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

[Lauda]

Doesn't XT still have the potential to be activated by miners? Isn't dormant a better word?

Well technically it is. One could argue that as long as a proposal exists there is a chance for it to get activated by miners. If we were talking about probabilities though, it would be very close to null.

I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.

Unlimited blocksize is nefarious by itself. It's like trying to put unlimited cargo on a plane; good luck with that.

[siameze]

Holy shit, this thread is still going?! I just figured I'd check in since Coinbase decided to go with a dead fork overnight. Couldn't happen to a dumber company.

There have indeed been some very positive developments recently. Bitcoin Unlimited has also been officially released.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software

Horrible. Random people without any sufficient expertise think that know what is best (if one takes a closer look at the members page). Just don't come complaining about ad hominem, because this isn't the case.

I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.

I guess this is XT camps latest attempt to grasp at straws and force their way into relevancy. By getting coinbase to run some of their nodes they are hoping for a modicum of legitimacy.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

It's an experiment. Core supporters say it's untested. So why not test it?

[VeritasSapere]

Doesn't XT still have the potential to be activated by miners? Isn't dormant a better word?

Well technically it is. One could argue that as long as a proposal exists there is a chance for it to get activated by miners. If we were talking about probabilities though, it would be very close to null.

I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.

Unlimited blocksize is nefarious by itself. It's like trying to put unlimited cargo on a plane; good luck with that.

Bitcoin unlimited does have a blocksize limit in practice. It just changes how this limit is decided upon. Instead of the blocksize limit being decided upon by a centralized development team, which is akin to centralized economic planning and obviously flawed, the blocksize limit is determined by the market, miners and users collectively. I believe this does solve the dilemma of governance related to the blocksize issue and possibly other issues in the future as well. I think that Peter R summed up this practical blocksize limit in Bitcoin Unlimited well by saying that:

There exists a natural game-theoretic block size limit.

[Zarathustra]

Doesn't XT still have the potential to be activated by miners? Isn't dormant a better word?

Well technically it is. One could argue that as long as a proposal exists there is a chance for it to get activated by miners. If we were talking about probabilities though, it would be very close to null.

I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.

Unlimited blocksize is nefarious by itself. It's like trying to put unlimited cargo on a plane; good luck with that.

Repeating the same BS doesn't make it better. BU does not mean unlimited blocksize. Educate yourself before talking.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

XTers are gaining confidence with BU and Coinbase and RIP Maxwell and increased traffic at their clubhouses. They don't consider victory a foreskin conclusion, though.  If they did, they would stop showing up here.

The day that they stop coming to this thread is not the day XT is rekt, but the day XT (or whatever non-Core utopia they end up claiming as their own) reaches adulthood.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin unlimited does have a blocksize limit in practice. It just changes how this limit is decided upon. Instead of the blocksize limit being decided upon by a centralized development team, which is akin to centralized economic planning and obviously flawed, the blocksize limit is determined by the market, miners and users collectively. I believe this does solve the dilemma of governance related to the blocksize issue and possibly other issues in the future as well.

Care to elaborate?

There exists a natural game-theoretic block size limit.

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

[Trent Russell]

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

Maybe it becomes true if you repeat the quote in enough distinct posts. That's how truth works, right?

[Trent Russell]

Enquiring minds want to know if astroturfers get christmas day off...

Before anyone jumps to any conclusions, that cuts both ways

It's amusing that this was the last post before Christmas. Nothing on Christmas. Then all hell breaks loose.

[Lauda]

Maybe it becomes true if you repeat the quote in enough distinct posts. That's how truth works, right?

That is how it work for the average Joe and apparently also for the XT folks.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin unlimited does have a blocksize limit in practice. It just changes how this limit is decided upon. Instead of the blocksize limit being decided upon by a centralized development team, which is akin to centralized economic planning and obviously flawed, the blocksize limit is determined by the market, miners and users collectively. I believe this does solve the dilemma of governance related to the blocksize issue and possibly other issues in the future as well.

Care to elaborate?

There exists a natural game-theoretic block size limit.

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

It should be obvious that the theories underpinning Bitcoin Unlimited are not just based on hearsay, there has been extensive and quality discussion on this subject for some time now and scientific research is being carried out. Please try and have some more respect for your ideological opponents, engage in constructive criticism instead of baseless accusations, insults and ad hominem. It is only through rational discussion that we can move forward from this impasse.

[Lauda]

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

You're trying to tell me that you are promoting a software alternative with undecided features? This makes sense. I don't have time to read so much in another forum. Summary or tl;dr is needed.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

So if I write a paper that makes what I say true? I thought you knew better.

[VeritasSapere]

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

You're trying to tell me that you are promoting a software alternative with undecided features? This makes sense. I don't have time to read so much in another forum. Summary or tl;dr is needed.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

So if I write a paper that makes what I say true? I thought you knew better.

I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

[RoadTrain]

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

Maybe it becomes true if you repeat the quote in enough distinct posts. That's how truth works, right?

I've found it funny, because the most prominent 'quote-repeater' here is VeritasSapere.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

[RoadTrain]

About "game-theoretical blocksize limit" I only need to quote Peter R:

And the fee market regulated by orphan rate is worth debating.

And it has been debated, and the theory promoted by Peter R didn't hold well. Spherical cows stuff. I didn't check if he revised his paper since then, though.

I've shown that the fee market exists if:

1. Bitcoin's inflation rate is nonzero

2. More than one miner or mining pool exists

3. Large blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks.  

I believe I will be able to remove #1 based on the current research I'm doing.  #2 will always exists (Bitcoin is always susceptible to 51% attack).  There is empirical evidence for #3:

- Stone, G. A. “An Examination of Bitcoin Network Throughput Via Analysis of Single Transaction Blocks.” No Publisher (2015) http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn

- “Bitcoin Network Capacity Analysis – Part 6: Data Propagation.”  Tradeblock Blog (23 June 2015) https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation

- Decker C. and Wattenhofer R. “Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network.” 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Trento, Italy, September 2013

These three assumptions did not change since the last time I read his paper. The third one is, in my opinion, the most controversial, and I'm pretty sure it will be put to rest soon.

[Master of Puppets]

https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/680902843784544256

Coinbase is now running BitcoinXT (BIP101) in production as an experiment, blog post w more details coming soon

Good.

There have indeed been some very positive developments recently. Bitcoin Unlimited has also been officially released.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software

I prefer Bitcoin Plus, Bitcoin Scrypt and Bitcoin2 ...

[VeritasSapere]

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their position.

[Lauda]

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

So according to you Bitcoin.org = Bitcoin Core? Makes sense.

I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

There is nothing to counter, you are telling me that the rules are yet going to be decided and then you tell me that it is already decided? Make up your mind. I'm asking a simple question, exactly what mechanism decides the block size and how.

[Westin Landon Cox]

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their own position.

Coinbase can go fuck itself. Look at the "freedom" they allow their customers. They're an example of the bullshit bitcoin was designed to get away from. This is best expressed in a quote from me:

Coinbase can go fuck itself.

The XT dead enders want to take away my freedom of choice to keep using Bitcoin by killing the real chain. Oh, but only if 75% of miners agree, I know. I've had enough of losing fucking elections. I signed up for bitcoin to get away from that shit.

Look: you have the freedom of choice to use XT or BU or whatever, but you can't demand to be listed on someone else's website. If you really want 101 to activate, you're even free to change the activation criteria by adding a checkpoint or switching to Scrypt. But the XT dead enders want more than that. They insist on killing the real chain.

Well, spoiler alert: they won't. Even if they think they're about to, some of us will make sure they don't.

It's not a debate anymore. The debate is over.