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

[turvarya]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

[brg444]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions.
i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though...

LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont.

Yes, they scale more easily, they're transactions competing for block space. Now, instead of Blockstream being lazy and deferring the scaling of their system to block size they are actively researching more efficient crypto that will decrease the size of these transactions.

[brg444]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.

All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

[Muhammed Zakir]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
 -snip-

Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering.

FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely.

P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12250669#msg12250669

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.

[BldSwtTrs]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.

All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

What about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream?

And who decide who is unqualified? You? Adam Back? Blockstream shareholders?

The guys at the top of the hierarchy remove the ladder so they can stay at the top, it's not difficult to comprehend and it could be very dangerous if that human tendancy is left unchecked.

[turvarya]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12250669#msg12250669

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
What about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream?
 -snip-

What? Deleting P2P lightweight clients and smartphone wallets? There is NO way the Core developers can do that! You are very mistaken. I already gave a reply above. Quoting:

-snip-
Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering.

FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely.

P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12250669#msg12250669
 -snip-

[onemorexmr]

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

not sure
Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj.

ofc blockstream can still develop it further.

[Mickeyb]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

[turvarya]

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

not sure
Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj.

ofc blockstream can still develop it further.

ok, thanks for the clarification. I think, I am aware of most big projects in the Bitcoin world, but I am really bad with names.

btw. doesn't change a thing about, that Muhammed and jonald where talking about two different technologies.

[onemorexmr]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

[onemorexmr]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

as i said: go and use another client which ONLY uses BIP101. guess what: it is compatible with XT... because consensus rules and client code are two different things (and yes: such a fork does exist. just forgot the link as i dont think it is necessary at all).

[HostFat]

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101.

This doesn't.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

It is only BIP101.

[turvarya]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

Are you aware, that I asked you a question to exactly that topic in another thread?
Maybe you could answer it, instead of repeating the same statements over and over again.

[brg444]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.

All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

What about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream?

And who decide who is unqualified? You? Adam Back? Blockstream shareholders?

their code. in general understand that 99% of the people who want to fix or improve Bitcoin are unable to and probably will break it.

see Matt Corralo's recent game theory speech to understand that Bitcoin is an absolutely fragile system and that it is reasonable to be extremely conservative in our motivation to change it.

it is not always about "do we want it?" but more often "can we afford it?"?

[HostFat]

@brg444
So, you are another one that loves authority and hate the people can have a freedom of choice.

[Muhammed Zakir]

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101.

This doesn't.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

It is only BIP101.

Thanks! But I saw it earlier. I prefer to support BIP 100 and not BIP 101.

-snip-
Are you aware, that I asked you a question to exactly that topic in another thread?
Maybe you could answer it, instead of repeating the same statements over and over again.

Done and I did not think I repeated statements again and again unless absolutely necessary. Did I?

[Kprawn]

Most people would not have supported XT in this manner, if the censorship thing did not happen in /r/Bitcoin Reddit. The censorship thing would not have happened if the XT

people did not decide to hijack the sub-reddit with their XT propaganda. Most people on both sides wanted bigger block sizes, without all the counter privacy BS.

This would have been a straight forward "patch" if both side just reached consensus on the block size debate. Put the ego's aside and we have consensus.    

[Beefcake]

Ok, so xt is not going to happen?  CUT!!!

OK now lets get a block size increase with no fud, no political shenanigans, and no blockstream nonsense. 

ACTION!