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

[Zarathustra]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.

So now I'm thinking, let the max_block_size float up to any unlimited size. But have a limit on how fast it can rise that makes practical sense, a rate limiter of some sort so it can grow as fast the network grows but not so fast that an attacker could game it over the medium/short term to force smaller users off the network with unrealistic hardware upgrade requirements. Ultimately though have an infinite limit to max block size in the long term, as Mike Hearn says.

marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022

[1714249876]

1714249876

[1714249876]

1714249876

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.

So now I'm thinking, let the max_block_size float up to any unlimited size. But have a limit on how fast it can rise that makes practical sense, a rate limiter of some sort so it can grow as fast the network grows but not so fast that an attacker could game it over the medium/short term to force smaller users off the network with unrealistic hardware upgrade requirements. Ultimately though have an infinite limit to max block size in the long term, as Mike Hearn says.

marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022

That was from 10 April 2013. I wouldn't change much in that quote with new information since then, (you left out much that still has relevance, especially the concluding sentence, in your haste to spin your twisted angle in italicised bolded glory).

The biggest new information since then is how Gavin and Mike chose to wantonly split the community in a blatant political power grab with all their "meta" governance BS, which is just cover for their deficient technical skills ... at that point all bets were off and any hope for an amicable technical consensus based on "best effort engineering" for such a multi-variate problem. They reap what they sow and you bunch are fools for following and championing such meglomaniacal incompetents, that's all I need to know for now.

Please, I do not expect a reply from you. Your words are basically worthless, repetitive garbage, my reply was for the interested reader.

[Lauda]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

[Zarathustra]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.

So now I'm thinking, let the max_block_size float up to any unlimited size. But have a limit on how fast it can rise that makes practical sense, a rate limiter of some sort so it can grow as fast the network grows but not so fast that an attacker could game it over the medium/short term to force smaller users off the network with unrealistic hardware upgrade requirements. Ultimately though have an infinite limit to max block size in the long term, as Mike Hearn says.

marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022

That was from 10 April 2013. I wouldn't change much in that quote with new information since then, (you left out much that still has relevance, especially the concluding sentence, in your haste to spin your twisted angle in italicised bolded glory).

The biggest new information since then is how Gavin and Mike chose to wantonly split the community in a blatant political power grab with all their "meta" governance BS,

Conspiracy BS.

[VeritasSapere]

Just have a look at this   HAHAHA

https://archive.is/gqHB8

They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  

Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind.

this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys.

So now I'm thinking, let the max_block_size float up to any unlimited size. But have a limit on how fast it can rise that makes practical sense, a rate limiter of some sort so it can grow as fast the network grows but not so fast that an attacker could game it over the medium/short term to force smaller users off the network with unrealistic hardware upgrade requirements. Ultimately though have an infinite limit to max block size in the long term, as Mike Hearn says.

marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022

That was from 10 April 2013. I wouldn't change much in that quote with new information since then, (you left out much that still has relevance, especially the concluding sentence, in your haste to spin your twisted angle in italicised bolded glory).

The biggest new information since then is how Gavin and Mike chose to wantonly split the community in a blatant political power grab with all their "meta" governance BS, which is just cover for their deficient technical skills ... at that point all bets were off and any hope for an amicable technical consensus based on "best effort engineering" for such a multi-variate problem. They reap what they sow and you bunch are fools for following and championing such meglomaniacal incompetents, that's all I need to know for now.

Please, I do not expect a reply from you. Your words are basically worthless, repetitive garbage, my reply was for the interested reader.

Giving people the free choice to take a different path from Core is not a power grab unless you think that all power should reside within Core. If you believe differently then that is fine, however the Bitcoin protocol does allow us all to make the free choice of what code to run.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm going to be nice. I'm helping the XT'ers out.

Why not propose a serious implementation of IBLT before attempting to popularise a hostile chain-fork attempt? It's clear that the latter strategy isn't working, but guess what? If you could do a successful trial of IBLT on testnet, then your position is strengthened a great deal. The mistake, as it seems to me, is to try to do it the other way round: push hard for the 8MB fork without IBLT to mitigate the bandwidth issues, when that's what all of Andresen's blocksize research was predicated on to begin with.

Why did Gavin offer an implementation of the outcome of his experiments before he implemented the fundamentals of the research?

[VeritasSapere]

I'm going to be nice. I'm helping the XT'ers out.

Why not propose a serious implementation of IBLT before attempting to popularise a hostile chain-fork attempt? It's clear that the latter strategy isn't working, but guess what? If you could do a successful trial of IBLT on testnet, then your position is strengthened a great deal. The mistake, as it seems to me, is to try to do it the other way round: push hard for the 8MB fork without IBLT to mitigate the bandwidth issues, when that's what all of Andresen's blocksize research was predicated on to begin with.

Why did Gavin offer an implementation of the outcome of his experiments into changing the blocksize before he implemented the fundamentals of the research?

Because the network can handle an increased blocksize without IBLT. Furthermore we should not rely on unfinished technology when faced with increased transaction volume. If it can be implemented that would be great. There is also another aspect to this which I found interesting:

The problem, a miner solving a Bitcoin block want to get that block out to all the other miners as fast as possible. If some other miner, B, solves a block roughly at the same time, a race starts. The block that reaches a majority of the network’s hashing power first will probably be the winning block.

