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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement

We have a disappointing situation where a subset of dev consensus is disconnected from the oft-mentioned desire to increase block size on the part of users, businesses, exchanges and miners. This reshapes bitcoin in ways full of philosophical and economic conflicts of interest. As noted here, inaction changes bitcoin, sets it on a new path

[1715236886]

1715236886

[1715236886]

1715236886

[1715236886]

1715236886

[1715236886]

1715236886

[brg444]

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.

Nodes can gradually come online and slowly but surely prune low-bandwidth nodes first and continue to increase support for larger blocks, all while creating a false appearance of organic growth.

I mean this is basic stuff and you can choose to ignore it but it pretty much makes the idea doa.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Nobody ever claimed FN is libertarian.  It says "nationalist" right on the box.

Bitcoin needs adversity to grow stronger.   In that regard, FN/EU opposition is as useful as Hearn's subversion and sabotage.   

Have you decided how to justify your inexplicable, baffling conjunction of Bolshevism and Nationalism?

Is that footnote of an edge case actually your final answer?  You really can't do a better job of 'clarifying' than that?  Every time I think my opinion of you can't get any lower, you exceed yourself in your ability to disappoint.   

Without the technical/economic/political background needed to understand the Bitcoin medium, you will never understand Bitcoin's message.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ydpd2/roger_ver_thank_you_brian_armstrong_coinbase_for/cycxtnc?context=3

LOL REKT XD

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

Nodes can gradually come online and slowly but surely prune low-bandwidth nodes first and continue to increase support for larger blocks, all while creating a false appearance of organic growth.

I mean this is basic stuff and you can choose to ignore it but it pretty much makes the idea doa.

No, its just stupid.

Why waste your time gaming block size when you can profit by gaming non-FSS RBF with guaranteed results?

[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.

nah coinbase's suggar daddy could not bare the cash burning rate of the two kids allegedly running the shitshow, figured they would go onto the victimization strategy *slash* attention whore to promote their inept business.

Hmm. If Armstrong and Ehrsam are the 'kids', who is the 'sugar daddy' pulling the strings?

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Someone gullible enough to run Bitcoin Unlimited thinks ddos is hacking?  Color me shocked.

Ineffectual?  Every minute of downtime costs Coinbase's reputation, plus money in the forms of lost business and attack mitigation.

Just wait until the real hackers/whistleblowers get inside Coinbase and disclose the true extent of their jackboot-kissing, user-tracking, PanoptiCoin shitlording.... 

[Cconvert2G36]

Brevity wasn't effective, let's try repetition.

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?

[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.

Someone gullible enough to run Bitcoin Unlimited thinks ddos is hacking?  Color me shocked.

No, not someone running BU, someone open minded enough to look into it.

If you don't want to include DDoS in your definition of hacking, fine. Either way, it is nefarious and destructive in nature. It reflects a callous disregard for the work of others. And, it is one of the few courses of action available to a desperate loser.

Ineffectual?  Every minute of downtime costs Coinbase's reputation, plus money in the forms of lost business and attack mitigation.

Yes, ineffectual. Perhaps you missed the part where I was able to log in with no issue. Rather the actual _definition_ of an ineffectual attempt at DDoS, that.

Just wait until the real hackers/whistleblowers get inside Coinbase and disclose the true extent of their jackboot-kissing, user-tracking, PanoptiCoin shitlording.... 

Such may or may not come to pass. Yet until it does, your statement reflects merely your idle speculation.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. Don't like Coinbase? Don't deal with them. 'Problem' solved. If you are counting on physical destruction to win intellectual arguments, you are ceding that you are already the underdog.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

I'm very happy to finally have a decent plan (besides Dr. Back's extension blocks) on the shelf for use in the (potentially disastrous) event of Actual Widespread Adoption.

Segwit seems to kill 10 birds with one stone, so I don't have a problem with it continuing to percolate through the BIP process.

No firm opinion yet on doing it as a hard or soft fork.  Soft seems better if done electively (because fight features), hard if done in crisis mode.

