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

[hdbuck]

how old are you srlsy?

Such cool. Much slang.  So few vowels.

why are you still hanging around with us old ph0rkers?  

Different kind of users here. On one side, we have kid slang and meme generator posters like hdbuck and many other no names, and on the other side we have a Peter R, who's getting asked to write overviews for CoinDesk.

http://www.coindesk.com/10-must-read-cryptocurrency-research-papers-from-2015/

haha coindesk.. lmao you fuck-mainstream-wit wannabe.

i sir, pen my article for the only relevant bitcoin news site: http://qntra.net/author/hdbuck/

fucking unbelievable those redditards and their couple satoshis, fork off already would ya?

[Lauda]

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

So in other words miners make the ultimate decision? If this is the case, then Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse than I initially thought. Otherwise, elaborate what you mean exactly (since everyone can vote via software and miners create blocks).

[brg444]

Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is able of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks.

Interesting. What is preventing entities from cheating the system by running thousands of clients with bogus votes?

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

*facepalms*

[VeritasSapere]

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

So in other words miners make the ultimate decision? If this is the case, then Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse than I initially thought. Otherwise, elaborate what you mean exactly (since everyone can vote via software and miners create blocks).

I do not think that the miners having a lot of power in this decision making process is a bad thing, after all they are the only group that have a direct and lasting incentive mechanism acting upon them to do what is best for Bitcoin. Furthermore this would not just be up to the miners, they would still need to move with the economic majority, this is where the negotiation would take place. I also do not see a better alternative then that since otherwise we would still be dependent on alternative implementations and their development teams in order to give us a range of choice. In that case however the power would still lie with the economic majority and the miners so it would not actually in effect be any different in that regard, it just turns what was a representative democracy into a more direct form of democracy in regards to the blocksize. BU is not even about increasing the blocksize, it is about giving everyone the freedom of choice. After all the miners and the economic majority could decrease the blocksize under BU if they deem this to be necessary, BU just takes this power away from the development teams and returns it to where it belongs.

BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.

[brg444]

BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.

It's not. It's up to the miners.

Stop promoting this misleading idea.

[chek2fire]

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

So in other words miners make the ultimate decision? If this is the case, then Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse than I initially thought. Otherwise, elaborate what you mean exactly (since everyone can vote via software and miners create blocks).

this is how really works something that known can undrestand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AikLs1P4_PA

every simple person in bitcoin ecosystem is very important. Many say that developers or miners has the power for changes that is not true. In ecosystem like bitcoin everyone must agree for a change and that is the real power of bitcoin because none can control it.

[hdbuck]

Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is able of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks.

Interesting. What is preventing entities from cheating the system by running thousands of clients with bogus votes?

It is the miners that *create* [ ] new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. [ ] Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

*facepalms*

[VeritasSapere]

BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.

It's not. It's up to the miners.

Stop promoting this misleading idea.

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

[Peter R]

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

So in other words miners make the ultimate decision? If this is the case, then Bitcoin Unlimited is even worse than I initially thought. Otherwise, elaborate what you mean exactly (since everyone can vote via software and miners create blocks).

Miners can only decide so long their blocks are smaller than what bulk of the nodes will accept.  Neither miner nor node has final say--the limit emerges from a "bottom up" decentralized process instead. 

[Peter R]

We've recently been able to show that weak blocks will not affect the existence of a fee market.  This is describe in detail in my recent "subchains" manuscript (Sections 4 and 5).

That is indeed an interesting paper and looks correct at the first glance.

Thanks!  I was quite excited by the results.

I must note that IBLT looks quite different, so it likely requires another paper

Haha yes it will require another paper.  I haven't figured out how to formalize the scenario with IBLTs yet.  I suspect they will reduce the slope on the "mempool supply curve," but I have a lot more work to do. 

[brg444]

BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.

It's not. It's up to the miners.

Stop promoting this misleading idea.

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

Stop repeating your dull one-liners it really makes you sound like a robot. (a not very smart one)

Nodes decide the code they run and if there was consensus amongst these peers that the block size should be increased then it would.

For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move.

You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

haha coindesk.. lmao you fuck-mainstream-wit wannabe.

Romanian gypsy turds have returned from their circle jerk here

You derps sure gotta derp - you ain't wrong.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

According to bitco.in no threshold for adoption by miners exists, apparently both users and miners can vote for adoption of the BU client and adoption is market based

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move.

You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

[brg444]

-snip-
For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move.

You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

Dont be an idiot. Of course we dont. As you are fond of saying - its vaporware.....

[Cconvert2G36]

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

Did you gather any opinions from miners asking them how they feel about creeping towards 1.75 MB equivalent sometime in 2017 with a soft fork that leaves all non-latest-Core-software nodes not validating transactions?

[brg444]

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

Dont be an idiot. Of course we dont. As you are fond of saying - its vaporware.....

it's actually all in code, waiting to get on testnet by end of the month and to be merged soon enough 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

Dont be an idiot. Of course we dont. As you are fond of saying - its vaporware.....

it's actually all in code, waiting to get on testnet by end of the month and to be merged soon enough 

So your new altcoin is ready to go then?  Ha! Ha!   

[brg444]

Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.

Did you gather any opinions from miners asking them how they feel about creeping towards 1.75 MB equivalent sometime in 2017 with a soft fork that leaves all non-latest-Core-software nodes not validating transactions?

The 75% increase is immediate once the code is implemented.

Third-party software a free to enjoy additional headroom by adapting their code.