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

[Soros Shorts]

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.

If we went back 12 years ago when the best Intel CPU was the single-core 3.0 GHz Pentium Northwood, would you have imagined that the best Intel CPUs of 2015 were still only running in the 3.x GHz range?

To me BIP101 is analogous to the Intel product planners back in 2003 declaring that in 2015 Intel flagship CPUs would be single-core Pentium Northwoods and running at 300 GHz. Don't worry about heat --- the process node improvement from 130nm to 22nm should take care of everything!

Instead over the years Intel has added multiple-cores, multiple execution pipelines per core, larger caches, more caches, improved branch prediction logic, and so on and so forth, but  kept the max core clock frequency the same at around 3 GHz.

Saying that BIP101 is the best path forward is similar to those self-proclaimed experts posting in overclocking forums back in 2003 that Intel's product strategy to go multi-core was retarded and they should just be focused on increasing GHz by a fixed percentage for each product cycle.

[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.

Sorry, it is important because if XT would succeed Gavin and Hearn would be the most powerful people in Bitcoin. Xt 101 is not just about code its also about change of leadership. We have to analyse the leaders.

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

[VeritasSapere]

Whoa when I predicted Mike to jump from Bitcoin into bankster "blockchain technologies" to attack it from outside, I didn't expect it to be within a few hours of saying it.

The funny thing is when he talks about centralisation due to lightning or blockstream, when its so transparent that he does not really care. He just uses the arguments to further his agenda.

The person who proposes blacklists, passports and works for banks suddenly cares so much about decentralisation (as it happens when it suits his argument).



I am still to understand how switching from many core developers working in consensus (and mike thinks core needs to be gone) ...

is more centralised ...

then him or Gavin backed by Coinbase as benevolent dictators of the main reference client.

Whuut?? Can somebody explain this??


Sure its not about Mike gaining power for himself, its just about decentralisation of development ... by having it under him  .

Because instead of having centralized top down control by Core we can have several implementations of the Bitcoin protocol instead which people would then be free to choose from. We would not be moving from one dictatorship to another, since we would be in effect distributing this power, it would more closely resemble a congress at such a point.

Here is an example of what decentralization of development could look like:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12959461#msg12959461

[Lauda]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

This is why we require consensus within Core. That's distributed enough. Hearn on the other hand does not like the idea of consensus, but rather one of a dictator. We have enough implementations at the moment. If we had more we'd stall the development even further.

[danielW]

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.

Sorry, it is important because if XT would succeed Gavin and Hearn would be the most powerful people in Bitcoin. Xt 101 is not just about code its also about change of leadership. We have to analyse the leaders.

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

It will always have various leaders of some sort, with more or less power.

Because instead of having centralized top down control by Core we can have several implementations of the Bitcoin protocol instead which people would then be free to choose from. We would not be moving from one dictatorship to another, since we would be in effect distributing this power, it would more closely resemble a congress at such a point.

Here is an example of what decentralization of development could look like:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12959461#msg12959461

Centralised top down control by Hearn or Gavin is better? This is the only choice presented. Core needs to die, thats what Mike Hearn says. He is correct, Gavin-Hearn need a majority of network. They need to replace core, for 101/Xt to come into effect.

If we have split divided implementations then 101 does not come into effect.

In terms of pure development, other implementations and developers are always welcomed and aided by the core team.

 What counts tho is whose code people run. They need to completely stop running core and run XT. At that point we have even more centralised development.  

The same identical situation except core team is replaced by Hearn/Gavin. How else can fork come about? Coinbase said this is what they want. Please specify what you envision and how it will come about through everybody using XT Not just slogan 'decentralise development'.



P.S. Re the graphic. That is a joke, the other implementations are not real implementations just copies of the same implementation who almost nobody runs or will run. They have no developer capable of writing core code. And will need to run the same protocol code as XT even if they do have backing, for fork to come into effect, its a consensus network lol.

 What Peter R says, is more theory that has no connection to reality. That will not happen. The only possible thing is enough exchanges run Xt/101 and Gavin is placed as head developer replacing core. I.e. we are left with even more centralised development. Unlikely (hopefully) but realistic.

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

This is why we require consensus within Core. That's distributed enough.

Consensus with Blockstream core is distributed enough. Joke of the year.

[muyuu]

So much wreckage in that thread https://archive.is/C0sv5

You almost feel sorry for that lot reading that.

[muyuu]

So now jtoomim's presentation in Scaling Bitcoin HK will be on an officially defunct project. LOL.

Also, the irony is lost on Peter tRoll: https://archive.is/3Czr5#selection-2211.0-2253.94

Congratulations! It is great to see your ongoing commitment to making bigger blocks a reality.

[topiOleg]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

This is why we require consensus within Core. That's distributed enough. Hearn on the other hand does not like the idea of consensus, but rather one of a dictator. We have enough implementations at the moment. If we had more we'd stall the development even further.

I think it is pretty much impossible to have consensus with the ones believing 1MB is perfect and wait for the fee market to develop. Democracy solves this problem by force to make minority content, but in trully free enviroment where you have no power to force minority to accept majority consensus, the best way is ignore the minority and go its way. The idea of multiple scaling client interpretations + the unchanged 1MB core and let people+business+miners choose what wins should be done after no wide consensus is found soon how to face the scaling problem imo.

