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

[VeritasSapere]

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.

Just like was said before, for this disagreement only the blocksize can be changed, which is only a few lines of code, in the case of BIP101 this has already been coded by Gavin. Which gives people the freedom of choice by simply applying the patch on top of either Core or XT. Changing more then the blocksize also further unnecessarily complicates things when it comes to this disagreement at least. You also forgot to attack BTCD since they are also now supporting an increased blocksize as well.

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd

We are in favor of a block size increase. Obviously we would prefer the community come to a consensus about the mechanism to enable it, but failing that we will most likely provide a flag to enable all parties involved to make a choice about which rule set they want to use. Clearly such a flag, once enabled, would mean changing back to a different incompatible rule set would require redownloading the chain against the active rule set.

We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy. Naturally, when there are technical issues at play, developers are generally better positioned to discuss the technical aspects of such changes so it generally makes sense to carefully consider their input as they will typically have a greater insight into the issues at play versus an average random user, however, when it comes down to it, all stakeholders will have to make the choice that is right for them.

Perhaps of note, we've been in favor of bigger blocks for quite some time. We even wrote a simulation test tool back in Oct of 2014 to stress the limits and even back then, before many of the recent performance enhancements, the results clearly showed it is capable of handling larger blocks.

[hdbuck]

Wall St. Veteran: ‘Bitcoin Has Proven That It Cannot Be Controlled or Censored’

https://news.bitcoin.com/tone-vays-reading-bitcoin-charts-educating-masses/

“STABILITY IS ALWAYS GOOD AND MAKES BITCOIN A MUCH MORE USEFUL MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE. THE PRICE REALLY REFLECTS THE CONFIDENCE OF THE ECOSYSTEM, AND I BELIEVE THIS CONFIDENCE WILL QUICKLY RISE ONCE THERE ARE MORE ISSUES WITH THE EUROPEAN BANKS.”

“BITCOIN IS HERE TO STAY, BUT IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE AT LEAST 3 MORE YEARS TO BE TRUSTED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.”

“BITCOIN HAS NOW BEEN AROUND FOR 7 YEARS, AND IT HAS PROVEN THAT IT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED OR CENSORED.”

BC: What is your opinion on the block size debate?

- I think fungibility in Bitcoin is a much more important issue. I would rather see small increases in block size when it’s absolutely necessary in order to instantly achieve consensus. I would also not want to see anything else in the code change other than the block size increase. Also, people need to understand that increasing the blocksize is not a solution to the scaling problem. We need some kind of a sidechain in order to handle microtransactions. I do not think it should even be attempted on the chain.

nailed it.

[iCEBREAKER]

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 

Don't worry, Gavin might take over XT...but he doesn't want to!   

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445

[gmaxwell]

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

Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.

[knight22]

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  

Don't worry, Gavin might take over XT...but he doesn't want to!    

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445

In comparison to Core devs that want too much  

That says a lot.

[lolgato]

This is big news but xt I'm not sure about it

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.

Would it be potentially informative to give the relevant testnet's coins some tiny notional value, in order to see what happens in terms of economics (IE Gavincoin Short) in the event of a Great Testnet Schism?

Or would that run afoul of Szabo's warnings about the limits of simulations and lead to a 'small-world fallacy' GIGO situation?

[valiz]

Just like was said before, for this disagreement only the blocksize can be changed, which is only a few lines of code, in the case of BIP101 this has already been coded by Gavin. Which gives people the freedom of choice by simply applying the patch on top of either Core or XT. Changing more then the blocksize also further unnecessarily complicates things when it comes to this disagreement at least. You also forgot to attack BTCD since they are also now supporting an increased blocksize as well.

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd

Whatever, I don't see no BIP101 or increased blocksize in that BTCD. It doesn't matter what they talk, the code matters.

Of course, if you have the skills, you can apply that patch and build the code yourself, or you can use unmaintained XT software. Beware, at some point the patch won't apply cleanly anymore.

You lost badly. Just admit it. 

[Amph]

what is the problem of simply forking core to 2mb then 4 mb then 8mb when needed each time we saturate, let's say +90%

i don't a problem of multiple fork spread in a long time frame, you need one click to run a new upgrade of core, not a big deal, i missing something about the real issue of many hard fork?

[Mickeyb]

what is the problem of simply forking core to 2mb then 4 mb then 8mb when needed each time we saturate, let's say +90%

i don't a problem of multiple fork spread in a long time frame, you need one click to run a new upgrade of core, not a big deal, i missing something about the real issue of many hard fork?

I think that the problem everyone sees with this is that we would have this unnecessary and long debate every time a new increase had to be decided, just like we are having last 6 months. And quite honestly, they are probably right!

[hdbuck]

what is the problem of simply forking core to 2mb then 4 mb then 8mb when needed each time we saturate, let's say +90%

i don't a problem of multiple fork spread in a long time frame, you need one click to run a new upgrade of core, not a big deal, i missing something about the real issue of many hard fork?

