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

[BitUsher]

No, I knew what will come:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016

My prediction came true. The pressures of the marketplace force them to raise the block capacity. The business model of an artificial fee market (which you are cheerleading) is officially REKT anyway. Means: dead. Which is great.

There were only a couple devs that wanted to keep the 1MB limit , most were in favor of raising it from my recollection, albeit not as aggressive as BIP101. What does any of this matter though? Do you want a mantle or award ? All I care about is bitcoin moving forward with the best solutions decided upon by a rough consensus. I am happy that Hearn and Gavin forced the issue to come to head , and ecstatic that luke-jr and sipa came up with better solutions which were partially motivated through there hand being forced at the threat of a fork.

Why attack blockstream or Wuille's amazing contributions? Andreas is right, This discussion has become toxic.... In the future we need more conferences and developers getting together to strengthen solidarity early on.

[Zarathustra]

No, I knew what will come:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016

My prediction came true. The pressures of the marketplace force them to raise the block capacity. The business model of an artificial fee market (which you are cheerleading) is officially REKT anyway. Means: dead. Which is great.

All I care about is bitcoin moving forward with the best solutions decided upon by a rough consensus. I am happy that Hearn and Gavin forced the issue to come to head , and ecstatic that luke-jr and sipa came up with better solutions which were partially motivated through there hand being forced at the threat of a fork.

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

[hdbuck]

No, I knew what will come:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016

My prediction came true. The pressures of the marketplace force them to raise the block capacity. The business model of an artificial fee market (which you are cheerleading) is officially REKT anyway. Means: dead. Which is great.

All I care about is bitcoin moving forward with the best solutions decided upon by a rough consensus. I am happy that Hearn and Gavin forced the issue to come to head , and ecstatic that luke-jr and sipa came up with better solutions which were partially motivated through there hand being forced at the threat of a fork.

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

lel bitco.in forum is surely the place to be for market makers.

keep the jokes coming zara, you are very funny. ^^

[BitUsher]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The only appropriate time to be critical of a proposal is for specific and technical objections and not petty matters like some alt developed code similar to what has been discussed for years. You are too emotionally involved and not focused on coming to a rough consensus that is best for bitcoin.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest. And yes, Bitcoin Unlimited, my favorite implementation is developing, testing and everything it needs to be my favorite implementation.

[hdbuck]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest. And yes, Bitcoin Unlimited, my favorite implementation is developing, testing and everything it needs to be my favorite implementation.

bwahahaha

[Zarathustra]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest. And yes, Bitcoin Unlimited, my favorite implementation is developing, testing and everything it needs to be my favorite implementation.

bwahahaha

Dear hdbuck, how do you feel watching your beloved 1MB slowly disappearing? Is it a traumatic experience?

[brg444]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest. And yes, Bitcoin Unlimited, my favorite implementation is developing, testing and everything it needs to be my favorite implementation.

bwahahaha

Bitcoin Unlimited is so out there and irrelevant even Mr. Political Correctness himself Mr. Jeff Garzik didn't bother mentioning it in his review of existing block size related BIP proposals.

BU's existence is not even acknowledged by the developer community and only "exists" in the sense that a marginal cargo cult confined within an obscure forum on the internet pretends it is actually something.

[BitUsher]

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest.

They claimed they weren't even aware of it as they were focused on developing their own seg witness from the work that was developed back in 2011.
Firstly, not giving credit due to other open source projects is not an example of dishonesty. Secondly, not being aware of other implementations code would make such an endeavor impossible.

You assume bad faith without evidence.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, and the market will decide which fork is the best fork.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-145#post-4899

Ok, great ... I'm happy there are multiple proposals and multiple implementations and people can vote by choosing their favorite.
Why the offtopic attacks on blockstream or Wuille? Wouldn't it be healthier to present your case, develop your repository and perform tests?

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest. And yes, Bitcoin Unlimited, my favorite implementation is developing, testing and everything it needs to be my favorite implementation.

bwahahaha

Bitcoin Unlimited is so out there and irrelevant

That's why your are reading there all the time.

[Carlton Banks]

The first implementation should be credited if you want to be honest.

They claimed they weren't even aware of it as they were focused on developing their own seg witness from the work that was developed back in 2011.
Firstly, not giving credit due to other open source projects is not an example of dishonesty. Secondly, not being aware of other implementations code would make such an endeavor impossible.

You assume bad faith without evidence.

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

[BitUsher]

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

I can see that now , thank you. I think we hold some responsibility in breeding this vitriol and hostility as well. There were many developers that were busy coding and testing instead of playing politics. Communication problems arose due to the inefficiencies over discussing complex ideas on mailing lists and forums which were exacerbated by the stakes involved which are much higher than most open source projects.

In the future we need better communicators to bridge the ideas and work from developers as they are working at levels way above our heads and don't necessarily know how to gauge the audience or speak without jargon. We also need more conferences and get together between developers where they have a chance to build solidarity in a less stressful environment. Hopefully we can build from these mistakes and grow together.

[brg444]

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

I can see that now , thank you. I think we hold some responsibility in breeding this vitriol and hostility as well. There were many developers that were busy coding and testing instead of playing politics. Communication problems arose due to the inefficiencies over discussing complex ideas on mailing lists and forums which were exacerbated by the stakes involved which are much higher than most open source projects.

In the future we need better communicators to bridge the ideas and work from developers as they are working at levels way above our heads and don't necessarily know how to gauge the audience or speak without jargon. We also need more conferences and get together between developers where they have a chance to build solidarity in a less stressful environment. Hopefully we can build from these mistakes and grow together.

The larger problem is that some entitled little socialists who've never done anything relevant feel they deserve to be consulted on every decisions and that their "voice" matter "because democracy" when Bitcoin has always worked under the settings of a meritocracy for very obvious reasons.

