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

[Zarathustra]

http://www.techworm.net/2015/12/hacker-ddos-coinbase-website-down.html (lol rekt)

Coinbase is discovering that if you try to destroy Bitcoin, Bitcoin destroys you.

The small block terrorists are slowly hanging themselves.
There is no Block Size Limit:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-209#post-7583

We are the zerg:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-212#post-7719

[hdbuck]

http://www.techworm.net/2015/12/hacker-ddos-coinbase-website-down.html (lol rekt)

Coinbase is discovering that if you try to destroy Bitcoin, Bitcoin destroys you.

The small block terrorists are slowly hanging themselves.
There is no Block Size Limit:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-209#post-7583

We are the zerg:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-212#post-7719

get back to dogecoin already. unlimited wow.

[YarkoL]

The protocol indeed rely on large actors to enforces it. I would glad to see that the protocol itself is self-aware and reject any attempt to modify it, then we have a truly decentralized system without human interference. All the scaling solution will go off-chain, and I thing that will make bitcoin the most trustworthy/incorruptible monetary system on this planet

Now that would be centralization, with this Hal 9000-like artificial intelligence in
control. The previous e-cash solutions failed largely because people did not
trust the central authority, and I doubt they would trust Hal either. They would fork
the code and give power back to users.

But currently the protocol is the centralized control point, if you can persuade 12 large actors (5 mining pools, 5 exchanges, 1 web wallet and 1 payment processor) to adopt one specific protocol, then you basically control the majority of this ecosystem, anyone else has neglectable influence

Who is the you in the above sentence? No one controls the
protocol, it is open source, and one is free to modify it to one's heart's content
(and I do believe quite a lot of miners do fiddle with the parameters), but the
pursuit of rational self-interest ensures that the majority will dance to a
common tune.

[Zarathustra]

http://www.techworm.net/2015/12/hacker-ddos-coinbase-website-down.html (lol rekt)

Coinbase is discovering that if you try to destroy Bitcoin, Bitcoin destroys you.

The small block terrorists are slowly hanging themselves.
There is no Block Size Limit:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-209#post-7583

We are the zerg:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-212#post-7719

get back to dogecoin already. unlimited wow.

Is that your coin? Monero is the coin of your bolshevik Front National compagnon (no Block Size Limit).

[brg444]

The sixteen megabyte limit you are referring to is just the default setting, this can be changed by anyone using Bitcoin Unlimited. We could even all agree on a two megabyte blocksize limit and then that would become the new consensus through using Bitcoin Unlimited. It is about giving everyone the freedom of choice, this was always possible before, Bitcoin Unlimited only makes it more convenient by having this implemented within the client itself and an easy to use GUI. The name Bitcoin Unlimited does not refer to an unlimited blocksize but it refers to the unlimited choice and freedom it unlocks.

This is a false representation of what Bitcoin Unlimited actually does which is to hand over all of the power to mining nodes.

In effect, BU removes any power the individual, independent users might've had.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This is a false representation of what Bitcoin Unlimited actually does which is to hand over all of the power to mining nodes.

No it is not.  It does not hand over all the power to mining nodes. Please stop being so stupid - we know you are smarter than that.

In effect, BU removes any power the individual, independent users might've had.

In effect, it does no such thing. It does the exact opposite.  It strives to return an equilibrium among all stakeholders.

I can see how you are getting things arse-over-tit these days. Look at your segwit BIP X for example - previously BIPs were a way to formalise ideas and discuss them. However, you yourself admitted, that the segwit was coded first ( ready for implementation) and BIP'ped afterwards.  Thats exactly the opposite to how things are normally done in Open Source. 

[VeritasSapere]

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.

Return it? You are implying that it was like this before and that it was changed through time.

This is an example of how the other side manipulates with words (nothing was taken away, ergo nothing should be returned to "where it belongs").

