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

[brg444]

I've stayed out of this debate because I really don't understand it. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. Here's what I see.

Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.

Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?

No. That's not entirely correct. The story is hard to sammarize at this point. Gavin proposed the controversial BIP101 which was rejected and thus he teamed up with Hearn. XT came to life as a potential fork. In the meantime new proposals started coming ip, most notably, BIP100. You can track support of various proposals on blocktrail. Current BIP100 is leading with ~60% support. XT has zero support now.

What?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/
http://xt.coin.dance

Sounds about right. Not enough support to be relevant.

[1715036628]

1715036628

[1715036628]

1715036628

[brg444]

I've stayed out of this debate because I really don't understand it. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. Here's what I see.

Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.

Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?

No. That's not entirely correct. The story is hard to sammarize at this point. Gavin proposed the controversial BIP101 which was rejected and thus he teamed up with Hearn. XT came to life as a potential fork. In the meantime new proposals started coming ip, most notably, BIP100. You can track support of various proposals on blocktrail. Current BIP100 is leading with ~60% support. XT has zero support now.

Thanks
What's the difference between the different proposals? Is it a huge difference or are people being drama queens?

Between the two extremes it's the difference between Bitcoin running on Google datacenters or staying decentralized.

Both are decentralized.

I'd really love if that could be true but no. BIP101 (or XT for that matter) is highway to centralized hell.

[knight22]

I've stayed out of this debate because I really don't understand it. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. Here's what I see.

Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.

Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?

No. That's not entirely correct. The story is hard to sammarize at this point. Gavin proposed the controversial BIP101 which was rejected and thus he teamed up with Hearn. XT came to life as a potential fork. In the meantime new proposals started coming ip, most notably, BIP100. You can track support of various proposals on blocktrail. Current BIP100 is leading with ~60% support. XT has zero support now.

What?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/
http://xt.coin.dance

Sounds about right. Not enough support to be relevant.

For now but it could change. Saying zero support is outright misinformation.

[QuestionAuthority]

I appreciate the responses. I viewed the links and it appears like a bunch of drama built up around puffy dev egos and private business with a stake. I guess I'll just have to wait and see who's six gun has a longer barrel. Thanks again.

[Lauda]

Thanks
What's the difference between the different proposals? Is it a huge difference or are people being drama queens?

There's a huge difference. Gavin has proposed that we start with 8 MB blocks in 2016 and double every two years. In other words, this BIP(101) is based on speculation.
BIP100, proposed by Jeff Garzik has something else in mind. "Allow miners to cast votes on the block chain every 3 months for their preferred max block size. Throw out the top and bottom 20% of the votes and choose the lowest of the remainder as the max block size, increasing or decreasing from current by no more than 50% each time."

In the meantime another proposal has received it's official number, BIP105.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/
http://xt.coin.dance

For now but it could change. Saying zero support is outright misinformation.

You are spreading nonsense again and completely diverting my arguement with useless links that are not related at all. I solely talking about the miners, and fact is that there is ZERO support for XT.

[Leinaded]

I'm a little worried that in the future happens the same with bitcoin forks to what happened to GNU/Linux and Android. Google has turned an open source OS that advocates for freedom, free sharing among a collaborative community and privacy of its users to something that spies and monetizes you. Now most android apps ask permission to access your id, your phone no., google account data, etc. And you don't have the choice to install open source programs available to the Linux community that should work in Android because is based on linux distros. Android is being used by millions of users in barely five years of existence while Linux has a small percentage of the user community in its 20+ years of existence.

I hope it doesn't end happening the same in the cryptocoin world and the majority of the population end up using something like ETH while BTC becomes a cryptocoin used in niche markets for libertarians and tech savvy people. Usually people are attracted to fancy and flashy features while disregarding their own privacy or liberty in the long term, human nature I guess so I'm not very optimistic in that regard. I see all this turmoil as attacks to something governments and corporations can't control yet and maybe we'll end with a "controlled" cryptocoin a simple reedition of the dollar.

[Zarathustra]

2016: 1MB endures, aided by Alts, Sidechains, and Lightning

Wet dreams of an Alt-Shill.
Dream on ...

