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

[Zarathustra]

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

[1714303222]

1714303222

[1714303222]

1714303222

[1714303222]

1714303222

[marcus_of_augustus]

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

... and the XTbuttheads have finally found their natural home, r/buttcoin, it was just a matter of time.

[Zarathustra]

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

... and the XTbuttheads have finally found their natural home, r/buttcoin, it was just a matter of time.

Compared to the censored sub not only the humor is better there.

[muyuu]

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again )

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Ideally the cap wouldn't even be needed. It's there because there is a vulnerability in the form of forcing tonnes of work on everybody in asymmetric fashion and with unpredictable dynamics. When this is cheap and easy, the system just needs a safeguard or it's trivial to attack inexpensively.

If miners could agree to sustainable criteria for tx inclusion following some standard and feather-forking the miners who don't follow it, the cap would not be necessary.

[ATguy]

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again )

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

[Carlton Banks]

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again )

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

So, going back to what you were saying about consensus at the scaling conference.

Are you trying to say that you're only interested in respecting consensus when they come to the same conclusions about the technical solution as you have? Isn't that the opposite of consensus? Does that not constitute you forcing your opinion on others?

[notbatman]

Those that have been deluded into supporting XT/BIP101 need to lay down the meth-pipe for a second. Off-chain and side-chain transactions will handle the bulk of the volume.

If there's an immediate problem it takes me 2 minutes to download and patch my node. Visa/MC/ATM goes down for 24/h+ sometimes in contrast.

[hdbuck]

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

1/ please provide empirical data as to any increase of bitcoin user base
2/ please provide technical details as to how relevant would the block size be when it come to scaling bitcoin effectively
3/ please provide evidence as to how increasing the blocksize would not lead to further centralization of the network.

until then, it is the contrary that prevails as bitcoin works perfectly fine as of now.

and you can keep the "pretty much impossible" for yourself.

[ATguy]

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again )

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

So, going back to what you were saying about consensus at the scaling conference.

Are you trying to say that you're only interested in respecting consensus when they come to the same conclusions about the technical solution as you have? Isn't that the opposite of consensus? Does that not constitute you forcing your opinion on others?

+

2/ please provide technical details as to how relevant would the block size be when it come to scaling bitcoin effectively

I respect consensus which solves sufficient Bitcoin scaling over time so Bitcoin users are not forced to use another altcoin because of the insufficient Bitcoin blockchain space for every Bitcoin user otherwise. Unless someone prove it can be realisticaly done other way, the obvious main working solution is increasing blocksize limits periodically as needed based on how much the blocks are filled so there is not situation when blocks are filled up all the time (aka DDOS and Bitcoin users forced to use another altcoin because no more space for more transactions on Bitcoin blockchain anymore)

[brg444]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

[muyuu]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

[Patel]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.

[muyuu]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.

I'm aware, and the redlisting "idea". His ideas often go in these directions, including his node prioritization schemes used in XT.

But if he seems he's hit a wall in his undermining of Bitcoin's decentralisation and censorship-resistance from within development, then he will try from the outside. I think it's a matter of time. Gavin already joined the "alliance" and is actively working in the policing of Bitcoin. Talk about conflict of interest.

[VeritasSapere]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.

I'm aware, and the redlisting "idea". His ideas often go in these directions, including his node prioritization schemes used in XT.

But if he seems he's hit a wall in his undermining of Bitcoin's decentralisation and censorship-resistance from within development, then he will try from the outside. I think it's a matter of time. Gavin already joined the "alliance" and is actively working in the policing of Bitcoin. Talk about conflict of interest.

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

[muyuu]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

It's verifiable facts. Your understanding of fallacies is that of a 14 year-old.

[Patel]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

Block scarcity is a important economical feature of bitcoin. Assuming Bitcoin will keep growing and growing is not the answer. Block size should scale according to demand, not according to assumptions. That's the only thing I have against BIP101

[VeritasSapere]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

It's verifiable facts. Your understanding of fallacies is that of a 14 year-old.

I am saying that I do not care about who writes the code and what kind of a person they are or even what their motivations might be, it should not be a popularity contest. This is my opinion and the verifiable facts do not change this whatsoever.

[VeritasSapere]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

Block scarcity is a important economical feature of bitcoin. Assuming Bitcoin will keep growing and growing is not the answer. Block size should scale according to demand, not according to assumptions. That's the only thing I have against BIP101

Fair enough, that is a valid criticism, I would support BIP100 or BIP103 instead of BIP101 when implemented, especially if that means we can reach a higher degree of consensus.

[hdbuck]

bitcoin does not need the masses, but it is the masses that needs bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need any of them corporations, but it is these parasites that needs bitcoin.

bitcoin does not adapt to anything, but the rest that adapts to bitcoin.

you are free to use it or not, transact with it or not, pay a higher fee or not.

else you are also free to simply fork off and use some other altcoin that suits your on chain coffee tipping fantasies as there is plenty of them already.

bitcoin is not a democracy, still...

[Carlton Banks]

And now Mike Hearn joins the bankers at REC3V and their blockchains.

"Conflict of interest" anyone?

If he can't get his way, and he won't, he will become a "blockchain technologies" person and try attacking Bitcoin from the outside instead of the inside. Pushing for making non-policeable cryptos illegal will be on his agenda sooner or later.

lol go look up his proof of passport scheme he was trying to push on miners. Basically miners wouldn't produce valid blocks unless they had a valid passport for govt agencies to see who is mining.

I'm aware, and the redlisting "idea". His ideas often go in these directions, including his node prioritization schemes used in XT.

But if he seems he's hit a wall in his undermining of Bitcoin's decentralisation and censorship-resistance from within development, then he will try from the outside. I think it's a matter of time. Gavin already joined the "alliance" and is actively working in the policing of Bitcoin. Talk about conflict of interest.

More ad hominem from the usual suspects. I do not care who writes the code, what matters is what is in the code itself. Even if the code was written by the devil himself or any other monster from the annals of history, I would still support it, because the code that is within BIP101 does represent the best path for Bitcoin going into the future, compared to the alternatives.

That's completely unfair to muyuu, you should know better, shouldn't you? He talked about the function and network effects of Mike's coding almost exclusively for the whole post, so you then level the criticism that he's talking about personalities and not code?

That's another dirty little argument you're trying to slip past us all, all while accusing muyuu of ad hominem!