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

[hdbuck]

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.

[1715538340]

1715538340

[1715538340]

1715538340

[1715538340]

1715538340

[1715538340]

1715538340

[1715538340]

1715538340

[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 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.

You assume the majority of hashing power agrees on the way forward when clearly that is not the scenario suggested.

Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

[Cconvert2G36]

You assume the majority of hashing power agrees on the way forward when clearly that is not the scenario suggested.

Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

They understand how damaging it would appear to do it unilaterally, so they are/have been waiting for the community to give them an option. If they are economically rational, they probably shouldn't wait years more while another entity sidles in to eat their lunch.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

What?  In what way?  Please cite from here what is a 'bizarre misrepresentation'.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

[brg444]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

[Lauda]

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think that they could have a lot more influence if they could agree among themselves on a single, or two proposals (90% of them or more), but they can't. Their opinions matter, but they're not the ones doing the coding and probably lack expertise in the needed fields.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think you will find that it is.

edit: Kinda hope some of the miners see your statement - that they are not participating in an ecosystem,  but merely the redundant host for a parasite.

[brg444]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think you will find that it is.

If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago.

[hdbuck]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think you will find that it is.

Totally up to them..

Code:

02:44   gmaxwell        thats lovely, they're climing v3 but not enforcing it.

http://pastebin.com/R1XNGeXr

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think you will find that it is.

If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago.

Were they given the choice? No. So how the f*ck could they have implemented it?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Totally up to them..

Code:

02:44   gmaxwell        thats lovely, they're climing v3 but not enforcing it.

spv mining is relevent... how?

[iCEBREAKER]

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

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

The trivial, mostly harmless "National" strain is not what is meant or implied 99% of the time by the unadorned term you originally used.

That nearly obsolete reference doesn't fit your (typically overdramatic) metaphor about authoritarianism, which compares Bitcoin.org's blacklisting of Coinbase ("small block terrorism") with the Russian Revolution's violent destruction of one of the world's greatest empires and resulting Stalinist dictatorship.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out Bitcoin.org is not in any way accurately described as Bolshevik, because not giving Coinbase free advertising isn't the same thing as the war/terror/famine of the world revolution's first dominoes.

[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?   

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. 

I'm not the only one who instinctively fights features, and brg (one of MP's best toadies) seems generally fine with segwit.  To reiterate/clarify, I don't support elective segwit implementation nearly as strongly as a ready-to-go 'break glass in case of fire' backup plan.

Bitcoin may not need segwit to get the list of goodies (malleability prevention, etc.) associated with it, just as it may not need (transaction) blocks >1MB to scale.  There may be better ways to prevent malleability, etc. so we don't want to risk ossification with the wrong (but good enough) solution.  I trust the BIP process and the socioeconomic majority's marketplace of ideas will figure it out.

Are XTurd and Unlimiturd both going to add segwit?

I can't wait to start generating 16MB blocks construed so as to take 128 minutes to verify.  Once your derp forks' chain(s?) cannot be verified in real time (and it becomes impossible to bootstrap new full nodes) it's game over.  Unless Mikey "Final Call" Hearn wants to sit around forever checkpointing out troll blocks....   

[VeritasSapere]

Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

I think you will find that it is.

If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago.

Were they given the choice? No. So how the f*ck could they have implemented it?

Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice.

[brg444]

Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice.

Actually you are dependent on the choice made by the miners and not much else.

To use your rhetoric you are effectively opening yourself to tyranny of the sybil majority.

[VeritasSapere]

Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice.

Actually you are dependent on the choice made by the miners and not much else.

To use your rhetoric you are effectively opening yourself to tyranny of the sybil majority.

Proof of work can not be sybil attacked, neither can the will of the economic majority. I am surprised that you do not realize this yet.

[brg444]

Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice.

Actually you are dependent on the choice made by the miners and not much else.

To use your rhetoric you are effectively opening yourself to tyranny of the sybil majority.

Proof of work can not be sybil attacked, neither can the will of the economic majority. I am surprised that you do not realize this yet.

Whoever said we would sybil attack proof of work?

By what metric do you gauge "the will of the economic majority"?

Seems to me miners simply get to pick and choose whatever blocksize they're comfortable with.

[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. 

I'm not the only one who instinctively fights features, and brg (one of MP's best toadies) seems generally fine with segwit.  To reiterate/clarify, I don't support elective segwit implementation nearly as strongly as a ready-to-go 'break glass in case of fire' backup plan.

Segwit isn't something that can happen over night. It will take a massive upgrade of all wallets, services, etc, to use it effectively. So... emergency deployment isn't exactly ideal or even realistic.

Bitcoin may not need segwit to get the list of goodies (malleability prevention, etc.) associated with it, just as it may not need (transaction) blocks >1MB to scale.  There may be better ways to prevent malleability, etc. so we don't want to risk ossification with the wrong (but good enough) solution.  I trust the BIP process and the socioeconomic majority's marketplace of ideas will figure it out.

You're right, for a certain level of activity, it could stay exactly the same as it is today... this is the "security" through obscurity route.

Are XTurd and Unlimiturd both going to add segwit?

I assume so, if they actually want to continue verifying blocks. All previous versions of core will become glorified SPV+ nodes after the soft fork.

I can't wait to start generating 16MB blocks construed so as to take 128 minutes to verify.  Once your derp forks' chain(s?) cannot be verified in real time (and it becomes impossible to bootstrap new full nodes) it's game over.  Unless Mikey "Final Call" Hearn wants to sit around forever checkpointing out troll blocks....   

This assumes miners are idiots and will sit there for 128 min trying to verify a block rather than build on a longer chain of smaller, shorter blocks. Also, you're being absolutist here, many would be satisfied with 2MB to study the effects on nodes, gain time to carefully and methodically roll out segwit, and time to plan a more permanent solution.

[brg444]

This assumes miners are idiots and will sit there for 128 min trying to verify a block rather than build on a longer chain of smaller, shorter blocks. Also, you're being absolutist here, many would be satisfied with 2MB to study the effects on nodes, gain time to carefully and methodically roll out segwit, and time to plan a more permanent solution.

Why are you still entertaining the notion that a network wide hardfork can be deployed faster than SW can?

No one proposes to rush through SegWit. It seems you are largely ignorant of what its deployment entail other than the couple posts you've read on reddit or Jeff's FUD.

SegWit is opt-in and if service providers are pro-active it can be ready to roll out when the code is implemented into Core. At least that's what the dev of the 2nd most popular iOS app plans to do.

Spare us your concern trolling unless you can provide a detailed account of the "massive upgrade" you talk about.