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

[brg444]

I do not understand this statement and I find it offensive. I looked it up on google and the results where primarily comprised of examples of logical fallacy.

 

So you didn't get the hint...

[brg444]

Talking about Satoshi, I do not appreciate you implying that I am a coward because I am "hiding" behind a pseudonym.

Satoshi wasn't busy throwing baseless accusations around and spouting empty political statements.

"Cypherpunks write code"

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Kids in the car always want to go faster, but only the driver and engineers know the limits of what is safe. The kids will cry that they didn't get to go faster, but it's for their own good.

When the oil companies and tire manufacturers stop doing business with the driver and engineers, the car stops.

[agath]

[...] pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work[...]

This.

[gmaxwell]

The modern large miners are mostly not pools in the historic sense. They own most of their own or at least physically control most of hashpower (directly or through other companies with common ownership). Even to the extent that they are still 'pools', we've seen from experience that the participants have no influence-- e.g. Ghash.io used ~30% hashpower to perform a million dollar scale finney attack, and for months after their hashrate grew, ultimately reaching to 50%. Rather than moving their miners away, people criticized the victim for accepting unconfirmed transactions and moved their hashpower _to_ ghash.


Back to the "LULZ", the desperate attacks on Opt-in RBF (seems that some think they can use this easily misunderstood bit of technology as a proxy in their epic war On Bitcoin Core) have become so shark-jumping-crazy that they're chuckle worthy now: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/cxg8wj5?context=3

[brg444]

Back to the "LULZ", the desperate attacks on Opt-in RBF (seems that some think they can use this easily misunderstood bit of technology as a proxy in their epic war On Bitcoin Core) have become so shark-jumping-crazy that they're chuckle worthy now: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/cxg8wj5?context=3

/r/bitcoin right now

[brg444]

Is there anyone out there that would actually want to pretend that there is such a thing as a Bitcoin retail economy, as it currently stand, and that it is anything more than a few thousand redditards sending the same half a million bitcoins back and forth amongst their little "mass adoption" cargo cult while surrending to industry idols, VC priests & the golden lustre of their banking sponsors?

Anyone  

[VeritasSapere]

The modern large miners are mostly not pools in the historic sense. They own most of their own or at least physically control most of hashpower (directly or through other companies with common ownership). Even to the extent that they are still 'pools', we've seen from experience that the participants have no influence-- e.g. Ghash.io used ~30% hashpower to perform a million dollar scale finney attack, and for months after their hashrate grew, ultimately reaching to 50%. Rather than moving their miners away, people criticized the victim for accepting unconfirmed transactions and moved their hashpower _to_ ghash.


Back to the "LULZ", the desperate attacks on Opt-in RBF (seems that some think they can use this easily misunderstood bit of technology as a proxy in their epic war On Bitcoin Core) have become so shark-jumping-crazy that they're chuckle worthy now: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ukc52/rbf_is_agaisnt_satoshis_vision_peter_todd_and/cxg8wj5?context=3

More then seventy percent of the hashpower is presently in public pools. Saying that the participants of these pools have no influence is also simply not true, ultimately they have all of the influence since it is the miners that control the hashpower not the pools. It is very simple and easy to switch pools after all, if what you where saying where true I would consider Bitcoin broken, I think you are wrong in this regard however. I am a miner myself and I was mining with Ghash, not when it was approaching fifty percent, though when I did learn about what happened I did move my hashpower over to a more responsible pool as I am sure many other miners like myself did as well. Therefore we can consider Ghash an example of proof of work actually working and the incentives being aligned well, unlike what you are claiming. Since after all Ghash presently controls less then one percent of the hashpower which I think is in part due to the blow that was dealt to their reputation.

In regards to RBF, I agree with what Mike and Gavin and many others have said who have spoken out against it. What ever happened to not implementing contentious changes? I suppose Core decides what issues are contentious then regardless of what others think? This is part of the problem with "developer consensus" ultimately it is a question of who decides. I think that proof of work consensus is superior to your "developer consensus". Proof of work consensus will reflect the will of the economic majority, not just the will of a small group of technical experts within Core.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d#.3tglyp80d
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ul1kb/peter_todds_rbf_replacebyfee_goes_against_one_of/

[Zarathustra]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon, or being forked off. No chance for BIP103 and similar jokes.

[hdbuck]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

[VeritasSapere]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

[hdbuck]

A good laugh 

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

your broken irrelevant rhetoric.

[danielW]

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?

You appear to be conflating unlike things here,  the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.

I do not think that seventy five percent of the hash power is controlled by three people. I think that pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work.

I agree but you just destroyed Gavins 'reasoning' for why only 75% percent hash rate was used. I.e. so a single pool can not block it. But like you yourself said pools are just proxys that represent miners.


I think the real underlaying reason 75% is set, is because Gavin instinctively knows that he wont be able to fork with consensus i.e. something like 95%.

[danielW]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

 RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

[VeritasSapere]

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?

You appear to be conflating unlike things here,  the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.

I do not think that seventy five percent of the hash power is controlled by three people. I think that pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work.

I agree but you just destroyed Gavins 'reasoning' for why only 75% percent hash rate was used. I.e. so a single pool can not block it. But like you yourself said pools are just proxys that represent miners.

I think the real underlying reason 75% is set, is because Gavin instinctively knows that he wont be able to fork with consensus i.e. something like 95%.

I can actually agree with this, I think it will most likely be impossible to reach 95% consensus on any contentious issue, therefore having a lower percentage for such changes does make sense and I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, it further allows for the possibility for the smaller chain to continue to exist if that is what people want, which I would also consider to be a positive effect. I think that if we do require 95% consensus on all issues that this would guarantee to completely freeze all significant developments over the long term since there will be more contentious issues and decisions which will need to be made in the future as well even beyond this blocksize debate.

[VeritasSapere]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

[muyuu]

More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

[Zarathustra]

"Disgust is peaking"

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-127#post-4471

[Trent Russell]

...
RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. ...

RBF isn't a fork at all, hard or soft. It doesn't change which blocks are valid.

[iCEBREAKER]

More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

They are really buttrekt about the RBF thing; they know their ludicrous vision of coffees-on-the-Holy-Ledger is now truly dead and buried.

I haven't seen such wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments at FrappeForum since the original Great Schism.   

Hearn@signint.google.mil willingly jumps into a deep pit of (obviously satirical) stupidity here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ul6ox/beyond_rbf_blockstream_is_working_on_blocking/

Guess he's never heard of Poe's Law!   

Bonus lulz:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3u8aqh/are_we_trading_one_theymos_for_another/
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/this-vs-forum-bitcoin-com.84/#post-1579
(In which BitcoinJudas doesn't play nicely with other self-appointed Gavinista leadership as they squabble over the few remaining True Believers.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ul23l/all_the_posts_here_about_rbf_and_not_one_peep/cxfr0as
(In which /r/btc mods respond to anti-RBF crapflood with SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/
(In which /r/btc mods are accused of Jorge Stolfi SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

Looks like thermos is in danger of losing his 'Epitome of Authoritarianism' world record!