[Zarathustra]

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

I can see that now , thank you. I think we hold some responsibility in breeding this vitriol and hostility as well. There were many developers that were busy coding and testing instead of playing politics. Communication problems arose due to the inefficiencies over discussing complex ideas on mailing lists and forums which were exacerbated by the stakes involved which are much higher than most open source projects.

In the future we need better communicators to bridge the ideas and work from developers as they are working at levels way above our heads and don't necessarily know how to gauge the audience or speak without jargon. We also need more conferences and get together between developers where they have a chance to build solidarity in a less stressful environment. Hopefully we can build from these mistakes and grow together.

The larger problem is that some entitled little socialists who've never done anything relevant feel they deserve to be consulted on every decisions and that their "voice" matter "because democracy" when Bitcoin has always worked under the settings of a meritocracy for very obvious reasons.

Yes, it's the market, stupid! The market forced the Politbüro to 'propose' to raise the limit.

[VeritasSapere]

I think there is presently a fundamental disagreement within the Bitcoin community, which is related predominantly around questions of governance. I believe like many others do that consensus is an emergent property which is best reflected through proof of work which acts as a proxy for the economic majority. This is in strong contrast to the opposing view that Bitcoin should be governed top down by Core or that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics and eternal unchangeable principles. These two conceptions of Bitcoin governance are at odds with each other. It has become very clear to me especially after the conversations I had with gmaxwell on this thread that Core ascribes to the latter conception of Bitcoin governance, which I am in strong disagreement with. This has increased the need for alternative implementations especially as Core is presently attempting to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin in a way which I disagree with.

Part of this difference of perspective can be ascribed to peoples intellectual backgrounds. I can understand that for an engineer or scientist having a system governed by pure mathematics and science would be appealing. However I do not believe that is the case, Bitcoin is governed by the economic majority. People with economics background tend to understand and be more comfortable with the idea of allowing the free market to determine such things. An economist would also understand the inherent disadvantageous of central economic planning, which in effect is what Core is attempting to do now, at least in regards to their position on the blocksize related to governance. Essentially I believe that ideally the blocksize limit should not be used to determine the actual average blocksize, blocksize should ideally emerge from factors of supply and demand instead.

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.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

[Trent Russell]

My prediction came true. The pressures of the marketplace force them to raise the block capacity. The business model of an artificial fee market (which you are cheerleading) is officially REKT anyway. Means: dead. Which is great.

While I hate to admit it, Zarathustra is right. He did predict that some kind of blocksize increase would be accepted and that the 1MB hard line wouldn't hold. Instead of giving him a hard time, we should just give him and the others who've fought for so many months to increase the block capacity some credit. In my case, I'm willing to say it: Congratulations, Zarathustra. Well done.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13128607#msg13128607

[brg444]

I think there is presently a fundamental disagreement within the Bitcoin community, which is related predominantly around questions of governance. I believe like many others do that consensus is an emergent property which is best reflected through proof of work which acts as a proxy for the economic majority. This is in strong contrast to the opposing view that Bitcoin should be governed top down by Core or that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics and eternal unchangeable principles. These two conceptions of Bitcoin governance are at odds with each other. It has become very clear to me especially after the conversations I had with gmaxwell on this thread that Core ascribes to the latter conception of Bitcoin governance, which I am in strong disagreement with. This has increased the need for alternative implementations especially as Core is presently attempting to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin in a way which I disagree with.

Part of this difference of perspective can be ascribed to peoples intellectual backgrounds. I can understand that for an engineer or scientist having a system governed by pure mathematics and science would be appealing. However I do not believe that is the case, Bitcoin is governed by the economic majority. People with economics background tend to understand and be more comfortable with the idea of allowing the free market to determine such things. An economist would also understand the inherent disadvantageous of central economic planning, which in effect is what Core is attempting to do now, at least in regards to their position on the blocksize related to governance. Essentially I believe that ideally the blocksize limit should not be used to determine the actual average blocksize, blocksize should ideally emerge from factors of supply and demand instead.

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.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

So now that we have a scaling solution that potentially increases the block size down the road do you support it VS?

P.S. Spare us your Peter R induced brainwashing. Thanks

[hdbuck]

Zara is essentially consternation incarnate, there is no other way for this person to function. Never displays any other human traits at all.

I can see that now , thank you. I think we hold some responsibility in breeding this vitriol and hostility as well. There were many developers that were busy coding and testing instead of playing politics. Communication problems arose due to the inefficiencies over discussing complex ideas on mailing lists and forums which were exacerbated by the stakes involved which are much higher than most open source projects.

In the future we need better communicators to bridge the ideas and work from developers as they are working at levels way above our heads and don't necessarily know how to gauge the audience or speak without jargon. We also need more conferences and get together between developers where they have a chance to build solidarity in a less stressful environment. Hopefully we can build from these mistakes and grow together.

The larger problem is that some entitled little socialists who've never done anything relevant feel they deserve to be consulted on every decisions and that their "voice" matter "because democracy" when Bitcoin has always worked under the settings of a meritocracy for very obvious reasons.

Yes, it's the market, stupid! The market forced the Politbüro to 'propose' to raise the limit.

So when do you fork off to your favorite unlimited implementation again?

[gmaxwell]

There were only a couple devs that wanted to keep the 1MB limit , most were in favor of raising it from my recollection,

By only a couple you mean not a single one at all-- if you are speaking in terms of eventualities. It's always been a question of costs and impacts.

[hdbuck]

There were only a couple devs that wanted to keep the 1MB limit , most were in favor of raising it from my recollection,

By only a couple you mean not a single one at all-- if you are speaking in terms of eventualities. It's always been a question of costs and impacts.

timing and relevance?