I am indeed saying that, since not increasing the blocksize represents a change in the economic policy of Bitcoin, since the original vision of Satoshi clearly included an increased blocksize, and there is presently a divergence from this vision within Core. Even Jeff Garzik made this clear recently:

An Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period. A Fee Event is a notable Economic Change Event, where a realistic projection forsees higher fee/KB on average, pricing some economic actors (bitcoin projects and businesses) out of the system.

Failure to increase block size is not obviously-conservative, it is a conscious choice, electing for one economic state and set of actors and prices over another. Choosing Future Fee Market over Today's Fee Market. It is rational to reason that maintaining TFM is more conservative than enduring an Economic Change Event from TFM to FFM. It is rational to reason that maintaining similar prices and economic actors is less disruptive. Failure to increase block size will lead to a Fee Event sooner rather than later. Failure to plan ahead for a Fee Event will lead to greater market chaos and User pain.

The game theory bidding behavior is different for a mostly-empty resource versus a usually-full resource.  Prices are different.  Profitable business models are different.  Users (the set of economic actors on the network) are different.

We only know for certain that blocks-mostly-not-full works. We do not know that changing to blocks-mostly-full works. Changing to a new economic system includes boatloads of risk.

The worst possible outcome is letting the ecosystem randomly drift into the first Fee Event without openly stating the new economic policy choices and consequences. The simple fact is *inaction* on this supply-limited resource, block size, will change bitcoin to a new economic shape and with different economic actors, selecting some and not others. It is better to kick the can and gather crucial field data, because next-step (FFM) is very much not fleshed out.

[brg444]

This is a false representation of what Bitcoin Unlimited actually does which is to hand over all of the power to mining nodes.

No it is not.  It does not hand over all the power to mining nodes. Please stop being so stupid - we know you are smarter than that.

In effect, BU removes any power the individual, independent users might've had.

In effect, it does no such thing. It does the exact opposite.  It strives to return an equilibrium among all stakeholders.

It does.

It pretends to use signalling from nodes to create your pretended equilibrium but this is easily skewed by a sybil attack.

Miners are then left to pick a number while unable to discern between legitimate nodes and the sybil attacker.

[iCEBREAKER]

small block terrorists

Yes Mayor Giuliani, taking down Coinbase for a few minutes is exactly like 9/11.  

When you resort to conflating UDP packets with mass murder, it's obvious you have lost the debate.

Please continue to sell XT by using the victims of political violence as a reason to hate Core.

Your shameful, trashy histrionics do more damage to the Gavinista putsch than NotXT and LOIC ever could.  

get back to dogecoin already. unlimited wow.

#R3KT

[VeritasSapere]

Regarding the governance of the protocol, I think it is not very difficult to reach a consensus if it is a simple fact and everyone understand it. However if you go the radical or complex route, then your fork will just become orphaned

BIP101 is rather simple really which is one of its advantageous, Bitcoin Unlimited might be complex to understand in terms of all of the game theory, code and economics, however the underlying concepts are actually rather simple to understand, just like the Bitcoin protocol itself. Everyone has the freedom of choice.

I have played with several altcoins since I know bitcoin, but I quickly realized that the current cryptocurrency economy only focus on one coin, for the simple reason that people don't come here seeking for inflation. You have some mainstream economic knowledge that is weaved by banks to confuse the majority of human, so no doubt you will draw conclusions that does not fit reality (Reality is that none of the alt-coins will thrive, including banks' alt-coins)

You are repeating this false argument that altcoins and Bitcoin chain forks add inflation to a singular cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, without actually refuting my counter arguments, you are wrong in saying this.

If you look from the view of the central bank, the most important for a monetary system is trust. One of FED's mandate is moderate inflation, because hyperinflation will destroy the trust for their money.

Bitcoin however revolutionizes the concept of trust. A central bank is reliant upon trust, Bitcoin it can be said is almost the opposite, it does not require trust, it is trustless. It is only once people understand this that they can truly "trust" Bitcoin, in many ways it is anti-trust. This is a radical concept for many to understand, this is why your example is a case of false equivalence, you can not compare these two conceptions of "trust" directly in this case.

