free market decides that it wants to increase the blocksize, the incentive to do so will align more as the blocks continue to grow. Since rendering transactions unreliable and increasing the cost of transactions is not necessarily in the best interests of the network as a whole.

[Cconvert2G36]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

The block reward schedule is overwhelmingly agreed upon by the market, through their decision to run software which implements it. They are also highly incentivized to not change it, as it would be disastrous to their current and future earning potential. Node operators are similarly incentivized to keep the schedule because altering it would be disastrous to the value of their holdings. Higher transaction capacity through larger blocks has another set of incentives and risks.

brg444 demonstrates this is the case using another metric, the max block size. Right now, the market is indeed coalesced around 1MB max blocks.

This veneer that a small cabal can wield a magic wand to protect us from ourselves is illusory, and to some, very undesirable. If Bitcoin relies on a handful of people controlling things from the top down, then it's a failure. The beauty of satoshi's idea is that it harnesses mutual self interest incentive structures to function and evolve. If the vast majority of nodes and miners decide to run software that enforces 1MB max blocks, then 1MB max blocks we shall have.  

[muyuu]

I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

Exactly, but it's either politburo or the free market, depending on the argument suiting their view or not. It's really something else with these people.

There is no free market about the protocol, for better or worse. For better IMO, because having essential properties of Bitcoin change to the whim of people would make it absolutely shit money. Thus the importance of libconsensus, and not confusing implementation variety with the actual protocol. And when talking about code variety, XT is absolutely a minor factor at since it's a minimal-work fork, unlike libbitcoin for instance which is a major one.

[brg444]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

Agreed.

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

Agreed, until the free market decides that it wants to increase the blocksize, the incentive to do so will align more as the blocks continue to grow. Since rendering transactions unreliable and increasing the cost of transactions is not necessarily in the best interests of the network as a whole.

You may want to read this

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.

[muyuu]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works.

If you mean "what people run and agree to be Bitcoin", then obviously neither is it a proper market nor is it free. Pretty obviously really.

I don't understand this obsession with seeing everything as a market, and every market as free just because you wish it to be. This is simply delusional, which is probably why you guys are missing what's going on and "surprisingly" for you lot, 0 out of the last 1000 blocks are BIP101.

[VeritasSapere]

Furthermore the culture of its participants is also important in the sense that they understand that they have a choice, if people become convinced because of overly dogmatic thinking or appeals to authority and become totalitarian in their thinking then the network can be subverted in this way, though in a way it is not subverted, since it is just reflecting the will of its participants, it certainly would seem that way from our perspective. In such a hypothetical future we would most likely find refuge in an alternative cryptocurrency, or possibly a chain fork of Bitcoin. This is why spreading and understanding the Bitcoin philosophy is important if we want those values to be reflected in the larger society and therefore reflected in our blockchains.

[brg444]

This veneer that a small cabal can wield a magic wand to protect us from ourselves is illusory, and to some, very undesirable. If Bitcoin relies on a handful of people controlling things from the top down, then it's a failure. The beauty of satoshi's idea is that it harnesses mutual self interest incentive structures to function and evolve. If the vast majority of nodes and miners decide to run software that enforces 1MB max blocks, then 1MB max blocks we shall have.  

Agreed, but it goes both way 

[brg444]

I kinda like the idea since it very clearly refutes any of the shills pretense that us "small blockers" do not want to let the "free market" operate.

The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision.

I would agree it is quite a stretch but what concept that comes out of twisted XT shills' mind isn't?  

So 1MB it is, says the free-market!

Exactly, but it's either politburo or the free market, depending on the argument suiting their view or not. It's really something else with these people.

There is no free market about the protocol, for better or worse. For better IMO, because having essential properties of Bitcoin change to the whim of people would make it absolutely shit money. Thus the importance of libconsensus, and not confusing implementation variety with the actual protocol. And when talking about code variety, XT is absolutely a minor factor at since it's a minimal-work fork, unlike libbitcoin for instance which is a major one.