Have the Gavinistas decided on whether or not segwit is a good thing or a tool of Blockstream Satan?

Is there a schism between the pro-segwit XTurds and anti-segwit Unlimiturds?   

[johnyj]

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.

This is not centralization but a fixed set of consensus rule. You can select not to participate and start your alt-coin, but you can not change the rules. No human can change the physical property of gold, that's the reason it is the most trustworthy money for thousands of years

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.

In fact this  you is already here, it is called enterprise interest. There are many enterprises trying to push their desired features into bitcoin protocol. And it could even be an OPEC like organization that consists of large miners and exchanges, and there is strong incentive to cooperate to get higher profit by passing a new protocol

[Cconvert2G36]

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

I'm very happy to finally have a decent plan (besides Dr. Back's extension blocks) on the shelf for use in the (potentially disastrous) event of Actual Widespread Adoption.

Segwit seems to kill 10 birds with one stone, so I don't have a problem with it continuing to percolate through the BIP process.

No firm opinion yet on doing it as a hard or soft fork.  Soft seems better if done electively (because fight features), hard if done in crisis mode.

Have the Gavinistas decided on whether or not segwit is a good thing or a tool of Blockstream Satan?

Is there a schism between the pro-segwit XTurds and anti-segwit Unlimiturds?   

Nah, my impression is that most in favor of moving past 1MB soon(er than 2017) think segwit can be quite beneficial, but probably better/cleaner as a hard fork.

The only one going to war with segwit seems to be MP and his toadies. 

[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

Nobody ever claimed FN is libertarian.  It says "nationalist" right on the box.

Bitcoin needs adversity to grow stronger.   In that regard, FN/EU opposition is as useful as Hearn's subversion and sabotage.   

Have you decided how to justify your inexplicable, baffling conjunction of Bolshevism and Nationalism?

I'm not the only one who knows the conjuction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Front

[johnyj]

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.

That's a good quote here. In fact this governance problem not only happens on bitcoin, but any kind of large scale social community. That's why politics always exists. Notice that politics does not exist on gold since no one can change its property, but bitcoin's protocol is destined to struggle

You have several genius/technocrats each promoting different future plan, and majority of normal users would not be able to understand the pros and cons of those plans. So it finally ends up with politics, e.g. the solution who gain the most support wins, not the most brilliant solution wins. So trying to prove that you are most brilliant does not help to win the vote, instead you must try to study what is voters' favorite

In this case, what majority of uses want? Trust and stability. They might be willing to pay a little bit higher fee or use other off-chain services for daily small transactions, but they definitely don't want to see a split in the core devs and even strange forks that might destroy the whole ecosystem. When bitcoin worth nothing, all its function becomes useless, so to preserve its value is the highest priority here, and in order to do that you must give up on certain functionality

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Someone gullible enough to run Bitcoin Unlimited thinks ddos is hacking?  Color me shocked.

No, not someone running BU, someone open minded enough to look into it.

If you don't want to include DDoS in your definition of hacking, fine. Either way, it is nefarious and destructive in nature. It reflects a callous disregard for the work of others. And, it is one of the few courses of action available to a desperate loser.

Ineffectual?  Every minute of downtime costs Coinbase's reputation, plus money in the forms of lost business and attack mitigation.

Yes, ineffectual. Perhaps you missed the part where I was able to log in with no issue. Rather the actual _definition_ of an ineffectual attempt at DDoS, that.

Just wait until the real hackers/whistleblowers get inside Coinbase and disclose the true extent of their jackboot-kissing, user-tracking, PanoptiCoin shitlording.... 

Such may or may not come to pass. Yet until it does, your statement reflects merely your idle speculation.

Frankly, I don't see the problem. Don't like Coinbase? Don't deal with them. 'Problem' solved. If you are counting on physical destruction to win intellectual arguments, you are ceding that you are already the underdog.

Since the attack reportedly took the (main) Coinbase.com page down, it was not "ineffectual."

I didn't miss the part where users could still log in to their subdomain, but thanks for entertaining us by grasping for that straw.

