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

[hdbuck]

...

ps: im more and more encline to put some satoshis on the F.DERP fund... (certainly no investment advice here )

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/f-derp-short-risky-bitcoin-startups/

Hey, that's one of my old articles. Doesn't seem to be loading right now, seems CCN has fallen over.

Not sure what all this argument achieves - XT was crap and Gavhearn is gone, time to move on.

Seems to me we should be pushing for a fix to the Transaction Malleability bug so we can get the Lightning Network running. It needs to be fixed anyway.

hehe, well nice one mate.

i did heard that one of the main "actual" flaw here is the malleability issue.

its always about mark karpeleese anyway. ^^

[1714328864]

1714328864

[1714328864]

1714328864

[1714328864]

1714328864

[Cconvert2G36]

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 

We're all big boys here, so no need to smooth over unruffled feathers.  All the bed-wetters who can't take a joke left for obscure rump forums.

Back when the looming possibility of catastrophic consensus failure seemed real, I was inviting everyone from all sides over to watch the fireworks at a Great Schism party.

sgbett, feel free to have a pop at me anytime.  The adversarial process is educational; clash is the crucible from which truth emerges.  Even if we have to exaggerate or typify our erstwhile fellow Bitcoiners as opponents in order to stir the shit.

Life would be boring as hell if everyone got along and never disagreed.  And that goes double for Bitcoin, which as we all know is powered by internet nerd drama.   

I'll still  be having my own opinion on shit, for my own reasons. I'm just going to try not to fall into the trap of thinking that people that disagree have some ulterior motive. They might, but until there is hard evidence of it then any empty accusations on my part are just noise.

I still think you small blockers are crazy like

You had to do it sgbett, didn't you... Inducing iCE to say something I agree with. 

[marcus_of_augustus]

Oh yeah, the whole "you're just not ready" excuse  

Just put him on ignore like me and you will be better off. XT is a failed takeover of Bitcoin. Everyone should accept its fate by now.

XT is not a takeover of Bitcoin, I wish you would stop saying this, I can respect your position, but saying that XT is a takeover actually harms all of Bitcoin regardless of what you believe.

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.

If Core was the client introducing BIP101 and XT represented the alternative choice for one megabyte blocks you might not have been so quick to describe XT as a takeover of Bitcoin. I do not think it is even possible to "takeover" Bitcoin. The only way for Bitcoin to lose its inherent freedom would be if people chose to give up their freedom, which is why I find such totalitarian conceptions of Bitcoin to be harmful, since Bitcoin does reflect the culture of its participants.

XT can only be considered a takeover if you believe that Core should or does rule Bitcoin, which is the same as saying that this small group of technical experts should decide on the future of Bitcoin. I find this mentality to be totalitarian in nature and antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7

Your posts are an oasis of rationality, nuance, and higher level understanding in this thread. Thank you for posting -- I'm sure there are many other lurkers like me who appreciate it. The lack of intelligent, thoughtful responses you see to your posts says a lot about the caliber of most of those posting opposing viewpoints (not all! some are thoughtful -- you know who you are, thank you).

Rather he's a charlatan, or prolific shill, who you have been sucked in by,

All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the art, or intelligence to know you are out of your field, passing judgement on things you are not equipped to be assessing.

[smoothie]

is there a TL;DR?

I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"

thanks

[Peter R]

Oh yeah, the whole "you're just not ready" excuse  

Just put him on ignore like me and you will be better off. XT is a failed takeover of Bitcoin. Everyone should accept its fate by now.

XT is not a takeover of Bitcoin, I wish you would stop saying this, I can respect your position, but saying that XT is a takeover actually harms all of Bitcoin regardless of what you believe.

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.

If Core was the client introducing BIP101 and XT represented the alternative choice for one megabyte blocks you might not have been so quick to describe XT as a takeover of Bitcoin. I do not think it is even possible to "takeover" Bitcoin. The only way for Bitcoin to lose its inherent freedom would be if people chose to give up their freedom, which is why I find such totalitarian conceptions of Bitcoin to be harmful, since Bitcoin does reflect the culture of its participants.