BIP 101 shakes investor trust since it is too radical, and BU is even more radical. When you are facing a change that no one has done before, you can only act conservative and prepare for the worst, not act radically and hope for the best.

That does seem like this is the engineers approach, which is good if you are an engineer, and we need engineers in Bitcoin as well as people from other fields. When facing a change that no one has done before, I think we should be brave, stick to our principles, act radically and hope for the best. After all does that not describe Bitcoin well? As far as I understand it even the design of Bitcoin is counterintuitive from an engineers perspective, it makes perfect sense in terms of the politics, game theory and economics though. Bitcoin is an example of sacrificing engineering ideals like efficiency for political advantages and principles like decentralization, after all a centralized system is far more efficient. We should not necessarily be conservative in our approach since what we are doing here is radical, much like the American revolution, Bitcoin is a grand social experiment and we need to let the experiment run its course, not stop it in its tracks because some people think that the original vision is to radical and that we should act more conservatively.

[iCEBREAKER]

bolshevik Front National

Bolshevism was the Soviet branch of the explicitly internationalist workers' movement.

Cite:  The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979)

Bolshevism - a consistently revolutionary Marxist current of political thought within the international workers’ movement.

Pro tip: internationalist != nationalist.

Your knowledge of humanities is as appallingly poor as your technical background.

How can you claim to have studied the humanities, yet be so stupendously ignorant of the basic tenets/history of Marxism and Leninism?

Do you just randomly use words with a vaguely negative connotation, or can you actually defend your absurd description of FN as "bolshevik?"

I'd wager it's the former, because compared to you Jon Snow knows just about everything.   

[Zarathustra]

small block terrorists

Yes Mayor Giuliani, taking down Coinbase for a few minutes is exactly like 9/11.  

When you resort to conflating UDP packets with mass murder, it's obvious you have lost the debate.

Everybody knows that DDoS attacks are not just terror. It is simply criminal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_%28disambiguation%29

But we know as well that you and your 'side' enjoy criminal agitation.

[Zarathustra]

bolshevik Front National

Bolshevism was the Soviet branch of the explicitly internationalist workers' movement.

Cite:  The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979)

Bolshevism - a consistently revolutionary Marxist current of political thought within the international workers’ movement.

Pro tip: internationalist != nationalist.

Your knowledge of humanities is as appallingly poor as your technical background.

How can you claim to have studied the humanities, yet be so stupendously ignorant of the basic tenets/history of Marxism and Leninism?

Do you just randomly use words with a vaguely negative connotation, or can you actually defend your absurd description of FN as "bolshevik?"

I'd wager it's the former, because compared to you Jon Snow knows just about everything.  

LOL

Educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Front
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ch/2014/09/the-national-bolshevik-alliance-is.html

[VeritasSapere]

It is very misleading claim that bitcoin users do not need to trust centralized authority, in fact every one uses bitcoin is trusting this centralized protocol originally designed by Satoshi: Every miners, nodes, exchanges, merchants, users, no exception

What is very misleading? The protocol does not rely on any external authority that enforces it and its original creator is no longer around. In fact miners are free to alter the protocol but they have counter-incentive to do that in the form of block reward. To obtain that they have to keep sure that they keep on extending the longest chain.As for non-miners, they are interested that their transactions are safeguarded, and that is again provided by the longest chain.

Earlier attempts at making digital cash relied solely on cryptography, and had to implement a central trusted server, whereas Satoshi introduced
two economic incentives into the system (block subsidy and transaction fees) which made it possible for it operate in a decentralized manner.

Just as the block reward does away with the need of central authority who issues money and detects double spends, the existence of transaction fee market does away with the need of a central authority who dictates the upper block size limit.

But currently the protocol is the centralized control point, if you can persuade 12 large actors (5 mining pools, 5 exchanges, 1 web wallet and 1 payment processor) to adopt one specific protocol, then you basically control the majority of this ecosystem, anyone else has neglectable influence.

What you are saying here is simply not true, the effective governance of the protocol is far more distributed and nuanced then that. The major public mining pools also do not control the majority of the hashpower they serve.

