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

[hdbuck]

Obviously you think that the Core developers should decide for us, I think that the decision making process for Bitcoin should become more distributed instead, the future of Bitcoin should be decided by the economic majority which as far as I understand it is also how Bitcoin ultimately still functions today.

With great power comes great responsibility. If we followed your reasoning, not only would we be letting the users re-code Bitcoin by general election, we'd also democratise the hydrogen bomb as well. One in every home! What a thought!

only if it mines bitcoin!

[1714286866]

1714286866

[1714286866]

1714286866

[VeritasSapere]

We have seen this 'longest chain' verbiage where 'valid' is notably excluded for some time.  I take it as a backup or auxiliary attack strategy.  Every opportunity is taken to lay the foundation participant misunderstanding however.  That misinformation effort seems to have picked up again over this last month here on bitcointalk.org.

Basically, if a bloatblock (for instance) can be inserted just one time, it would fork the chain and obsolete Bitcoin core software.

So what if a given version of bitcoin software is obsoleted by evolution of the network?  The "core" developers have done this themselves several times.  Arguments along the line of "longest valid chain" do not resolve the issue under debate. They just move the debate to the meaning of the word "valid".

Despite some advertising claims, the security of bitcoin does not depend on mathematics alone, it depends upon running software, which intern depends on running hardware which is supported by the economic majority. Any other way of defining "valid" necessarily requires the argument from authority, which ultimately results in a debate over who is the authority.  With this, any hope of a decentralized system goes out the door.

Valid is subjective of course, and the changes to that are decided by the dev team. Very perceptive! That's how it's always been, seeing as even now Bitcoin is still a work in progress.

The system is already decentralised in the ways that Satoshi imagined. Yours and the "Bitcoin Unlimited" crowd's mentality involves letting the user loose with deciding every aspect of the system. It's lunacy, it's the opposite of what's been going on up to now, and it would end with all the different "Bitcoins" disintegrating, apart from the overbloated centralised one perhaps

Valid being a subjective term is indeed a good observation. The question still stands of who decides? Obviously you think that the Core developers should decide for us, I think that the decision making process for Bitcoin should become more distributed instead, the future of Bitcoin should be decided by the economic majority which as far as I understand it is also how Bitcoin ultimately still functions today.

Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"?

The will of the economic majority is more important then Satoshi's vision. Invoking Satoshi's vision surely must be a mistake on your behalf however since he did support increasing the blocksize:

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

He even specified how we should phase it in:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[iCEBREAKER]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.   

[hdbuck]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

ay, cheers mon ami!

marion for the win <3 ^^

[brg444]

boring

I'm not even referring to the block size. You're done as far as I'm concerned. Ignored for ever.

I'd ask that everyone in the thread does the same and we stop entertaining this retard

[brg444]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

ay, cheers mon ami!

im more of a marion crush <3

Je ne peux que vous souhaitez bonne chance pour la suite. Ca va être la galère....

[hdbuck]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

ay, cheers mon ami!

im more of a marion crush <3

Je ne peux que vous souhaitez bonne chance pour la suite. Ca va être la galère....

heh, thx, we all in the same globalist bs war against terrorism whilst being milked by them banksters...

fud is the way into the nwo.

fuckem. at least i got bitcoins.

[brg444]

fuckem. at least i got bitcoins.

[Carlton Banks]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

Dunno Ice, love ya dude, but Front National genuinely are so xenophobic that they're openly racist really. Seriously, you'll very easily get tarred with that brush.

Le Pen and her British equivalents remind me of the Fake-a-tarians that totally saturate the American media outlets; there to make the ideology look bad. There's nothing libertarian about closed borders and/or rejecting non-native workers from working in a cogent population.

[iCEBREAKER]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

ay, cheers mon ami!

marion for the win <3 ^^

Smart and hawt.



10/10 would like a smootch too!

[hdbuck]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

Dunno Ice, love ya dude, but Front National genuinely are so xenophobic that they're openly racist really. Seriously, you'll very easily get tarred with that brush.

Le Pen and her British equivalents remind me of the Fake-a-tarians that totally saturate the American media outlets; there to make the ideology look bad. There's nothing libertarian about closed borders and/or rejecting non-native workers from working in a cogent population.

that antisemitic xenophbic thing is nothing but preformatted socialist mainstreameries, no offense.

jean marie le pen is one of the last french war hero, he surely have seen it all and his dedication to his country has been flawless.

[iCEBREAKER]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  

Dunno Ice, love ya dude, but Front National genuinely are so xenophobic that they're openly racist really. Seriously, you'll very easily get tarred with that brush.

Le Pen and her British equivalents remind me of the Fake-a-tarians that totally saturate the American media outlets; there to make the ideology look bad. There's nothing libertarian about closed borders and/or rejecting non-native workers from working in a cogent population.

"When they came for FN I said nothing, because I didn't want to lose my invitations to popular cocktail parties..."

 

YMMV, but I welcome the wrath of the SJW and do not fear their weapons of xenophobia/racism accusations, nor their threats of social ostracism.

Tolerating and facilitating intentional communities bound by tradition and ethnicity is the epitome of libertarianism/minachy.