I agree. I'm mostly playing along with their rhetoric

[VeritasSapere]

To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does.

The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works.

If you mean "what people run and agree to be Bitcoin", then obviously neither is it a proper market nor is it free. Pretty obviously really.

It is a market because it represents a free choice between currencies/financial policies/cryptocurrencies. It is a free market because the choice is free and not under the pressure of any regulation by a government or other entity forcing us to conform, therefore it is a free market.

I don't understand this obsession with seeing everything as a market.

I can fill you in why, it is because libertarians and anarchists are on the extreme right of the spectrum in terms of economics, they believe that the free market can provide the best solutions to the problems we face when compared to government or other forms of centralized control, anarchism can even be described as an extreme form of capitalism. This is why people with this ideological slant do tend to compare everything with the market which is because many of them believe that the ideal way to organize society is through a free market, and there are a lot of libertarians and anarchists in the Bitcoin community. lol

every market as free just because you wish it to be. This is simply delusional

Not all markets are free, though some Marxists might argue that there is no such thing as a free market.

[muyuu]

It is a market because it represents a free choice between currencies/financial policies/cryptocurrencies. It is a free market because the choice is free and not under the pressure of any regulation by a government or other entity forcing us to conform, therefore it is a free market.

Except it's obviously not a free choice. But you keep on telling yourself that as you cannot choose. 

I don't understand this obsession with seeing everything as a market.

I can fill you in why, it is because libertarians and anarchists are on the extreme right of the spectrum in terms of economics, they believe that the free market can provide the best solutions to the problems we face when compared to government or in this case centralized control, anarchism can even be described as an extreme form of capitalism. This is why people with this ideological slant do tend to compare everything with the market which is because many of them do believe that the ideal way to organize society is through a free market, and there are a lot of libertarians and anarchists in the Bitcoin community. lol

That's not having a political slant, that's being delusional. Not everything is a free market, and by imagining things that are not free market as they were, you just live an illusion and fail to achieve any actual goals in the real world neither individual nor collective.

every market as free just because you wish it to be. This is simply delusional

Not all markets are free, though some Marxists might argue that there is no such thing as a free market.

Of course there are free markets, but blocksize cap is not one, neither is the fee currently (sorry Peter) nor the total number of coins to be minted, to cite some examples. Whether some of that would be better as a free market is debatable, the reality is they are not as of today and they are unlikely to ever be.

[VeritasSapere]

It is a market because it represents a free choice between currencies/financial policies/cryptocurrencies. It is a free market because the choice is free and not under the pressure of any regulation by a government or other entity forcing us to conform, therefore it is a free market.

Except it's obviously not a free choice. But you keep on telling yourself that as you cannot choose.

You are trying to imply that I contradicted myself, I did not. I know that I have the free choice, so therefore I do. Even people that have been convinced that they do not have this choice still technically and factually do have this free choice, however this does not change that if the economic majority does become totalitarian in its thinking it could still subvert the principles we hold dear, just like it often does in state democracies.

I don't understand this obsession with seeing everything as a market.

I can fill you in why, it is because libertarians and anarchists are on the extreme right of the spectrum in terms of economics, they believe that the free market can provide the best solutions to the problems we face when compared to government or in this case centralized control, anarchism can even be described as an extreme form of capitalism. This is why people with this ideological slant do tend to compare everything with the market which is because many of them do believe that the ideal way to organize society is through a free market, and there are a lot of libertarians and anarchists in the Bitcoin community. lol

That's not having a political slant, that's being delusional. Not everything is a free market, and by imagining things that are not free market as they were, you just live an illusion and fail to achieve any actual goals in the real world neither individual nor collective.