This means that there’s incentive for the miner to keep the block small so that it propagates the network faster. Smaller blocks means fewer transactions. Fewer transactions means higher fees for end users. Higher fees means less adoption.

Therefore if IBLT is not implemented then there will be an incentive for miners to keep the blocks smaller unless the transaction fees outweigh the benefit of doing so, which considering your position I would not think that this would be such a bad outcome.

[hdbuck]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.


"creating a toxic user community"

[sgbett]

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.

11, confirmed.

[VeritasSapere]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

[OrientA]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

Most miners support smaller increase of block size. Their network bandwidth is not broad enough to big block size. So most miners support BIP100. Payment processors do not care about the bandwidth as their bandwidth requirement is much lower. So the interest is conflict for the miners and payment processors.

[Carlton Banks]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

[hdbuck]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

He is a joke indeed, from the very beginning, a pseudo libertarian, enjoying his time in the spot light like a diva and talking to some crappy TV shows and whatever senate hearing with the shittiest socialist propaganda about helping the unbanked and saving africa, zomg bitcoin for 6 billion people nao!.

I recall MP throwing some lulzy treat over him on twitter which got him banned, so much for the drama in bitocinland.

Yet even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then, and i find it funny he finally admits that the blocksize shitstorm was nurtured by some professionnal trolls embrigading charlatans and other wannabes over reddit.

Toxic you say? That is exactly what wlad said about mike hearn.
Negativity and politics on the dev list? peter rizun hello.

Anyway, in the end, all these noobs are irrelevant.

[sickpig]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

Most miners support smaller increase of block size. Their network bandwidth is not broad enough to big block size. So most miners support BIP100. Payment processors do not care about the bandwidth as their bandwidth requirement is much lower. So the interest is conflict for the miners and payment processors.

I think that miners support of BIP100 is due to the fact that such BIP give them a lot of extra control on block size in respect to e.g. BIP101.

[hdbuck]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

Most miners support smaller increase of block size. Their network bandwidth is not broad enough to big block size. So most miners support BIP100. Payment processors do not care about the bandwidth as their bandwidth requirement is much lower. So the interest is conflict for the miners and payment processors.

I think that miners support of BIP100 is due to the fact that such BIP give them a lot of extra control on block size in respect to e.g. BIP101.

well hello captain obvious

but then again miners votes are also irrelevant in the end.

[sickpig]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

Most miners support smaller increase of block size. Their network bandwidth is not broad enough to big block size. So most miners support BIP100. Payment processors do not care about the bandwidth as their bandwidth requirement is much lower. So the interest is conflict for the miners and payment processors.

I think that miners support of BIP100 is due to the fact that such BIP give them a lot of extra control on block size in respect to e.g. BIP101.

well hello captain obvious

but then again miners votes are also irrelevant in the end.

you misunderstood my intentions my lord, I was not expressing any judgement whatsoever on the value of the two aforementioned BIPs. you can spare a few ammo to hit evil BIP101 supporters next time.

[hdbuck]

You saying that there is near to zero support for BIP101 is simply not true.
-snip-

I have not said that and my statement is true. XT != BIP 101. I have said that there is near zero support for XT (look at e.g. miners).

Most miners support smaller increase of block size. Their network bandwidth is not broad enough to big block size. So most miners support BIP100. Payment processors do not care about the bandwidth as their bandwidth requirement is much lower. So the interest is conflict for the miners and payment processors.

I think that miners support of BIP100 is due to the fact that such BIP give them a lot of extra control on block size in respect to e.g. BIP101.

well hello captain obvious

but then again miners votes are also irrelevant in the end.

you misunderstood my intentions my lord, I was not expressing any judgement whatsoever on the value of the two aforementioned BIPs. you can spare a few ammo to hit evil BIP101 supporters next time.

I did not sense any judgement regarding the bips from you fella, you just stated a pure fact that miners are indeed encline to support any protocol change that might give them an advantage.

Very obvious again, yet it seems people dont even see this, or just got nothing wrong with such crappy pseudo democratical voting mechanism (which thankfully again, is irrelevant in the end).

So we are pretty much beating a dead horse here, nonetheless it is quite entertaining to make a mountain out of a molehill!

[danielW]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

I think the trolls he was referring to were people like Peter R, who are making a technical mailing list unusable, due to their impractical philosophical ramblings. Talk is cheap, and thats all Peter R has. The opinion of people who have produced real working htings  like Hash Cash,  Bit gold, or Torrent network is infinitely more valuable.


Also Andreas is a good person, and a great explainer for newbies but by his own admission does not have the deep Bitcoin technical knowledge of the core developers and others.

[danielW]

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

[VeritasSapere]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

He is a joke indeed, from the very beginning, a pseudo libertarian, enjoying his time in the spot light like a diva and talking to some crappy TV shows and whatever senate hearing with the shittiest socialist propaganda about helping the unbanked and saving africa, zomg bitcoin for 6 billion people nao!.

I recall MP throwing some lulzy treat over him on twitter which got him banned, so much for the drama in bitocinland.

Yet even a blind squirrel can find a nut now and then, and i find it funny he finally admits that the blocksize shitstorm was nurtured by some professionnal trolls embrigading charlatans and other wannabes over reddit.

Toxic you say? That is exactly what wlad said about mike hearn.
Negativity and politics on the dev list? peter rizun hello.

Anyway, in the end, all these noobs are irrelevant.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.