What sets the movement back is the knee-jerk finger wagging by the Professional Libertarians and Undergraduate Anarchists about open borders Right Fucking Now No Matter What and the mandatory cultural atomicity thereby required/entailed.

French people in France have every right to national self-determination.  Tranzi Eurocrats in Brussels have no right to force them to open their borders to millions of non-French who are culturally hostile to the foundational ideals of La Republic.

[hdbuck]

that break up between daughter and father is quite fishy tho.

hope marine has not sold her soul.

[StarenseN]

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.   

ay, cheers mon ami!

im more of a marion crush <3

Je ne peux que vous souhaitez bonne chance pour la suite. Ca va être la galère....

heh, thx, we all in the same globalist bs war against terrorism whilst being milked by them banksters...

fud is the way into the nwo.

fuckem. at least i got bitcoins.

Monde yeux...

[hdbuck]

fail of a corporation reversing trades now: https://archive.is/W3x7G

On the evening of Friday, 13 November 2015, a Gemini customer notified us that they had placed a very large market order on the exchange in error.
After reviewing the trade, our account review team and executive management determined that the trade was made due to customer error, and meets our criteria for reversal as defined in our terms of service. Following this determination, we reversed each trade that resulted from the market order.
You are receiving this email because you were the counterparty to one of the trades that took place as a result of the erroneous customer order. You may notice that your account balances have changed as a result. You will also see an admin credit and debit entry in your transaction history on Gemini for the trade reversal.
Gemini customers are ultimately responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their orders before placing trades. Trade reversal decisions are made fully at the discretion of Gemini management in cases where the erroneous nature of the trade is clear, notification by the customer is swift, and the impact on all affected parties has been considered and weighed.
We understand you may have questions related to this trade reversal, and encourage you to write us with any questions or concerns you may have.
Thanks,
Gemini Support

thats how the statist noobs wanted it, thats is how they'll get it.

[Cuidler]

Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"?

The will of the economic majority is more important then Satoshi's vision. Invoking Satoshi's vision surely must be a mistake on your behalf however since he did support increasing the blocksize:

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

He even specified how we should phase it in:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Interesting with such Satoshi foresee for the need of bigger maximum blocksize limits in future, he did not put some mechanism for automatic increases, like every block reward halving = maximum blocksize limit doubling.

[Carlton Banks]

"When they came for FN I said nothing, because I didn't want to lose my invitations to popular cocktail parties..."

 

YMMV, but I welcome the wrath of the SJW and do not fear their weapons of xenophobia/racism accusations, nor their threats of social ostracism.

Tolerating and facilitating intentional communities bound by tradition and ethnicity is the epitome of libertarianism/minachy.

What sets the movement back is the knee-jerk finger wagging by the Professional Libertarians and Undergraduate Anarchists about open borders Right Fucking Now No Matter What and the mandatory cultural atomicity thereby required/entailed.

French people in France have every right to national self-determination.  Tranzi Eurocrats in Brussels have no right to force them to open their borders to millions of non-French who are culturally hostile to the foundational ideals of La Republic.

I'm a whole load of yes and no about all of that. Sure, tolerate the intolerable, but within limits, and it's heavily context dependent also. At the end of the day, the bunker strategy is not actually rational, and only limits the freedom of people, replaced with more state control. Sounds like more anti-libertarianism to me, but I'm a bit of a beginner on the topic.

[VeritasSapere]

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

I found this great thread from back in 2010 where Satoshi and others are discussing increasing the block size. I found this comment to be very interesting:

off-topic and I am sorry but I could not help myself. Why did satoshi ever stop posting visiting us?

There are many theories of this. One of them is can Bitcoin continue to function without centralized control? By leaving us he in effect left Bitcoin leaderless and that is by design. This block size issue is likely to be the perfect test since the community has no choice but to implement a hard fork. If Bitcoin survives this it will come out way stronger, there is however also a significant chance that block size issue will turn Bitcoin into a failed experiment.  By the way I would not consider your post off topic at all.

Here is the blocksize thread from 2010, it certainly is interesting to read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

[sgbett]

fail of a corporation reversing trades now: https://archive.is/W3x7G

On the evening of Friday, 13 November 2015, a Gemini customer notified us that they had placed a very large market order on the exchange in error.
After reviewing the trade, our account review team and executive management determined that the trade was made due to customer error, and meets our criteria for reversal as defined in our terms of service. Following this determination, we reversed each trade that resulted from the market order.
You are receiving this email because you were the counterparty to one of the trades that took place as a result of the erroneous customer order. You may notice that your account balances have changed as a result. You will also see an admin credit and debit entry in your transaction history on Gemini for the trade reversal.
Gemini customers are ultimately responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their orders before placing trades. Trade reversal decisions are made fully at the discretion of Gemini management in cases where the erroneous nature of the trade is clear, notification by the customer is swift, and the impact on all affected parties has been considered and weighed.
We understand you may have questions related to this trade reversal, and encourage you to write us with any questions or concerns you may have.
Thanks,
Gemini Support

thats how the statist noobs wanted it, thats is how they'll get it.

I'm a bit disappointed the the Winklevii seem stuck at the first base of "bitcoin is a get rich in fiat scheme". Sad news, but not wholly unsurprising :/

[muyuu]

Worth watching (English subtitles) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7B18tbZxu0