I suppose I am able to recognise that people have different ideologies then myself and I can respect that, I do not just describe ideologies I disagree with as "delusional". Marx for instance contributed much to our knowledge of economics today yet I do not agree with everything he says. I am definitely not a Marxist, however I can respect people who are different to myself, tolerance after all is an important foundation for having a peaceful society.

every market as free just because you wish it to be. This is simply delusional

Not all markets are free, though some Marxists might argue that there is no such thing as a free market.

Of course there are free markets, but blocksize cap is not one, neither is the fee currently (sorry Peter) nor the total number of coins to be minted, to cite some examples. Whether some of that would be better as a free market is debatable, the reality is they are not as of today and they are unlikely to ever be.

The entire Bitcoin protocol is part of the free market, everyone could decide to stop using it tomorrow, or the whole world could adopt it instead. You stating that some aspects of Bitcoin are not free and are not under the effects of the free market is therefore wrong. People do have the choice, everyone here has independently chosen to use Bitcoin for themselves and they can in the same sense choose to stop using it tomorrow.

Anyone can freely choose to run an alternative implementation as well which can propose to change any parameter of the Bitcoin protocol. Whether the economic majority sides with the change is a different matter, which is why so far at least the theory is that the block reward will not be increased, at least not without causing a chain fork. This is the game theory, psychology and economic theory that Bitcoin relies on for arguably its most important value proposition. I think that the Bitcoin protocol will continue to succeed in aligning peoples incentives in this way, time will tell whether I am correct and whether this grand experiment we call Bitcoin will continue to prove its premise.

[muyuu]

Try not being so lazy and quoting only the relevant parts.

Except it's obviously not a free choice. But you keep on telling yourself that as you cannot choose.

You are trying to imply that I contradicted myself, I did not. I know that I have the free choice, so therefore I do. Even people that have been convinced that they do not have this choice still technically and factually do have this free choice, however this does not change that if the economic majority does become totalitarian in its thinking it could still subvert the principles we hold dear, just like it often does in state democracies.

No, I'm just informing you that blocksize cap currently is not a free choice for neither the individual user nor the individual miner nor basically anyone. You need a mining majority to subvert the cap. That makes it remarkably "non free". It is so by design. I believe there are a few lost souls trying to make a client without caps and the rest untouched. If this client had a mining majority, then the blocksize cap would be sort of a free market.

That's not having a political slant, that's being delusional. Not everything is a free market, and by imagining things that are not free market as they were, you just live an illusion and fail to achieve any actual goals in the real world neither individual nor collective.

I suppose I am able to recognise that people have different ideologies then myself and I can respect that, I do not just describe ideologies I disagree with as "delusional". Marx for instance contributed much to our knowledge of economics today yet I do not agree with everything he says. I am definitely not a Marxist, however I can respect people who are different to myself, tolerance after all is an important foundation for having a peaceful society.

No, quite likely I'm more of an anarchist than you are. This has nothing to do with ideologies. Ideologies don't necessarily make you blind to evident realities. What you are saying is just nonsense and honestly I have no idea what your ideology is, and I don't care.

Free markets have objective properties. Wishing that something should be a free market doesn't make it so.

Of course there are free markets, but blocksize cap is not one, neither is the fee currently (sorry Peter) nor the total number of coins to be minted, to cite some examples. Whether some of that would be better as a free market is debatable, the reality is they are not as of today and they are unlikely to ever be.

The entire Bitcoin protocol is part of the free market, everyone could decide to stop using it tomorrow, or the whole world could adopt it instead. You stating that some aspects of Bitcoin are not free and are not under the effects of the free market is therefore wrong. People do have the choice, everyone here has independently chosen to use Bitcoin for themselves and they can in the same sense choose to stop using it tomorrow.

