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

[iCEBREAKER]

RBF also mitigates BTTC's impact.   

petertodd

you can (ab)use this service to zeroconf double-spend merchants by first creating a low-fee transaction paying a BTCC wallet address, followed by double-spending that transaction with one paying the merchant. BTCC will mine tx1 even after tx2 is created, yet all other miners will mine tx2. (and may not even see tx1) Similarly, tx1 is unlikely to be propagated widely if at all, so the merchant probably won't even see it and won't know they're being doublespent.

RBF and CPFP both make fee bumping fairly easy, which makes this kind of service a lot less useful - I'm far more concerned about other centralization pressures than this one.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Stick a fork in XT - It's done.

[DeathAngel]

#REKT

[muyuu]

Stick a fork in XT - It's done.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_unlimited/comments/3jly8t/introducing_bitcoin_unlimited/

 

 

[hdbuck]

Mike H. RageQuits Bitcoin ... bye Mike, don't let the door hit your ass on the way pout.

Said this was coming a month back, egos gonna ego.

[VeritasSapere]

Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Even though this is not a new development it is an aspect of centralization due to small blocksize. I have always argued that centralization pressures exist when the blocks start to fill up. This is an example of this phenomena. There is an irony to Peter Tod being so opposed to this development considering that he is involved with building more third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain which are also intended to further mitigate this effect. Even though LN and sidechains are trustless I do not consider them to be replacements for an increased blocksize, since they do not have some of the same advantages that transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain directly does. This is why I consider increased reliance on third parties because of small block size to be a centralization pressure.

I do find it a bit peculiar that people are claiming this has nothing to do with the blocksize considering that Samson Mow has stated specifically that this is the reason why. After all blocks becoming full will cause transactions to become unreliable, so having these type of third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain will at least make it more reliable for a few elite individuals.

Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

[hdbuck]

Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts).

Brilliant observation, thank you.

It is indeed.  I personally care not one iota about replacing ATM's.  The debt-based monetary system which currently animates the entire economic state of my country is what I care about.  More specifically, the inherent life expectancy of such systems and their typical failure modes, and what it may mean to me.  Even more specifically, what evolves out of such an implosion.

It is worth note that almost without exception the efforts that Hearn and Andresen have focused on are to facilitate to enlistment of people who's interest does not go beyond the ATM/VISA/PayPal aspect of the Bitcoin monetary system.  I attribute this to a strategy which recognizes that these participants are a distinct liability to the defensibility of the ecosystem.  The demands that 'the masses' make will open many chinks in the armor.  Actually 'chinks' is an understatement.  The effect would be that of a sufficiently large torpedo detonated under the keel mid-ship.

I do believe that this 'enlist the masses' focus has been strategic, and is for the ultimate purpose of destroying the Bitcoin solution in it's initial form.  At least in Hearn's case.  Gavin may at one point have been legitimately convinced that ballooning the userbase was a viable defense however naive that may be, and also that bending over backward to placate the existing political power structures so that they will be nice to us made sense.  I don't believe that that is a sustainable argument any more if it ever was, and Gavin must certainly know this.

heh, and now coinbase goldman sachs is issuing bitcoin 'debit' cards...

clearly the innovation of teh century!

[brg444]

Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Even though this is not a new development it is an aspect of centralization due to small blocksize. I have always argued that centralization pressures exist when the blocks start to fill up.

 



We've yet to average over 750kb on the weekly.

What "impact" exactly is this FUDster referring to? Don't you think it's possible he's merely using this propaganda to steer customers his way?

There's no such thing as "reliance on third party". Everyone is free to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain if they choose to, as long as they pay the necessary fee.

I'm curious what advantages of transacting over Bitcoin's blockchain do you prefer over LN?

I'm guessing you don't care for micro-transactions, increased privacy & instant settlement?

[VeritasSapere]

Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Even though this is not a new development it is an aspect of centralization due to small blocksize. I have always argued that centralization pressures exist when the blocks start to fill up.

We've yet to average over 750kb on the weekly.

What "impact" exactly is this FUDster referring to? Don't you think it's possible he's merely using this propaganda to steer customers his way?

It is a possibility, figures though that you default to attacking the man, like you have done towards most people you disagree with on this thread. I think it is safe to assume that transaction volume will continue to grow however.

There's no such thing as "reliance on third party".

You saying that there is no such thing as "reliance on third parties"? I find this somewhat untenable. I suppose with such a position we would never face the risk of increased reliance on third parties, this I obviously disagree with.

Everyone is free to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain if they choose to, as long as they pay the necessary fee.

Lets say if hypothetically the blockchain can support 1000 transactions in one instance, but say for example there are 2000 transactions. Then half of those transactions will never be confirmed and people will most likely end up waiting days for confirmation, if it gets confirmed at all that is, regardless of the fee you pay. Since even if these 2000 transactions all payed the same fee half of those transactions would still not be processed. There is presently also no way to tell how much of a fee would even be required at any one time in order to be at the front of the queue. This is what will render transactions unreliable if we do not increased the blocksize when faced with increased adoption. Under this scenario payment processors and banks will be the only groups that will realistically be able to use the blockchain directly since most users will not be able to outbid such entities for block space. Since only a limited number of payment processors and banks will be able to efficiently operate under a one megabyte limit, this would allow for the possibility of censorship to form around these points of centralization.