XT can only be considered a takeover if you believe that Core should or does rule Bitcoin, which is the same as saying that this small group of technical experts should decide on the future of Bitcoin. I find this mentality to be totalitarian in nature and antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7

Your posts are an oasis of rationality, nuance, and higher level understanding in this thread. Thank you for posting -- I'm sure there are many other lurkers like me who appreciate it. The lack of intelligent, thoughtful responses you see to your posts says a lot about the caliber of most of those posting opposing viewpoints (not all! some are thoughtful -- you know who you are, thank you).

Rather he's a charlatan, or prolific shill, who you have been sucked in by,

All you are doing is demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the art, or intelligence to know you are out of your field, passing judgement on things you are not equipped to be assessing.

If that were true, who do you suppose he's shilling for?

[Lauda]

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.
-snip-

There is not going to be a "free choice". Who knows what Hearn promised supporters like Coinbase. Essentially the tactic is getting the major services to join you. Once everything is set up, the people will not have a "free choice" . It will either be sink or swim. Also 75% consensus is definitely not enough, and will cause damage (as intended). Face it, there's nothing good about XT. Do you want bigger blocks, be it 2,4,x MB? Fork Core, change the parameters/fork Core with BIP101 and there you have it.

If that were true, who do you suppose he's shilling for?

The same people who are writing your papers.

[Carlton Banks]

Your posts are an oasis of rationality, nuance, and higher level understanding in this thread. Thank you for posting -- I'm sure there are many other lurkers like me who appreciate it. The lack of intelligent, thoughtful responses you see to your posts says a lot about the caliber of most of those posting opposing viewpoints (not all! some are thoughtful -- you know who you are, thank you).

Can you qualify the bolded statement? You're simply asserting your regard for a viewpoint without explaining why. If it resonates with you so deeply, I expect you will be only too happy to explain.

[Zarathustra]

"We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ttu4k/btcsuite_announcing_btcd_0120_release/cx96i1i

[Zarathustra]

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.
-snip-

There is not going to be a "free choice". Who knows what Hearn promised supporters like Coinbase. Essentially the tactic is getting the major services to join you. Once everything is set up, the people will not have a "free choice" . It will either be sink or swim. Also 75% consensus is definitely not enough, and will cause damage (as intended). Face it, there's nothing good about XT. Do you want bigger blocks, be it 2,4,x MB? Fork Core, change the parameters/fork Core with BIP101 and there you have it.

If that were true, who do you suppose he's shilling for?

The same people who are writing your papers.

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

[sgbett]

is there a TL;DR?

I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"

thanks

Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

[Zarathustra]

is there a TL;DR?

I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"

thanks

Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

And what do you think? Both sides are wrong (and therefore morons)?

[sickpig]

is there a TL;DR?

I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"

thanks

Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

And what do you think? Both sides are wrong (and therefore morons)?

He already said is on the former camp (Big Blockers). Still he's summarising the content of this thread rather small/big blocks argument in a more general fashion. More to the point a few posts ago he did try to address the quite polarized attitude that pervades this thread.

[Carlton Banks]

If that were true, who do you suppose he's shilling for?

The same people who are writing your papers.

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

[Lauda]

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

In other words, no matter what happens, nor how much evidence/facts someone summarizes they will still go around telling people that XT or BIP101 is the right choice. We have already figured out the two possible reasons for which they are doing this. If they want a discussion about ideas, here is one: "Both XT and BIP101 are bad." Discussion concluded.

Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Technically this is not right. You completely forgot the XT propaganda shills: XT is the right answer. Anyone who disagrees is set to destroy Bitcoin by making it system for the elite.

