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

[brg444]

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or not

This is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.

it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.

I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise.

You're aware that Bitcoin is software right?

It's not some kind of magical creature that's created out of thin air.

What happens if your "implementation" forks like Bitcoin did back in 2013 largely because of Mike's incompetence and this time there's no LukeJr&co to save Bitcoin from Gavin?

[1714307685]

1714307685

[1714307685]

1714307685

[1714307685]

1714307685

[1714307685]

1714307685

[1714307685]

1714307685

[VeritasSapere]

I am a person.

I don't find that statement altogether convincing.

• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

He did use the word "support" actually.

Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!

And the irony is, XT is a highly competent piece of software; the 99.99% of it that was coded by competent programmers, of course. The handful of lines added by Hearn & Andressen have been widely derided by both the technical and user community, hence it's overwhelming popularity. Why would extending the same design approach, as used with XT, constitute a broadening of meaningful choice?

Exactly the majority of the code is lifted off the Core code base anyway. Bitcoin XT, BTCD and Bitcoin Unlimited all significantly broaden peoples choice. These three implementations increase the blocksize whereas Bitcoin Core does not, simple. What blocksize we choose will determine the future of Bitcoin, it is very significant, after all people are saying on both sides of the argument that this will lead to the death of Bitcoin as we know it, if we make the wrong choice. This is why these alternative implementations are providing people with the ability to express their will which can not presently be reflected by Core. This is the freedom of choice.

[brg444]

I am a person.

I don't find that statement altogether convincing.

• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

He did use the word "support" actually.

Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!

And the irony is, XT is a highly competent piece of software; the 99.99% of it that was coded by competent programmers, of course. The handful of lines added by Hearn & Andressen have been widely derided by both the technical and user community, hence it's overwhelming popularity. Why would extending the same design approach, as used with XT, constitute a broadening of meaningful choice?

Exactly the majority of the code is lifted off the Core code base anyway. Bitcoin XT, BTCD and Bitcoin Unlimited all significantly broaden peoples choice. These three implementations increase the blocksize whereas Bitcoin Core does not, simple. What blocksize we choose will determine the future of Bitcoin, it is very significant, after all people are saying on both sides of the argument that this will lead to the death of Bitcoin as we know it if we make the wrong choice. This is why these alternative implementations are providing people with the ability to express their will which can not presently be reflected by Core.

 

What nonsense is this?

Clearly the people have expressed their will and it sits with the Core implementation.

Stop entertaining fantasy. If the economic majority truly felt misrepresented by Core they would've moved on already.

By all evidence they're waiting for Core's rigorous due diligence process.

Even BTCD, the most recent victim of your pathological tendency to bend the truth your way, have clearly expressed trust in Core's ability to come to a consensus on the necessary course of action.  As it stands their implementation increases the block size as much as Core does which is to say not at all. So basically you're left shilling about an implementation that doesn't exist (Bitcoin Unlimited), another that has been widely rejected (XT) and one that does not support your position except in an abstract, distorted type of way.

[Carlton Banks]

I am a person.

I don't find that statement altogether convincing.

• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

He did use the word "support" actually.

Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!

And the irony is, XT is a highly competent piece of software; the 99.99% of it that was coded by competent programmers, of course. The handful of lines added by Hearn & Andressen have been widely derided by both the technical and user community, hence it's overwhelming popularity. Why would extending the same design approach, as used with XT, constitute a broadening of meaningful choice?

Exactly the majority of the code is lifted off the Core code base anyway. Bitcoin XT, BTCD and Bitcoin Unlimited all significantly broaden peoples choice. These three implementations increase the blocksize whereas Bitcoin Core does not, simple. What blocksize we choose will determine the future of Bitcoin, it is very significant, after all people are saying on both sides of the argument that this will lead to the death of Bitcoin as we know it, if we make the wrong choice. This is why these alternative implementations are providing people with the ability to express their will which can not presently be reflected by Core. This is the freedom of choice.