I think that this scenario is extremely unlikely to occur since without mass adoption from the people I do not see any reason why large financial institutions would even be interested in doing this on the Bitcoin blockchain in the first place. Essentially I think that Bitcoin will be out competed if we do not increase the blocksize, I even think that this is unlikely since I do think that the incentives to increase the blocksize will allign soon and the economic majority will gets its way with or without Core.

I'm curious what advantages of transacting over Bitcoin's blockchain do you prefer over LN?

Transparency and increased reliability for a start, also ease of use and more resistance to censorship.

I'm guessing you don't care for micro-transactions, increased privacy & instant settlement?

I am actually against increased anonymity in Bitcoin. There are definite advantages to having a more transparent blockchain. We already have micro transactions and zero confirmation in Bitcoin as long as we do not allow the blocks to become to full. Bitcoin was never designed to operate near and potentially over the blocksize limit.

I do like the lighting network actually and I do think it should be implemented, I just do not think it should be considered as a replacement or alternative to using the Bitcoin blockchain directly, which clearly it is not, even though some people are using it as a reason to justify arbitrarily restricting the use and functions of the Bitcoin blockchain.

[Lauda]

It is a possibility, figures though that you default to attacking the man like you do have done towards most people you disagree with on this thread. I think it is safe to assume that transaction volume will continue to grow however.

You are correct. However it is also safe to assume that quite a decent portion of the current volume is spam. Regardless of both points, whoever says that there is a issue right now is a manipulative liar. Hong Kong is a few days away; people need to be a little more patient.

[cbeast]

We've yet to average over 750kb on the weekly.

750kb is the limit of a 1MB block. We are already at the limit.

[brg444]

We've yet to average over 750kb on the weekly.

750kb is the limit of a 1MB block. We are already at the limit.

 

I'm not sure that's what the article (from Jan. 2015) implies..

Did some miner self-enforce a 750kb soft limit? Yes.

Is the effective limit 1MB? Absolutely.

I mean we're seeing blocks above 750kb on a daily basis now...

[sgbett]

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

I still remain of the opinion that block size increase (sooner rather than later) should happen. Circular arguments for and against by either side have been done to death, so lets agree to disagree.

What I wanted to apologise for though, is that in previous discussion I have assumed bad faith from those who may hold a different view to me. The one thing we all share is a desire for bitcoin to succeed. Despite 'bitcoin succeeding' meaning different things to different people. When one feels passionate about something it can be hard to not let emotions cloud your thinking. My passion go the better of me, I got caught up in the squabble. I realised it wasn't helping so I took time out to reflect and think about what really matters. That's why now I am posting again.

I think the argument is stupid and pointless, the animosity it generates amongst those on this forum is of no benefit to anyone, this is not a criticism of one side, its criticism of everyone involved including myself.

Furthermore I don't think the kind of discussion going on here or in any other thread is an accurate representation of the reality of what is going on amongst the people that actually matter (devs), regardless of how much one side may try to vilify those devs on the opposing side, or pick over posts to try and mischaracterise their position. I think the truth is probably far more mundane, and that the internet's "drama amplification unit" is in full effect.

I think what will be will be. I think we'll get bigger blocks and I think we'll get sidechains. I think they are both necessary and most certainly not mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are symbiotic in nature, and both crucial to the 'success' of bitcoin whatever that may be defined as. I think you need them both whether bitcoin is a settlement layer, or is used for buying your coffee.

I think I have been just as bad as everyone else. I am human, fallible, sometimes driven by emotion and that they got the better of me. Crucially I hope I have the strength to learn from this and not get caught up in it again.

So, flame on, warriors!

[Carlton Banks]

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

Is anyone else struggling to remember the above? Not saying it didn't happen, bett, but you're possibly being a little too hard on yourself 

[Lauda]

I'm not sure that's what the article (from Jan. 2015) implies..

Did some miner self-enforce a 750kb soft limit? Yes.

Is the effective limit 1MB? Absolutely.

I mean we're seeing blocks above 750kb on a daily basis now...

In other words, we are not at the limit. Ignore that article. Just because some miners have set up soft limits that does not mean that we are at a limit. Nothing should surprise you here. Some are eager to rush everyone into a decision or just an increase. The real question is why? (definitely not because of good intentions) Rushing into anything is usually very bad.

[brg444]

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

I still remain of the opinion that block size increase (sooner rather than later) should happen. Circular arguments for and against by either side have been done to death, so lets agree to disagree.

What I wanted to apologise for though, is that in previous discussion I have assumed bad faith from those who may hold a different view to me. The one thing we all share is a desire for bitcoin to succeed. Despite 'bitcoin succeeding' meaning different things to different people. When one feels passionate about something it can be hard to not let emotions cloud your thinking. My passion go the better of me, I got caught up in the squabble. I realised it wasn't helping so I took time out to reflect and think about what really matters. That's why now I am posting again.