[Zarathustra]

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

In other words, no matter what happens, nor how much evidence/facts someone summarizes they will still go around telling people that XT or BIP101 is the right choice. We have already figured out the two possible reasons for which they are doing this. If they want a discussion about ideas, here is one: "Both XT and BIP101 are bad." Discussion concluded.

Notoriously lying won't help. BU is our preferred and right choice. A censorship resistent currency within a censorship resistent communication environment.

Lauda against Lauda:

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

[brg444]

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

In other words, no matter what happens, nor how much evidence/facts someone summarizes they will still go around telling people that XT or BIP101 is the right choice. We have already figured out the two possible reasons for which they are doing this. If they want a discussion about ideas, here is one: "Both XT and BIP101 are bad." Discussion concluded.

Notoriously lying won't help. BU is our preferred and right choice.

Lauda against Lauda:

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

BU does not exist and will never see the light of the day.

Whether or not we get larger blocks the majority of network peers will still be running Core five years from now.

[sgbett]

is there a TL;DR?

I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"

thanks

Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.

And what do you think? Both sides are wrong (and therefore morons)?

sickpig pretty much nailed it.

Right now my exact thoughts are that I think no block size limit is preferable.

I am concerned that it does make it harder (more costly) to run a node, but I think those costs are worth bearing, I lean more towards the idea that people can transact without a trusted third party, than people must be able to transact on their own node. I think the broadcasting of a transaction to the network is reliable and 'decentralised' enough for smaller value, and if you are in the business of making large transactions such that you need the security of running your own node then you bear the cost of this and factor it in.

It concerns me that bigger blocks *could* favour big miners, but I don't think that's a certainty. I don't think that either side has provide conclusively that it will or it won't. I think ingenuity in the market place will prevail, as it typically does, and that the larger miners will be contained by inertia, and the smaller miners will be dynamic enough to squeeze out value in niches. I think the 'centralisation' of mining by referring to pools is a red herring, I think the 50% attack is 'self-limiting' and mitigable - I think anyone that attempts it is 'one' and the 'others' will move away, I think the protocol allows for this (and any future development should always pay heed to not forfeiting this).

I think that having bigger blocks does not provide a lasting solution to scaling the bitcoin network in terms of transactional throughput. I think its essential that other technologies are investigated. It occurred to me the other day that one solution already exists in the form of alt-coins. Sure they are not pegged, and sure they are volatile, but isn't that exactly the same argument levelled at bitcoin!? If we believe that over time bitcoin will capture a significant portion of the value in the world that fiat represents then it must inevitably stabilise. I think alts are probably on that same path just a little farther behind, and that this just mimics the current situation we have with competing fiat currencies. As one or two (or 4 or 17) alts emerge as the silvers to bitcoins gold, then I think they will gain the credibility, and assurance through hash rate that their chains are secure enough to handle, say, starbucks purchases.

Then there is Blockstream and the lightning network. I think that, they certainly think they are doing something great. I didn't at first but thats because I was afraid. Who am I to say they are not? I think there is enormous capacity for the development of a wide range of new crypto-financial-institutions. Much as I have my head in the idealogical cloud of bitcoin destroying TPTB and bringing about a new era of cashless, bankless anarchy, I think that the reality is that many of the existing structures will remain they'll just pivot on a s/USD/XBT/g

For business to continue as usual this is how it will *have* to go. B2B relies on all that middle man crap. Its us punters on the shop floor that are being fleeced. Bitcoin may alleviate thinned for a personal account, but it won't magically preclude the need for everything else in the system especially not in my lifetime.

So let Blockchain set up a trusted third party scheme, with subscription fees so that exchanges can swap XBT off chain. Let anyone else who feels they can add-value to BTC set up a service, sell it, win customers and profit. At the end of the day capitalism is a great system, that is let down by accountability and 'cheating' amongst other things. BTC can address a couple of those things imho.

I don't think any one of those ideas is a *solution* for scaling, and I think there are many other things that are happening right now, some that we know about some that we don't. I think many of these things will contribute to furthering the bitcoin project as a whole. By means well understood or in ways which we haven't even thought of yet.

