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

[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.

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 :/

so many unsurprising things.

[1714308993]

1714308993

[1714308993]

1714308993

[1714308993]

1714308993

[1714308993]

1714308993

[hdbuck]

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/665616736377524225

[Lauda]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT. These long replies tend to be useless. Putting the 'free market' label on random words isn't helping you.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT.

what are we going to talk about when XT becomes an old dead memory?

[muyuu]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT.

what are we going to talk about when XT becomes an old dead memory?

The State and the bankster clique will keep trying to coopt Bitcoin one way or the other. In that sense it won't go away.

[iCEBREAKER]

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 :/

Don't fret my dear, the Winkles understand Bitcoin better than you do.

I've seen them speak live and in-person.  They grok crypto, and are each individually smarter than fellow Harvard grad Zuckerworm.

Together, they are going to play a large role in catalyzing the economic revolution and restoring financial sovereignty.

Leave it to you to make a 'zomg Gemini is d000med' mountain out of a courtesy molehill that is entirely within the exchange's TOS.

[iCEBREAKER]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT.

what are we going to talk about when XT becomes an old dead memory?

Bitcoin Unlimited and/or NG perhaps?

Now that XT is obviously a non-starter beyond all shadow of a doubt (even for the most brainwashed Gavinista try-hards), we get to enjoy the fracturing of the XTurds into mutually antagonistic/hostile subgroups.

Narcissicm of small differences guarantees they will hate each other far more than even their old nemesis, the Blockstream/Thermos/PTodd Axis of Sensor Ships!

If we get too bored, we'll simply pop over to bitco.in or the Bitcoin Judas forum to gather fresh new comedy milk from their small but productive herds of lolcows.

But that may not be necessary as Peter R, our prized blue-ribbon winning purebred spherical Holstein, just can't seem to quit us!   

[iCEBREAKER]

Our cup runneth over with the sweet milk of the XT lolcows!

This is just too perfect.

First, in a (/r/bitcoinxt?) post that seems to have disappeared, Gavin (to his credit) told his superstitious cult that CLTV is great and not the devil.

Then this happened.  The level of self-clowing is over 9000.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3sp91t/how_is_xtbip101_going_to_deal_with_cltv_v4_blocks/

jtoomim 10 points 1 day ago

This is a problem. Because the check in Bitcoin Core is for block version greater than v3, BitcoinXT will show up as supporting CLTV when currently it does not.

The rules for BIP65 (CLTV) activation are this: At 75%, BIP65 nodes will reject blocks if they have a block version greater than 3 and if they include a transaction with the new OP_CLTV instruction incorrectly (i.e. will enforce OP_CLTV). At 95%, BIP65 nodes will reject blocks with a version of 3 or below, and will enforce OP_CLTV on all blocks. Because BIP101 nodes will be interpreted as enforcing OP_CLTV when they do not, this makes mining with BIP101 without OP_CLTV dangerous as soon as OP_CLTV reaches 75%.

I find it interesting that Core chose to use this v4 check after BIP101 and BitcoinXT had been released.

The only way I see to resolve this is to add OP_CLTV support to BitcoinXT.

Gee, that's too bad about the "the technicalities of version bits" which now allow every node to share in the fun of spoofing XT/101.   

# R 3 K T
R           K
3         3
K           R
T K 3 R #

[Peter R]

But that may not be necessary as Peter R, our prized blue-ribbon winning purebred spherical Holstein, just can't seem to quit us!  

Man, I thought I was a spherical cow counter from the subartic tundra.  Now that I find out I'm actually a blue-ribbon winning purebred spherical Holstein, I'm going to have to change my /r/bitcoinxt flair again :



Prize-winning purebred holstein:

[inca]

<several informative, relevant and forward thinking posts from Satoshi regarding the blocksize limit>

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

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

A major issue that reduces your ability to persuade an outside observer towards your argument is that you seem to think it is ok to pick and choose when an argument is valid. On the one hand you argue that Satoshi's decisions are important when they support your argument, but when someone posts a number of absolutely relevant posts from Satoshi that completely disagree with your position then you decide it is time they must be ignored.

My personal view is that market forces will win the day in this slowly drawn out blocksize drama - not a few developers who were handed over the reins of a single reference client. No end users have voted for a fee market or a blocksize cap and ultimately that will not benefit bitcoin and will be rejected if the economic majority want a different bitcoin as transaction volumes approach the cap.

Arguing that the economic majority cannot be allowed to decide the rules of the protocol is plainly ridiculous as the implementation the majority run is bitcoin - longest valid chain or not, what matters is if it has value. I find the idea of the 21 million limit being raised anathema to me personally, but if the economic majority decide it is to be raised then it will be raised. What makes this an edge case is the threat of catastrophic loss of value to stakeholders in the system, the same powerful economic force which prevents a 51% attack from being attempted even with centralisation of mining.

The only thing that interests me now about the blocksize debate is how the network forks and what form that takes. Major companies in the space like Coinbase and Bitpay are now publicly taking a stand against the Core developer position which is extraordinary on the face of it. It will be fascinating to see how this plays out and whether you and your colleagues who actively promote the limitation of bitcoin with such gusto are happy with the outcome.

Will you still use bitcoin if an industry supported reference client (with a scaling blocksize inbuilt) rapidly garners support and sidelines Core and it's developers?