Erm what? If you mean that there is a market of coins then possibly so, although not necessarily very efficient, functioning or free (alt-coins). Bitcoin itself as a protocol is not in any sort of markets, although maybe you can make a very wild analogy to see parallel Universes as markets or something esoteric like that. But in practical terms, you are not making sense. If this were a free market then why are you opposing its will surely devs are part of this market too then, and they have decided strongly as a majority against your beloved BIP101 and also XT, so it doesn't go into Core. You guys run XT, everybody happy. Free market right? except obviously it isn't. 

-----

Got to go now.

[brg444]

This whole discussion is a confusion over voluntarism and the free-market.

By Veritas definition, the USD is a free market.

I'm sorry for entertaining this whole thing   muyuu is right, we ought to stop trying to stick the free-market label on everything

[VeritasSapere]

Except it's obviously not a free choice. But you keep on telling yourself that as you cannot choose.

You are trying to imply that I contradicted myself, I did not. I know that I have the free choice, so therefore I do. Even people that have been convinced that they do not have this choice still technically and factually do have this free choice, however this does not change that if the economic majority does become totalitarian in its thinking it could still subvert the principles we hold dear, just like it often does in state democracies.

No, I'm just informing you that blocksize cap currently is not a free choice for neither the individual user nor the individual miner nor basically anyone. You need a mining majority to subvert the cap. That makes it remarkably "non free". It is so by design. I believe there are a few lost souls trying to make a client without caps and the rest untouched. If this client had a mining majority, then the blocksize cap would be sort of a free market.

The miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. The entire concept of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are based on the free market, no feature or parameter is excluded from this, I have already proven my point, agree to disagree I guess.

That's not having a political slant, that's being delusional. Not everything is a free market, and by imagining things that are not free market as they were, you just live an illusion and fail to achieve any actual goals in the real world neither individual nor collective.

I suppose I am able to recognise that people have different ideologies then myself and I can respect that, I do not just describe ideologies I disagree with as "delusional". Marx for instance contributed much to our knowledge of economics today yet I do not agree with everything he says. I am definitely not a Marxist, however I can respect people who are different to myself, tolerance after all is an important foundation for having a peaceful society.

No, quite likely I'm more of an anarchist than you are. This has nothing to do with ideologies. Ideologies don't necessarily make you blind to evident realities. What you are saying is just nonsense and honestly I have no idea what your ideology is, and I don't care.

This has everything to do with ideologies, since when we apply different ideologies to this problem we get different answers. This has become a debate about the fundamental principles of Bitcoin, decentralization and financial freedom are ideological concepts after all.

Of course there are free markets, but blocksize cap is not one, neither is the fee currently (sorry Peter) nor the total number of coins to be minted, to cite some examples. Whether some of that would be better as a free market is debatable, the reality is they are not as of today and they are unlikely to ever be.

The entire Bitcoin protocol is part of the free market, everyone could decide to stop using it tomorrow, or the whole world could adopt it instead. You stating that some aspects of Bitcoin are not free and are not under the effects of the free market is therefore wrong. People do have the choice, everyone here has independently chosen to use Bitcoin for themselves and they can in the same sense choose to stop using it tomorrow.

Erm what? If you mean that there is a market of coins then possibly so, although not necessarily very efficient, functioning or free (alt-coins). Bitcoin itself as a protocol is not in any sort of markets.

Bitcoin is most definitely in the market and it does need to compete. It is being actively traded in several exchanges and it is used all around the world for many different things, including trade. Bitcoin is therefore on the market.

But in practical terms, you are not making sense. If this were a free market then why are you opposing its will

This seems to imply to me that you do not understand free markets, a free market is not comprised of a monolithic totalitarian consensus. It is instead made up from different people with different views operating in a free environment making free choices. Consensus in Bitcoin also does not mean that everyone has to agree with each other all the time, which would only be possible when you do have a centralized authority that everyone can agree with. Disagreements can be resolved through proof of work, this is the ingenious way that Bitcoin has solved this age old problem. I do not understand what problem you could possibly have with that, unless you think we should only have one option to choose from, which would be an accurate description of totalitarianism.