No no no, it's ironic, not a comprehensive fact. Taking what I said and trying to pretend I said something completely different, what a surprise (put the smileys away please, it comes across as plain psychopathic given the context).

Dishonest, strawman argument confirmed. What's your tally now?

[brg444]

VS there's literally hundreds of implementations waiting for you : http://coinmarketcap.com/


Freedom of choice!  

Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.

[VeritasSapere]

I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choose whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.

From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.

[Zarathustra]

Even BTCD, the most recent victim of your pathological tendency to bend the truth your way, have clearly expressed trust in Core's ability to come to a consensus on the necessary course of action.

I have also clearly expressed trust in Core's 'ability' (under the pressures of the marketplace) to come to a consensus to raise the limit. Otherwise they'll be forked off.
But that wouldn't be a problem. It's their decision. The market rules.

[Zarathustra]

VS there's literally hundreds of implementations waiting for you : http://coinmarketcap.com/


Freedom of choice!  

Seriously, pick the one you like and fork off already.

Maybe iCEMAN's and other altcoin shills' and trolls' Monero?

"Adaptive limits. Doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits."

https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters

[Meuh6879]

what is the point of this 164 pages ... ?
developpement and research.



http://www.xtnodes.com/

[Carlton Banks]

I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choice whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.

From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.

The over-earnest sincerity is so staggeringly disingenuous, you're clearly a dangerous person to know in the flesh.

You're not being insulted: your arguments are deliberately subversive and dishonest, and you are constantly getting called out for it. I can understand how it could be irritating that your dishonest tactics don't work on Bitcoiners, but doubling down is only making it worse.

You simply cannot successfully make "black is white" arguments to people who can grok something as sophisticated as the Bitcoin network. So, to reciprocate: all the best to you also, nice knowing you

[brg444]

what is the point of this 164 pages ... ?
developpement and research.

http://www.xtnodes.com/

So one guy with an industrial mining rig has set up a couple of nodes under his GB/s connection and is transmitting larger blocks back and forth on testnet...

That's supposed to tell us what exactly? That under the most optimal technical environment "the network" can substain large blocks?

I'm shocked  

[Zarathustra]

I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choice whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.

From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.

The over-earnest sincerity is so staggeringly disingenuous, you're clearly a dangerous person to know in the flesh.

You're not being insulted: your arguments are deliberately subversive and dishonest, and you are constantly getting called out for it. I can understand how it could be irritating that your dishonest tactics don't work on Bitcoiners, but doubling down is only making it worse.

The representatives of the ad hominem threads are the last ones who represent Bitcoin. You are just a tiny, irrelevant fraction.

Good night.

[Carlton Banks]

The representatives of the ad hominem threads are the last ones who represent Bitcoin. You are just a tiny, irrelevant fraction.

Well, if we're the tiny irrelevant faction, who's the large influential group? Are you a member? 

[smoothie]

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.

Here is a new one...

Neutral Blockers - got pop corn and gonna wait for the fireworks to ensue without wasting time with the back and forth of a time and resource wasting debate.

 

[VeritasSapere]

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.

Deserving of a bump, well said sgbett.

[iCEBREAKER]

From the 'The food there is terrible, and the portions are too small' department:

/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.   

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/



aminok 

hellobitcoinworld 

sensor ships 

[iCEBREAKER]

And here we see the entirely predictable result of Gavinista splinter groups cannibalizing each others rump forums 'Because Theymos' but failing to achieve anything beyond Lolcow domesticity.

[Zarathustra]

From the 'The food there is terrible, and the portions are too small' department:

/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/



aminok  

hellobitcoinworld  

sensor ships  

+ 157 at the moment.

How young and stupid does someone have to be to ban @hellobitcoinworld?

[valiz]

Alternative implementations 
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL

This is clearly a bad joke.

I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.

At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards 

[Lauda]

Alternative implementations  
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL

This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards  

Incoming:"There is work behind the scenes."; "The lack of free choice is no more"; etc. It was a joke from the begging. You need people with proper technical skills to lead the project.