[Lauda]

what are we going to talk about when XT becomes an old dead memory?

The State and the bankster clique will keep trying to coopt Bitcoin one way or the other. In that sense it won't go away.

I think you are right. There is always something to talk about, just different variations of bad things. It's like someone is not wanting us to enjoy our time here (either it's some scam, closure, or this). I'm fairly certain that Hearn has connections to those that we hate the most. The question is how far do these connections go inside the Bitcoin ecosystem? (let's not forget Coinbase CEO)

[DiamondCardz]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT. These long replies tend to be useless. Putting the 'free market' label on random words isn't helping you.

But but but muh crypto-anarchism!! We gotta stop da censorships!!111!11one!!!

/s

Most XT supporters are literally just blindly circlejerking at this point and ignoring the fact that there are plenty of other solutions that...people actually agree on...but of course they have to find some way to try to bitch about this massive "censorship", it's like /r/bitcoin and their hard-on for forum.bitcoin.com at the moment and /r/btc and /r/bitcoinxt.

[VeritasSapere]

I still can't see a single good reason for XT. These long replies tend to be useless. Putting the 'free market' label on random words isn't helping you.

There are good reosons to support XT, increasing the blocksize is one of them.

[hdbuck]

...
Will you still use bitcoin if an industry supported reference client (with a scaling blocksize inbuilt) rapidly garners support and sidelines Core and it's developers?

i'd surely keep my coins away from any corporatist cryptowetdreams.

bitcoins does not need coinbase, bitpay, tbf et al. (inasmuch as 'coredevs')

they need bitcoin otoh. parasites.

[muyuu]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

[–]gavinandresen 0 points 1 hour ago

So...
Imagine we live in Voluntopia. There are no governments, everybody is free to interact, to put whatever they like into their bodies, etc.
There would still be law enforcement, of course, it would just be private law enforcement instead of government law enforcement.
If we lived in such a world, would it be OK to talk with law enforcement about how criminals use Bitcoin or the block chain to defraud or extort people?
I'm pragmatic; I want to see Bitcoin succeed, and I want to help law enforcement catch people who are harming other people. Yes, I know government law enforcement does a lot of OTHER things that have nothing to do with bad people hurting good people; I hope that changes one day.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is better long-term strategy to engage with people you disagree with or disengage. Maybe if I'd studied history or politics instead of computer science I'd believe disengagement was the best strategy; maybe somebody who HAS studied history or politics can chime in....

[hdbuck]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

[–]gavinandresen 0 points 1 hour ago

So...
Imagine we live in Voluntopia. There are no governments, everybody is free to interact, to put whatever they like into their bodies, etc.
There would still be law enforcement, of course, it would just be private law enforcement instead of government law enforcement.
If we lived in such a world, would it be OK to talk with law enforcement about how criminals use Bitcoin or the block chain to defraud or extort people?
I'm pragmatic; I want to see Bitcoin succeed, and I want to help law enforcement catch people who are harming other people. Yes, I know government law enforcement does a lot of OTHER things that have nothing to do with bad people hurting good people; I hope that changes one day.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is better long-term strategy to engage with people you disagree with or disengage. Maybe if I'd studied history or politics instead of computer science I'd believe disengagement was the best strategy; maybe somebody who HAS studied history or politics can chime in....

[VeritasSapere]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

He was talking about a hypothetical future where there is no government, he is asking the question of whether it would be justified under this scenario to help catch bad people using the blockchain. It is a completely hypothetical question about a future that is most likely very far away. You are taking his words out of context, your accusations are not accurate.

[muyuu]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

He was talking about a hypothetical future where there is no government, he is asking the question of whether it would be justified under this scenario to help catch bad people using the blockchain. It is a completely hypothetical question about a future that is most likely very far away. You are taking his words out of context, your accusations are not accurate.

He's talking about his current work in the GaviNSAlliance. Read the post and stop wasting my time with your nonsense.

[muyuu]

Today Gavin pretty much admitted that he's down to end fungibility and enable law enforcement on Bitcoin because "think of the baddies":

https://archive.is/4jL7n#selection-13347.0-13407.316

[–]gavinandresen 0 points 1 hour ago

So...
Imagine we live in Voluntopia. There are no governments, everybody is free to interact, to put whatever they like into their bodies, etc.
There would still be law enforcement, of course, it would just be private law enforcement instead of government law enforcement.
If we lived in such a world, would it be OK to talk with law enforcement about how criminals use Bitcoin or the block chain to defraud or extort people?
I'm pragmatic; I want to see Bitcoin succeed, and I want to help law enforcement catch people who are harming other people. Yes, I know government law enforcement does a lot of OTHER things that have nothing to do with bad people hurting good people; I hope that changes one day.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is better long-term strategy to engage with people you disagree with or disengage. Maybe if I'd studied history or politics instead of computer science I'd believe disengagement was the best strategy; maybe somebody who HAS studied history or politics can chime in....

[hdbuck]

gotta admit these USGmoles do not waste a minute to come up with some new BS around each corner...

TBF, Bitlicense, bitcoinXT, and now Blockchain Alliance.. wow


http://trilema.com/2012/the-politics-of-bitcoin/#selection-101.0-108.0