The reason that it gives people hope that a political move might work is because the protocol is highly centralized, if we indeed have a very decentralized system then there will not be such difficulties like we see today. But you can not have freedom in selecting protocol, since that means you just created another alt-coin which will worth a little due to its inflation nature.

I completely disagree with your notion that the protocol is presently highly centralized, I think that it is working fine and as it was intended and that it just needs to grow in order to become more decentralized. This further highlights and contrasts the difference in vision.

The protocol indeed rely on large actors to enforces it. I would glad to see that the protocol itself is self-aware and reject any attempt to modify it, then we have a truly decentralized system without human interference. All the scaling solution will go off-chain, and I thing that will make bitcoin the most trustworthy/incorruptible monetary system on this planet.

I think that you are critically mistaken in your assertion that Bitcoin should work without human interference, proof of work after all relies on game theory which is based on human incentives, Bitcoin is ruled by the market, it is ruled by people, it is revolutionary because it puts the people in charge without their actually needing to be any humans in the center of power whom require "trust" and checks and balances that often fail to work. This quote I felt was sympathetic to you position, I hope that you will come to understand that Bitcoin depends on the actions of human beings who are a part of this intricate and great machine so to speak.

In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish.

It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed.

At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.

[hdbuck]

Mass adoption incoming: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3yn09x/p2xtpool_gets_its_first_bip101_block_mined/ Not.

[Cconvert2G36]

A gift from the Front National Reps:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B8-2015-1366+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

iCE, have you had enough time to decide if segwit is an attack on Bitcoin Classic?

[iCEBREAKER]

bolshevik Front National

Bolshevism was the Soviet branch of the explicitly internationalist workers' movement.

Cite:  The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979)

Bolshevism - a consistently revolutionary Marxist current of political thought within the international workers’ movement.

Pro tip: internationalist != nationalist.

Your knowledge of humanities is as appallingly poor as your technical background.

How can you claim to have studied the humanities, yet be so stupendously ignorant of the basic tenets/history of Marxism and Leninism?

Do you just randomly use words with a vaguely negative connotation, or can you actually defend your absurd description of FN as "bolshevik?"

I'd wager it's the former, because compared to you Jon Snow knows just about everything.  

LOL

Educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Front
http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ch/2014/09/the-national-bolshevik-alliance-is.html

Yes, I've seen the entry on that obscure radial case, which as part of the Third Position is absolutely distinct from the plain old "bolshevism" you used (for some unfathomable and still unclarified reason) to modify NF.


https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/builds/98931235

Code:

    Commit 91e6c75
    #1178: Remove Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page

comitter Cøbra authored and committed 

LOL REKT XD

[Zarathustra]

Code:

    Commit 91e6c75
    #1178: Remove Coinbase from the "Choose your Wallet" page

comitter Cøbra authored and committed 

LOL REKT XD

Yes, that shows exactly your Bolshevik Front National mentality.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13392008#msg13392008

[jbreher]

http://www.techworm.net/2015/12/hacker-ddos-coinbase-website-down.html (lol rekt)

Coinbase is discovering that if you try to destroy Bitcoin, Bitcoin destroys you.

Antisocial degenerate reveling in destructive hackery? Color me shocked. Too bad the attack is ineffectual. No problems logging in here.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

In effect, it does no such thing. It does the exact opposite.  It strives to return an equilibrium among all stakeholders.

It does.

It pretends to use signalling from nodes to create your pretended equilibrium but this is easily skewed by a sybil attack.

Miners are then left to pick a number while unable to discern between legitimate nodes and the sybil attacker.

Yeah, thats a really valid vector:

miner a: Hey, looks like we got 8000 extra nodes on line!
miner b: Wow That looks legit. How long have they been online?
miner a: About 8 minutes. And they are all voting for 16 Exabyte blocks.
miner b: And whats the average for the last 1000 blocks?
miner a: 1.42Mb
miner b: Yup, sounds like 16 Exabytes it is then....

Your suggestion indicates a more trivial understanding than you are letting on.