I did miss the part where the reasons for calling ddos "hacking" and "physical destruction" are elucidated.

Please, don't keep us waiting for the logical and semantic gymnastics!

I don't deal with Coinbase.  I don't count on ddos or other forums of "physical destruction"

hahahahha they call people who DDOS hackers hahahahah 1m 5o 1337 1 c4nz DDOS H4kz

Now proceed to discuss how many UDP packets can dance on a pinhead.  Yes, there's a good lulcow....   

[PakistanHockeyfan]

I would think people only join Bitcoin for the wealth. As long as they don't hurt anyone, they can continue investing in stocks for the life they need.

[VeritasSapere]

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.

That's a good quote here. In fact this governance problem not only happens on bitcoin, but any kind of large scale social community. That's why politics always exists. Notice that politics does not exist on gold since no one can change its property, but bitcoin's protocol is destined to struggle

You have several genius/technocrats each promoting different future plan, and majority of normal users would not be able to understand the pros and cons of those plans. So it finally ends up with politics, e.g. the solution who gain the most support wins, not the most brilliant solution wins. So trying to prove that you are most brilliant does not help to win the vote, instead you must try to study what is voters' favorite

In this case, what majority of uses want? Trust and stability. They might be willing to pay a little bit higher fee or use other off-chain services for daily small transactions, but they definitely don't want to see a split in the core devs and even strange forks that might destroy the whole ecosystem. When bitcoin worth nothing, all its function becomes useless, so to preserve its value is the highest priority here, and in order to do that you must give up on certain functionality

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

I also think that moving the majority of transactions off chain is not a solution to scaling the Bitcoin blockchain at all. This transactional volume needs to take place on the main Bitcoin blockchain in order to pay for its security over the long term, high volume, low fee should be the future of Bitcoin.

We also do not need to give up on any functionality like you say, this is a false dichotomy. Bitcoin can be a currency and a settlement network, they are actually reinforcing and synergistic of each other. Furthermore I think that mass adoption as a currency is critical for Bitcoins success over the long term, also because of the massive and profound change this would bring about in society.

When you say that people will just be able to pay a slightly higher fee I do not think that you get it. If the blocksize is not increased then transaction will become much more expensive and unreliable. It is not the case that you just need to pay a higher fee, in fact there will not be enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed. Bitcoin would become a settlement network for larger financial institutions, it certainly could not be used by everyday people. I do not even see this happening in first place however since under those circumstances I do not think it would be able to compete with alternatives.

Especially considering that it will have to co exist with a chain fork with the same genesis block, which will offer cheap, reliable and fast transactions. Without the need to sign up for or choose any third parties. Because of this utility and ease of use I believe the big blockchain will be able to out compete and therefore also maintain a higher level of security then the small blockchain. You would still have the small, ineffective and obscure blockchain that you want, even though ironically you deny yourself that right by saying that people should not have this freedom of choice over the protocol they adopt. People are not machines, people do have the free choice of protocol and no matter how much you theorise or think that they should not have this freedom, you can not change it. Bitcoin has brought this volunteerism out into the world, it might be a pandoras box but for better or worse nobody can stop it.

[johnyj]

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first

[Cconvert2G36]

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first

Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted. 

[brg444]

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first

Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted.  

That's a bizarre misrepresentation of what happened.

Of course, if a contentious hard fork is forced through the situation would not be so simple as it creates a clear divide with both sides claiming legitimacy. The previous 2013 fork was accidental and there was underlying agreement by everyone of what side should be picked.

[Cconvert2G36]

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first

Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted.  

That's a bizarre misrepresentation of what happened.

Of course, if a contentious hard fork is forced through the situation would not be so simple as it create a clear divide with both sides claiming legitimacy. The previous 2013 fork was accidental and there was underlying agreement by everyone of what side should be picked.

Contentious or not, the outcome would be the same. A majority of hashing power would pick a side, and that side would win, the other side would be orphaned off into the ether as the losers realized they were mining worthless coins. I know it bothers you, but miners decide. If you want to have a vote, start hashing.