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

[MbccompanyX]

I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.

This doesn't make any sense. I'm also curious what will happen when pigs will battle sheep for domination of the skies.

Don't pay ChoadStress any mind.

He's the Gavinista LOLcow that gives sour milk.   

but can we say that this thread from talking about the death of bip101 and bitcoin xt becamed a debate about the fact that people still goes behind it?

[hdbuck]

Szatoshi has spoken!

Nick Szabo: Bitcoin More Secure Than Gold

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/nick-szabo-bitcoin-more-secure-than-gold/36100

Bitcoin as a Better Reserve Currency

"Due to bitcoin’s superiority over gold in terms of security, Szabo also mentioned that the digital currency may be useful as a reserve currency for banks and governments. He explained:

“Reserve currency — this one [bitcoin] hasn’t been used for yet, but it’s something I envisioned when I was [developing] bit gold and something you could still do with bitcoin. Governments and banks could use [bitcoin] as their reserve currency. When political distrust rises — when wars break out — it’s going to be a lot more secure to be holding cryptocurrency than to be holding gold, especially since a lot of the world’s gold is held and entrusted in the United States anyway.”"

[Zarathustra]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

[hdbuck]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

come back whenever the spam stops.

[Zarathustra]

Szatoshi has spoken!

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

[Zarathustra]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

come back whenever the spam stops.

We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.

"Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics."

[Carlton Banks]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

come back whenever the spam stops.

We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.

You're completely bonkers with this constant repetition of fantasy as reality: the market has already rejected unlimited blocksizes, because it recognises the value of limited blocksizes. Why are you still here? To get censored and subjected to ad hominem attacks? (neither of which allegation are founded in reality either?)

Go home, Zara (it's called forum.bitcoin.com, get going)

[Zarathustra]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

come back whenever the spam stops.

We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.

Whom are you talking with?

We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.

Best regards to all of you censorship cheerleaders.

[hdbuck]

Szatoshi has spoken!

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

Notice the P2P thing.

[hdbuck]

Roger Verification Generator

http://buttcoinfoundation.org/rogerverification/

[tvbcof]

Szatoshi has spoken!

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"

Notice the P2P thing.

ACH, SWIFT, etc are 'peer-to-peer' systems in some people's eyes insofar as the government chartered banks are peers with one another.  I don't think that that was exactly what Satoshi was envisioning, but if he was, fuck him.

It remains theoretically possible for a vast pool of people to be full peers on par with any in the ecosystem.  The numbers of parties doing so is disappointingly low, but could potentially shoot right back up if/when there is a genuine need, and do so even in the presence of significant network attacks by those who own the global network infrastructure.  As long as that reality exists, I'm fairly comfortable with Bitcoin as an asset.

[danielW]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

What was the full quote by Satoshi?

[VeritasSapere]

Agreed.  One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.

It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.

What was the full quote by Satoshi?

Satoshi Nakamoto speaks:

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

[theymos]

Satoshi (my emphasis):

A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

It's time we had the same thing for money.

[MarketNeutral]

Satoshi (my emphasis):

A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

It's time we had the same thing for money.

Satoshi, thank you. Reading this again many years after I first read it, it still hits hard.
I don't mean sound mawkish, but truly, technology that has the capability of being trustless is a gift to the world.

[brg444]

It's a wonder that merely days following Satoshi's announcement of Bitcoin on the crypto mailing list one user was able to foresee the risks posed by a deliberate overreliance on SPV methods yet 7 years later some people insist that this is the only way Bitcoin can/should scale.

But I think we need to concern ourselves with minimizing the data and bandwidth required by money issuers - for small coins, the protocol seems wasteful.  It would be nice to have the full protocol for big coins, and some shortcut for small coins wherein people trust account based money for small amounts till they get wrapped up into big coins.

The smaller the data storage and bandwidth required for money issuers, the more resistant the system is the kind of government attacks on financial networks that we have recently seen.

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

[tl121]

It remains theoretically possible for a vast pool of people to be full peers on par with any in the ecosystem.  The numbers of parties doing so is disappointingly low, but could potentially shoot right back up if/when there is a genuine need, and do so even in the presence of significant network attacks by those who own the global network infrastructure.

There are practical economic implications that limit the number of nodes.  Each node incurs processing and communications costs for each transaction that it verifies.  At the present minimum fee structure and bitcoin price there is a reasonable balance between minimum transaction fees and costs to relay transactions.  If there is a huge increase in number of nodes this will cease to be the case and the ecosystem will be out of balance.

Another problem is that latency across the network increases with number of nodes.  This happens two ways.  If a new node is added it can be connected to an existing node, but this will increase the number of neighbors of this new node and require more time to forward blocks assuming the node's total bandwidth has to be shared by each connection. Second, the network may have to be reorganized somewhat and in this case the network diameter will have to increase. The good news is that if node connections are three or more then the network diameter can grow with the logarithm of the number of nodes.

In practice all things will not be equal, with high speed nodes supporting large numbers of connections and low speed nodes perhaps supporting only a few. Also, mining nodes can use an engineered backbone.  In both of these cases all nodes are not fully equal. The dream of a truly equal large scale peer to peer network that is not engineered is unrealistic.

Since practical limitations limit the number of equal nodes, there are two obvious questions:  1. How many nodes are enough?  2.  How equal do nodes need to be?

[brg444]

It remains theoretically possible for a vast pool of people to be full peers on par with any in the ecosystem.  The numbers of parties doing so is disappointingly low, but could potentially shoot right back up if/when there is a genuine need, and do so even in the presence of significant network attacks by those who own the global network infrastructure.

There are practical economic implications that limit the number of nodes.  Each node incurs processing and communications costs for each transaction that it verifies.  At the present minimum fee structure and bitcoin price there is a reasonable balance between minimum transaction fees and costs to relay transactions.  If there is a huge increase in number of nodes this will cease to be the case and the ecosystem will be out of balance.

I'm having trouble making sense of how transaction fees are somehow relevant for non-mining nodes?

[brg444]

As for the notion of equality between peers it really is only a matter of whether or not one is able to independently verify each and every transactions he is involved with.

[VeritasSapere]

I just discovered this article, I thought it was very interesting:

http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate

Disagreements appear rooted more in differing opinions on economics, a specialized field entirely distinct from engineering, programming, and network design.

The block size limit has for the most part not ever been, and should not now be, used to determine the actual size of average blocks under normal network operating conditions. Real average block size ought to emerge from factors of supply and demand for what I will term “transaction-inclusion services.” Beginning to use the protocol block size limit to restrict the provision of transaction-inclusion services would be a radical change to Bitcoin. The burden of proof is therefore on persons advocating using the protocol limit in this novel way.

The idea of using the limit in this new way—not the idea of raising it now by some degree to keep it from beginning to interfere with normal operations—is what constitutes an attempt to change something important about the Bitcoin protocol. And there rests the burden of proof.

Transaction-fee levels are not in any general need of being artificially pushed upward. A 130-year transition phase was planned into Bitcoin during which the full transition from block reward revenue to transaction-fee revenue was to take place.

The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.