[Lauda]

I think it is pretty much impossible to have consensus with the ones believing 1MB is perfect and wait for the fee market to develop. Democracy solves this problem by force to make minority content, but in trully free enviroment where you have no power to force minority to accept majority consensus, the best way is ignore the minority and go its way. The idea of multiple scaling client interpretations + the unchanged 1MB core and let people+business+miner choose what wins should be done after no wide consensus is found soon how to face the scaling problem imo.

You don't let people without a technical background decide on their own(!) where we are headed. If we let that happen, then Bitcoin is going to have a short future. The developers (or other 'experts') should clearly present the risks and benefits of each implementation and then the majority should decide. Besides, only a few people want 1MB to stay, so you can stop using this as an arguement. Most want a increase in one way or another (be it 2,4,8 Mb, dynamic/ other). It's just too easy to manipulate the majority here (pretty much everywhere) because of the lack of technical knowledge.
Again, there is no problem at the moment. My transaction last night confirmed in 4 minutes.

[gmaxwell]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

Do not be confused: The fact that most of the dozens of developers choose to collaborate to build a stronger and better Bitcoin implementation than we could build alone does not make development non-distributed.

The process is Bitcoin is one that amplify the independence of developers generally, even beyond the level of open source software, -- including down to the fact that multiple developers must collaborate to produce releases (so we do not just end up with only one or two person who knows how), that any user can produce the same binaries that we do, that we do not have an auto-update process, and so on.  Many more complex features begin life in developers personal forks (which exist, though most don't make releases from them intended for the public (although Luke-Jr has for years)). Our software licensing enables developers to go off and do their own thing based on the codebase, even if the original authors strongly disagree with them.

When you say stuff like this, given the permissive open source software and development process what you're effectively saying is that developers should cooperate less and instead expend their efforts on more duplicated work.

I don't think that is a way to make Bitcoin successful. But I can think of a few parties that would benefit from that outcome...

[Trent Russell]

...
When you say stuff like this, given the permissive open source software and development process what you're effectively saying is that developers should cooperate less and instead expend their efforts on more duplicated work.

I don't think that is a way to make Bitcoin successful. But I can think of a few parties that would benefit from that outcome...

Sorry, but I can't resist asking. In the reddit comment linked above, part of an old email to Hearn was quoted as saying:

Your recent actions to intentionally bring about a substantive split in the Bitcoin ledger is an attack on the Bitcoin system and risk causing extraordinary harm to its users. Your conduct towards me in public has been defamatory and unprofessional. Your presentation to the public is misleading, in particular conflating software forks with splitting the Bitcoin consensus state. I believe that you know that it is misleading and are doing so intentionally, but even if not, you are responsible for the misunderstandings that you have created. If what I am told about your affiliations is correct, your failure to disclose them clearly is unethical.

Is it known what "affiliations" are being referred to here? Is it the recent announcement that Hearn is joining R3CEV or something else?

(PS: It's good to see nullc posting again.)

[muyuu]

Haha classic Mikey:

They are interested in Ethereum due to its more powerful scripting language (and, I suspect, its better reputation, as Ethereum has not yet been sullied by people using it for trading illegal things).

https://archive.is/l43uv#selection-11347.0-11347.200

[RoadTrain]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

Do not be confused: The fact that most of the dozens of developers choose to collaborate to build a stronger and better Bitcoin implementation than we could build alone does not make development non-distributed.

I have tried explaining that to him several times, I guess I failed at that. The fact that developers choose to cooperate the way they are doing today is not only quite rational, but also it's their free choice.

[RoadTrain]

https://archive.is/C0sv5#selection-4053.0-4065.64

The "possibilities" and even opinions were censored on all most common places used by the community.
Users where even threatened and banned just for writing their opinions.
You know that this happened, but you still use freely the word "choice".

I'm amused that a staff member still doesn't understand the difference between censorship and moderation...

May I be iCEBREAKER for a moment?

  The "possibilities" and even opinions were censored on all most common places used by the community.
  Users where even threatened and banned just for writing their opinions.
  You know that this happened, but you still use freely the word "choice".

[muyuu]

I wonder what will some of these people need to simply admit/realise they were wrong (or they are in favour of ending with cypherpunk Bitcoin).

[cbeast]

I wonder what will some of these people need to simply admit/realise they were wrong (or they are in favour of ending with cypherpunk Bitcoin).

I had a long-winded explanation, but suffice to say that their children will understand things they never could.

[iCEBREAKER]

Haha classic Mikey:

They are interested in Ethereum due to its more powerful scripting language (and, I suspect, its better reputation, as Ethereum has not yet been sullied by people using it for trading illegal things).

https://archive.is/l43uv#selection-11347.0-11347.200

Ah yes, the exquisite hypocrisy of banksters who wallow in oceans of filthy lucre, and yet are somehow far too precious to sully themselves with nasty crypto.

 

They seem to be using the Hegelian paradigm wherein the State is the font of virtue and perfection, and whereby all fiat's sins are washed away with the blood of the taxpayer and conscript.

Given that, Hearn@sigint.google.mil is a great fit for Team Fiat (certainly much better than for Team Cypherpunk).

[knight22]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

[brg444]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

Don't see where the problem is.

Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee.