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

[brg444]

“As detailed in our white paper on the subject, we do not support an upgrade to BIP 101,” Vavilov said. “In our opinion, BIP 101 is not sufficiently tested nor theoretically substantiated. Its introduction could bring radical changes to the topology of the Bitcoin network. Additionally, we think that a more gradual increase of the block-size limit will help develop a transaction fee market. This would be great for the Bitcoin ecosystem from the security point of view.”

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-titan-bitfury-no-to-bip-yes-to-block-size-consensus-1449253663

#REKT

[1715491837]

1715491837

[1715491837]

1715491837

[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?

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.

So he never said to get rid of the block size limit like your or Gavin advocate, or have it dynamically increasing rapidly ahead of need.

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

That is exactly mine, Theymoses and most core devs position. To increase it when needed.

Thats not your or Gavins ideal position, you want to remove it not increase it.

 Satoshi never said that, If he did please show me where.  Another quote you have missing is (paraphrasing): that we should keep nodes small as long as possible.

btw this quote

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

refers to the size of block chain, not to block-size.


Now none of that makes your positions in any way wrong btw.


But please do not try to highjack Satoshi as pro XT when we have no idea what his position would be.

[Cconvert2G36]

But please do not try to highjack Satoshi as pro XT when we have no idea what his position would be.

I didn't get the impression that he was trying to paint satoshi as pro XT. The quotes showing satoshi as "anti 1MB4EVA" are plain for anyone to see, but pro XT?... not so much.

[danielW]

But please do not try to highjack Satoshi as pro XT when we have no idea what his position would be.

I didn't get the impression that he was trying to paint satoshi as pro XT. The quotes showing satoshi as "anti 1MB4EVA" are plain for anyone to see, but pro XT?... not so much.

Well people are trying to claim that our camp is going against Satoshi, while they are following Satoshis vision. We have no idea what Satoshis position is (beyond that when needed blocksize should be increased, which everybody agrees with). If he truly wanted to express himself he still can. Some of the big-blockists and Hearn, are trying to express for him, and claim him.

[iCEBREAKER]

“As detailed in our white paper on the subject, we do not support an upgrade to BIP 101,” Vavilov said. “In our opinion, BIP 101 is not sufficiently tested nor theoretically substantiated. Its introduction could bring radical changes to the topology of the Bitcoin network. Additionally, we think that a more gradual increase of the block-size limit will help develop a transaction fee market. This would be great for the Bitcoin ecosystem from the security point of view.”

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-titan-bitfury-no-to-bip-yes-to-block-size-consensus-1449253663

#REKT

Nice to see this coming right after the Lee bros also rubbished 101/XT.  (The Reddit threads about that are hilarious.  So much schadenfreude!   )

Moar lulzy Gavinista pratfalls here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ven4x/lighthouse_dead/

Hearn@sigint.google.mil has the inverse Midas touch; anything he's involved with turns to shit and fails.

Let's hope he also infects his (ostensibly) new BIS bankster buddies with incurable XTurd cooties.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Wat a trainwreck:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3vheqr/serious_buffer_overflow_vulnerability_found_in/

Serious buffer overflow vulnerability found in Bitcoin XT. If you are running XT from git shut off and upgrade!!!

Oh dear, I hope nobody exploits this delicate situation!

[danielW]

Wat a trainwreck:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3vheqr/serious_buffer_overflow_vulnerability_found_in/

Serious buffer overflow vulnerability found in Bitcoin XT. If you are running XT from git shut off and upgrade!!!

Oh dear, I hope nobody exploits this delicate situation!

In Core we likely would have rejected this part of the patch which introduced the misbehavior for the introduction of manual memory management (new/delete) before even noticing the overflow, or even just for unnecessarily changing the buffer size (it could have left the buffer alone, and just min()ed the recv call argument). The additional heap allocation per received chunk can't be good for performance either.

ReKTnode 1 points 2 hours ago
It looks like Bitcoin Core has still not been patched for this vulnerability.

nullc 8 points an hour ago
Welcome to Reddit, ReKTnode!

That would be because Bitcoin Core never had it in the first place.

[danielW]

Good luck running Bitcoin on XT with virtually no developers, and discarding some of the most knowledgeable crypto-currency people in the world.

I think Ill buy dodgecoin instead lol  


Then again according to some here Gavin is an active developer because he writes articles and participates in discussion. In that case XT has plenty of developers. Good to hear, it means I can call myself an active core developer too . Should look good on my resume  .


Writing code, pfffft  

[ArticMine]

BIP 101 would have blocksize hitting 1 GB in the year 2030.  Then it would continue to double each year until it hits 8 GB in 2036.

1 GB blocksize = ~4000 transactions per second

8 GB blocksize = ~32000 transactions per second

Visa & Mastercard transactions hit daily peaks of 4000 to 8000 transactions per second

Is going all the way up to 8 GB too much?  Why not stop at 2 GB =  ~8000 transactions per second?

... because 8 GB after an increase from 1 MB "should be enough for everyone" just as 640 KB (RAM) after an increase from 80 B (punched card) "should be enough for everyone" http://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/operating-systems/the--640k--quote-won-t-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html

[iCEBREAKER]

BIP 101 would have blocksize hitting 1 GB in the year 2030.  Then it would continue to double each year until it hits 8 GB in 2036.

1 GB blocksize = ~4000 transactions per second

8 GB blocksize = ~32000 transactions per second

Visa & Mastercard transactions hit daily peaks of 4000 to 8000 transactions per second

Is going all the way up to 8 GB too much?  Why not stop at 2 GB =  ~8000 transactions per second?

... because 8 GB after an increase from 1 MB "should be enough for everyone" just as 640 KB (RAM) after an increase from 80 B (punched card) "should be enough for everyone" http://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/operating-systems/the--640k--quote-won-t-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html

Please stop crudely reasoning about Bitcoin in terms of unrelated systems such as Diner's Club and MS DOS.  It's a distraction at best and misleading at worst.

Bitcoin is a unique, unprecedented system, with its own unique, unprecedented requirement to be 'above the law.'

My first PC had 256k RAM and no hard drive.  Its desktop GUI booted off a floppy (good job Tandy!) so I appreciate the elegance of doing more with less (also thanks to 4k and 64k demos!)

I've seen Moore's observation in action my entire life, and I'm 100% entirely unconvinced it justifies endangering/destroying Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network.

Bloat makes everything centralized, shitty, and anti-consumer.  That's how we got to Windows 10: Panopticon Edition.   

[Zarathustra]

But please do not try to highjack Satoshi as pro XT when we have no idea what his position would be.

I didn't get the impression that he was trying to paint satoshi as pro XT. The quotes showing satoshi as "anti 1MB4EVA" are plain for anyone to see, but pro XT?... not so much.

Exactly, and the complete opposite of that settlement fantasies that the small blockers celebrate. Micropayments.

"Go through the old Bitcointalk threads from 2012 and 2013 sometime and look at how many of the anti-large block concern trolls also posted in the altcoin section." justusranvier

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vfsxz/zane_tackett_the_director_of_community_and/


Some of those trolls even present their altcoins in their user signature.

[muyuu]

Settlements are a reality.

[brg444]

 

Poor Justus, dude has totally lost his mind

[Zarathustra]

Settlements are a reality.

Yes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13141249#msg13141249

[gmaxwell]

Tehehe:   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/

(I await the wall of [deleted] when people start realizing how embarrassing their comments are...)

[TeamAgar]

Interesting outcome!  I didn't expect it to go this way.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Tehehe:   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/

(I await the wall of [deleted] when people start realizing how embarrassing their comments are...)

... that thread is an eye-opener. Who knew the disconnect in understandings is that large?

[iCEBREAKER]

Tehehe:   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/

(I await the wall of [deleted] when people start realizing how embarrassing their comments are...)

Well played!   

So much gold in the original post, which foretells the coming of myriad altcoins, shapeshift, and atomic cross-chain transfers.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring.  It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade.  The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both.  The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

[iCEBREAKER]

Tehehe:   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/

(I await the wall of [deleted] when people start realizing how embarrassing their comments are...)

... that thread is an eye-opener. Who knew the disconnect in understandings is that large?

I knew the disconnect in understandings is that large.

However bad you imagine Eternal Bitcoin September will be, the reality is worse.

That's why many of us call them Redditards.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Tehehe:   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3vpb0u/think_bitcoin_20_is_a_good_idea_had_dreams_of/

(I await the wall of [deleted] when people start realizing how embarrassing their comments are...)

Well played!  

So much gold in the original post, which foretells the coming of myriad altcoins, shapeshift, and atomic cross-chain transfers.

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring.  It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.

If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade.  The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both.  The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.

BitDNS, for anybody who hasn't been following, was implemented as Namecoin.

It is ideally suited to decentrally store/anchor data of all types, not just DNS, ID and TLS cert . types. Everyone climbing on to the "blockchain' bandwagon has missed that storage of data can ideally already be done in Namecoin, with security of hashpower a good percentage of Bitcoin's through merge-mining. If these gold-rushers had just spent a fraction of their bloated VC budgets on supporting Namecoin development then they have a ready made blockchain data storage ... just have to wait for them (free market) to catch up conceptually, but alas sometimes one wonders if they ever get tired of going off on tangents. Fees aligning with costs is the key.