Fundamentally I believe that scaling doesn't need *solving*, it needs *evolving*.

Now with regards to my philosophical take on what is going on. I think on the one hand people talk about how great openness and sharing is and how letting the market decide is better because its more 'decentralised'. I think now bitcoin is big though, people are scared because there is more to lose and so automatically revert to the old hierarchical models of thinking. I think people assume that, despite the countless examples throughout nature, science, history etc that humans can be smarter. I categorically believe that no individual (or small group) is smarter than the commons. I think there is something fundamentally successful about evolutionary process. I think that the imposition of restrictions on any system introduces points of failure.

There is a famous quote - "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" and I think that applies here. That is why the 'debate' no longer concerns me, because I think 'power' has already ceded to the network participants as a whole. I think we are approaching the bitcoin singularity, which I do not think is characterised by price explosions and mass adoption, but by the bitcoin network becoming 'self-aware'. It is becoming evolutionary, and attempts to restrict it, to own it, to control it, will fail. That applies to devs, to miners, to pools. Banks, businesses etc. Everyone can push but the direction of bitcoin is a vector product, and one of the factors is 'inertia'. This inertia is the evolutionary component of bitcoin, the emergent behaviour of the network.

Take XT for example. The network sees it as damage and routes around it. If the network saw a need for XT then it would have changed course, and no amount of forum caterwauling, industry pressure, core dev decree can *really* change it. (of course if XT support is a proxy for BIP101 and core implemented that to stop XT adoption then they could change things in that respect, but the message remains that the network changed course for BIP101 and there was nothing anyone could do)

If I believe what I have written (and I do, or why would I write it!) then I also must believe that the network deciding to reject BIP101 is the right choice right now, and that this whole thread is a sideshow and that if the network never goes BIP101 then that is what the network decides. I think its foolish to assume that BIP101 being rejected now means that the fat lady has sung. The future is uncertain. No-one knows.

So that's what *I* think. I'm not really interested in whether I am right or wrong, or whether I will be right or wrong. Ego gets you into all sorts of trouble. Equally, if I have said something that is in opposition to what somebody else has said, I don't think it makes them wrong. I was asked what I thought and I answered. Now I watch and wait to see what happens.

[valiz]

Meanwhile...

As I see, there is about 0.94 BTC in the XT mining fund: http://www.xtnodes.com/xt_rented_mining.php which is enough for mining just 2.7 more days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3txyt8/xt_mining_donation_fund_running_out_of_funds_lets/

 

Zara and Verita and Knight, hurry up and pay! 

[MbccompanyX]

Meanwhile...

As I see, there is about 0.94 BTC in the XT mining fund: http://www.xtnodes.com/xt_rented_mining.php which is enough for mining just 2.7 more days.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3txyt8/xt_mining_donation_fund_running_out_of_funds_lets/

 

Zara and Verita and Knight, hurry up and pay! 

Somehow i want to see if the website really uses the money for the mining rig to XT or just takes something from it (Hoping about 50% because XT is failed and everybody excent few ones wants to accept it) and i want to see even if only one person invested in the Mining rig or are multiple guys who only send money from some faucet because this is full laughing to the few survivors of XT

[Zarathustra]

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

In other words, no matter what happens, nor how much evidence/facts someone summarizes they will still go around telling people that XT or BIP101 is the right choice. We have already figured out the two possible reasons for which they are doing this. If they want a discussion about ideas, here is one: "Both XT and BIP101 are bad." Discussion concluded.

Notoriously lying won't help. BU is our preferred and right choice.

Lauda against Lauda:

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=101872

Whether or not we get larger blocks the majority of network peers will still be running Core five years from now.

Blockstream Core will be forced to implement larger blocks, because they've got competition. If they refuse, they'll be forked off. Their choice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ttz1o/it_actually_doesnt_really_matter_if_blockstream/