I think that the problem everyone sees with this is that we would have this unnecessary and long debate every time a new increase had to be decided, just like we are having last 6 months. And quite honestly, they are probably right!

there is no debate.
only code matter.

[VeritasSapere]

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  

Don't worry, Gavin might take over XT...but he doesn't want to!    

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445

In comparison to Core devs that want too much  

That says a lot.

Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. That he does not want to lead XT is good sign, he must be one of the greatest and rarest type of leaders like Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. That he does not want to lead XT is good sign, he must be one of the greatest and rarest type of leaders like Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.

Why are you bringing Satoshi into this?

[VeritasSapere]

Just like was said before, for this disagreement only the blocksize can be changed, which is only a few lines of code, in the case of BIP101 this has already been coded by Gavin. Which gives people the freedom of choice by simply applying the patch on top of either Core or XT. Changing more then the blocksize also further unnecessarily complicates things when it comes to this disagreement at least. You also forgot to attack BTCD since they are also now supporting an increased blocksize as well.

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd

You lost badly. Just admit it.

So when you say that I have lost, I personally do not see it as being so adversarial though. The main thing however that I have been advocating for is the freedom of choice. So if I have lost does that mean the freedom of choice has lost? Does that not mean then that we have all lost?

[VeritasSapere]

Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. That he does not want to lead XT is good sign, he must be one of the greatest and rarest type of leaders like Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.

Why are you bringing Satoshi into this?

It is true that Gavin gave up his position just like Satoshi did, which begs the question. If Satoshi left because he did not believe there should be centralized control of development then why should we accept centralized control by Core now under different leadership?

[Carlton Banks]

Just like was said before, for this disagreement only the blocksize can be changed, which is only a few lines of code, in the case of BIP101 this has already been coded by Gavin. Which gives people the freedom of choice by simply applying the patch on top of either Core or XT. Changing more then the blocksize also further unnecessarily complicates things when it comes to this disagreement at least. You also forgot to attack BTCD since they are also now supporting an increased blocksize as well.

https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd

You lost badly. Just admit it.

So when you say that I have lost, I personally do not see it as being so adversarial though. The main thing however that I have been advocating for is the freedom of choice. So if I have lost does that mean the freedom of choice has lost? Does that not mean then that we have all lost?

What, because we all got the answer wrong? (according to your version of reality)

No-one that isn't either ignorant to the logical implications of competing consensus rules, or isn't just plain shilling, agrees that competing rules in a rules driven system is a good idea. Yet again, if your idea for a cryptocurrency is so good, try doing it without hijacking the bitcoin mining network to do so.

[VeritasSapere]

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

Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.

If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101? If you would implement BIP101 under such conditions you will have my full support. However if you intend to ignore the economic majority and still attempt to push your own agenda while circumventing and undermining the proof of work consensus then I will accuse Core of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it Greg Maxwell, can you answer this question?

[valiz]

You lost badly. Just admit it.

So when you say that I have lost, I personally do not see it as being so adversarial though. The main thing however that I have been advocating for is the freedom of choice. So if I have lost does that mean the freedom of choice has lost? Does that not mean then that we have all lost?

What freedom of choice  , you're clearly advocating for XT and huge blocks. So, if I get it correctly, if I am supporting freedom of choice then I should support XT, right? If I'm not supporting XT, then I'm a totalitarian. 

Because Bitcoin survived this social attack, we have all won 

Except you perhaps...

[VeritasSapere]

You lost badly. Just admit it.

So when you say that I have lost, I personally do not see it as being so adversarial though. The main thing however that I have been advocating for is the freedom of choice. So if I have lost does that mean the freedom of choice has lost? Does that not mean then that we have all lost?

What freedom of choice   , you're clearly advocating for XT and huge blocks. So, if I get it correctly, if I am supporting freedom of choice then I should support XT, right? If I'm not supporting XT, then I'm a totalitarian.  

Because Bitcoin survived this social attack, we have all won  

Except you perhaps...

I support multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol for people to choose from, regardless of their content, this is what gives people the freedom of choice. Only having one choice in an election is the equivalent of totalitarianism after all.

[valiz]

You lost badly. Just admit it.

So when you say that I have lost, I personally do not see it as being so adversarial though. The main thing however that I have been advocating for is the freedom of choice. So if I have lost does that mean the freedom of choice has lost? Does that not mean then that we have all lost?

What freedom of choice   , you're clearly advocating for XT and huge blocks. So, if I get it correctly, if I am supporting freedom of choice then I should support XT, right? If I'm not supporting XT, then I'm a totalitarian.  

Because Bitcoin survived this social attack, we have all won  

Except you perhaps...

I support multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, regardless of their content, this is what gives people the freedom of choice. Only having one choice in an election is the equivalent of totalitarianism after all.

You don't need to do that. Bitcoin Core is a free and open source software. Even if it's developers would be tyrants seeking to destroy anyone who would not use their software, you would be free to fork it, thus creating another implementation of the Bitcoin protocol. This is guaranteed by it's licensing. You can read that.

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

[...]

You are actually supporting XT and huge blocks. You are among the last standing supporters. Even knight appears to run out of time for this.