I think the argument is stupid and pointless, the animosity it generates amongst those on this forum is of no benefit to anyone, this is not a criticism of one side, its criticism of everyone involved including myself.

Furthermore I don't think the kind of discussion going on here or in any other thread is an accurate representation of the reality of what is going on amongst the people that actually matter (devs), regardless of how much one side may try to vilify those devs on the opposing side, or pick over posts to try and mischaracterise their position. I think the truth is probably far more mundane, and that the internet's "drama amplification unit" is in full effect.

I think what will be will be. I think we'll get bigger blocks and I think we'll get sidechains. I think they are both necessary and most certainly not mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are symbiotic in nature, and both crucial to the 'success' of bitcoin whatever that may be defined as. I think you need them both whether bitcoin is a settlement layer, or is used for buying your coffee.

I think I have been just as bad as everyone else. I am human, fallible, sometimes driven by emotion and that they got the better of me. Crucially I hope I have the strength to learn from this and not get caught up in it again.

So, flame on, warriors!

That's appreciated. It's pretty normal to have emotions involved since we are all very much invested into this thing. Allow me to return the apology for whatever flaming I might've participated in  

I always considered you a sane person and was a little befuddled to see you get carried away by the FUD of other propaganda artists who deserve much more blame.

It's understandable to have a differing opinions on the issue of the block size but please make sure you don't lose your mind like these guys over there: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-115

for a core dev like Todd to say this, "Indeed, which suggests Bitcoin is poorly designed" is truly outrageous and suggests he should resign.

and the 2 DevCore video presentations by Corrallo and gmax had the same attitude; Bitcoin is fragile and flawed. gmax said Bitcoin is controlled by 3 ppl. imagine that. what a jerk not to mention poor steward of the code. i'm outraged at these idiots.

Just intuitively, if I were to guess what elements in the space were agents tasked to disrupt, the top of my list would be Peter Todd, Btcdrak, and John Dillon. I.e., Todd and two obnoxious anonymous randos that regurgitate his talking points nonstop.

They can see their vision for btc slipping away from them.

Seriously, I now see losing gmax & ptodd (and adam didn't contribute any code anyways) and their certainly valuable contributions in the past as much less of a problem as their toxic demeanor of being the arrogant and centralized self-elected 'Bitcoin wizards'

Yep, the Blockstream core devs have got to go. They've betrayed all of our trust.

[brg444]

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

Is anyone else struggling to remember the above? Not saying it didn't happen, bett, but you're possibly being a little too hard on yourself 

 

I also think he is. To his merit he never quite reached my & Ice's level and as far as I remember remained somewhat cordial although had his share of snarky comments 

[tvbcof]

The BTTC event will force

...
There is nothing all that interesting about it, in this case: In Bitcoin, a fee is pretty much a fee regardless of its paid in or out of band.
...

Speaking of 'out of band', let me again suggest that it ('out of band') is a powerful concept which could be used to financially reward all infrastructure providers rather than just miners.  Specifically, 'full verifying transfer nodes' (shortened to 'full nodes'.)  The obvious reason for doing so would be that it would foster a broad and robust network.

If a dedicated subordinate chain were used for the 'global network infrastructure support reward' duty, the payouts could be done on the micro level.  Only those actively supporting the infrastructure would care much about this particular sidecoin so the load would not need to be borne on the main-chain.  Better yet, there would need be nearly no changes to core as it operates now provided that the miners could be induced to submit the block reward to the support sidechain.  Not sure how best this would be accomplished (if it is even very possible.)

[Zarathustra]

As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords.

@petertoddbtc

Idea: (ab)use BTCC's BlockPriority to doublespend w/ a zero-fee doublespend paying a BTCC wallet addr, followed by high-fee to merchant.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/667754533800382465

Heh, so rekt.  You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd.  

They are finished. BIP101 triggered the turning tide. The BTTC event will force core to raise the limit even more soonish than intended until yesterday.

BTCC is a non-event, but cling to your latest FUD narrative if it helps soothe the sting of your crushing defeat by Team Core.

You Gavinistas have a thing for celebrating victory before the battle has started.  How did that work out for XT and BIP101?

Your ridiculous XT-proxy war is the best sign that the Bitcoin 'community' will leave your ridiculous 1MB cap behind next year. Nobody cares about your XT phobia.
It is irrelevant how the devs are forced to implement big blocks. Relevant is that they are.

[Zarathustra]

RBF also mitigates BTTC's impact.  

petertodd

you can (ab)use this service to zeroconf double-spend merchants by first creating a low-fee transaction paying a BTCC wallet address, followed by double-spending that transaction with one paying the merchant. BTCC will mine tx1 even after tx2 is created, yet all other miners will mine tx2. (and may not even see tx1) Similarly, tx1 is unlikely to be propagated widely if at all, so the merchant probably won't even see it and won't know they're being doublespent.

RBF and CPFP both make fee bumping fairly easy, which makes this kind of service a lot less useful - I'm far more concerned about other centralization pressures than this one.

Is there a life beyond war for you frontists? Every second 'post' with war and blood pictures. How sick is that? Bitcoin is not a playground for warriors and socialist collectivists (Front National statists).