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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

Can you cite an example?  Or is this statement on a par with your Unicorn dictum...  

 

[1713959045]

1713959045

[MbccompanyX]

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.

1. I agree that coinbase is litteraly doing things without giving a real warning to the users (Like the XT change, i didn't got any kind of email about that and let's add even the fact that my btc address on coinbase is changing once a week or even twice so is a big problem for me and because of that i have to download the core wallet on my computer because clients trust isn't on their priority)

2. The main problem of XT and BIP101 is that they refuse to made the damm fork because otherwise they would be dead on arrival

3. Who can tell if the debate is really over or not? At the end the XT/BIP101 supporters will always find a way to continue this "debate" until the end of the world

[brg444]

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.

You really can't keep Satoshi's name out of your mouth heh.

[siameze]

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.

You really can't keep Satoshi's name out of your mouth heh.

Too late, it has been removed: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/7d1cdd94651461ff13ad4ed10b05b2374690fac2   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit:  I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

[brg444]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit:  I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

Since when do you care about Bitcoin lambie?

[Westin Landon Cox]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit:  I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

Since when do you care about Bitcoin lambie?

You should take some meds to deal with that tic, forker 

[siameze]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

gladoscc used to be TradeFortress iirc.

[Peter R]

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.  

...

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.

By propagate, I mean the time to communicate and verify the block information across the network.  With G. Andrew Stone's latest paper, we now have three papers indicating that larger blocks take longer to spread across the network than small blocks.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/downloads/btc_1txn.pdf

Andrew's paper is novel because it is the first to perform the analysis based on propagation to (and verification by) hash rate rather than by nodes.  Here is one of his charts indicating a propagation impedance of about 17 sec / MB.  Which, incidentally is the same measurement that Tradeblock obtained using a different methodology.




@RoadTrain: do you believe that the time required for blocks to propagate across (and be verified by) the network does NOT depend on block size?

[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:

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.

It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority. If more people started running BU nodes then the miners could simply start mining bigger blocks as they see fit and appropriate. As opposed to the type of central economic planning that placing this power with a development team would necessitate, having multiple implementations of course expands this choice, however BU is even better since the blocksize limit would become a product of the emergent consensus of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Ultimately this would reflect the true supply and demand of block space as opposed to the arbitrary limits set by Core.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

[brg444]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

gladoscc used to be TradeFortress iirc.

Well known scammer yes.

It's clear as day who you want to side with in this story.

The rap sheet of most current XTards is long and tainted with numerous stories of scams and sociopathic conduct.

Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie

I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie

I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  

Ah, poor forker brg444. When you run out of ideas, just play the ad hominem card...

[siameze]

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

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point.  I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

gladoscc used to be TradeFortress iirc.

Well known scammer yes.

It's clear as day who you want to side with in this story.

The rap sheet of most current XTards is long and tainted with numerous stories of scams and sociopathic conduct.

Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie

I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  

+ Just about anyone that comes here from that echo-chamber called reddit. You know, the ones crying censorship because they are too stupid to make a new thread.

[brg444]

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.

It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority. If more people started running BU nodes then the miners could simply start mining bigger blocks as they see fit and appropriate. As opposed to the type of central economic planning that placing this power with a development team would necessitate, having multiple implementations of course expands this choice, however BU is even better since the blocksize limit would become a product of the emergent consensus of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Ultimately this would reflect the true supply and demand of block space as opposed to the arbitrary limits set by Core.

If the current consortium of Bitcoin nodes and those who compose the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network decide the blocksize needs an increase  it has ALWAYS been possible for them to locally adjust and compile their node to accept blocks of whatever size.

It's a sign to how low and infantile the conversation has devolved that you continue to entertain the notion that the open-source development of Bitcoin is centrally developed and forced on Bitcoin users.

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

This outright LIE that BU offers a market-driven solution is so asinine and disingenuous the notion is a disgrace to the credibility of anyone who dares participating in this manipulation.

It leaves literally everything up to the miners.

[VeritasSapere]

That you think that the miners incentives do not align with the users implies to me that you do not understand something very fundamental about Bitcoin. The miners are incentivized to do what is best for the network as a whole, if it was not for this fact, Bitcoin would not work. It is this underlying game theory, economics and psychology that allows the Bitcoin network to continue to operate and function the way that it does today.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie

I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  

Ah, poor forker brg444. When you run out of ideas, just play the ad hominem card...

I might have to agree with you here. Referring to anyone as "JStolfi" -- even JStolfi himself -- just seems like too dirty of an insult.

[brg444]

That you think that the miners incentives do not align with the users implies to me that you do not understand something very fundamental about Bitcoin. The miners are incentivized to do what is best for the network as a whole, if it was not for this fact, Bitcoin would not work. It is this underlying game theory, economics and psychology that allows the Bitcoin network to continue to operate and function the way that it does today.

Miners can continue doing their thing with 50 nodes on the network.

They couldn't careless if nodes start dropping off. Hell if they wanted to you couldn't even know nodes are dropping off the network.

That's why you'll never get it.

You're too naive.

[BldSwtTrs]

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy?

The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force).

Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time.