Why won't you keep your useless blatter for your little pet forum over there?

yep, the only alt shills are the ones behind XT.
too bad they wont fork off..

The 1MB'ers will be forked off 2016.

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks
What's the difference between the different proposals? Is it a huge difference or are people being drama queens?

There's a huge difference. Gavin has proposed that we start with 8 MB blocks in 2016 and double every two years. In other words, this BIP(101) is based on speculation.
BIP100, proposed by Jeff Garzik has something else in mind. "Allow miners to cast votes on the block chain every 3 months for their preferred max block size. Throw out the top and bottom 20% of the votes and choose the lowest of the remainder as the max block size, increasing or decreasing from current by no more than 50% each time."

In the meantime another proposal has received it's official number, BIP105.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/
http://xt.coin.dance

For now but it could change. Saying zero support is outright misinformation.

You are spreading nonsense again and completely diverting my arguement with useless links that are not related at all. I solely talking about the miners, and fact is that there is ZERO support for XT.

It seems like any of the proposals would work and it's turned into a big head game. Why don't they just take the cap out completely? It was put in to avoid spamming the blockchain. Obviously we're not worried about spam any longer or they wouldn't raise it at all. If we are still worried about spam then that problem will just reappear in a few years after a bunch of the increases go into effect. I still don't get all the excitement about it. Seems like much ado about nothing.

[DooMAD]

It seems like any of the proposals would work and it's turned into a big head game. Why don't they just take the cap out completely? It was put in to avoid spamming the blockchain. Obviously we're not worried about spam any longer or they wouldn't raise it at all. If we are still worried about spam then that problem will just reappear in a few years after a bunch of the increases go into effect. I still don't get all the excitement about it. Seems like much ado about nothing.

Not far off, heh.  Some are extremely concerned that increasing the blocksize too quickly could lead to mining and node centralisation, but it's difficult to predict how serious a problem it would actually be.  Some are obviously less concerned and are pushing for larger increases in case the masses come knocking and there isn't enough space to accommodate them.  There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few rather than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize, but I sincerely hope this isn't the way we proceed.  It's quite difficult to tell apart who is concerned about centralisation and who thinks it should be an asset class, because they all seem to present the same arguments.  So the entire thing seems to have devolved into a "1mb vs 8mb" mud-slinging contest which isn't proving very productive.

[brg444]

It seems like any of the proposals would work and it's turned into a big head game. Why don't they just take the cap out completely? It was put in to avoid spamming the blockchain. Obviously we're not worried about spam any longer or they wouldn't raise it at all. If we are still worried about spam then that problem will just reappear in a few years after a bunch of the increases go into effect. I still don't get all the excitement about it. Seems like much ado about nothing.

Lifting it completely is not an option. Your logic about the constant need for re-adjustment is sound. Personally, my hope is that the blocksize is kept as low as possible until different payment channels such as Lightining and other safe & efficient off chain solutions (OpenTransactions?) are made available and easy to use. When we reach that point I would consider it reasonable to freeze the block size forever.

If you care enough this is an excellent read by Greg Maxwell on why we need to proceed with caution:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/007880.html

[Peter R]

It seems like any of the proposals would work and it's turned into a big head game. Why don't they just take the cap out completely? It was put in to avoid spamming the blockchain. Obviously we're not worried about spam any longer or they wouldn't raise it at all. If we are still worried about spam then that problem will just reappear in a few years after a bunch of the increases go into effect. I still don't get all the excitement about it. Seems like much ado about nothing.

The questions are:

- Do we want the block size limit to continue to serve its original purpose as an anti-spam measure?  

- Or do we want the block size limit to serve a political goal of reducing the cost to run full nodes?

From an economics perspective, I suppose it's a matter of whether the economic loss due to the production quota on block space is outweighed by reduction of some negative externality (a lower ratio of nodes / users, I suppose).  




There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

[hdbuck]

...
There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

[brg444]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

[brg444]

There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

[hdbuck]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

So yea, privilege it is.

For the rest there is mastercard.

or ripple... but XT not even since its been #REKT..

[brg444]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

So yea, privilege it is.

For the rest there is mastercard.

or ripple... but XT not even since its been #REKT..

I swear this debate brought the biggest posers out of the woodwork.... Everyone is acting like a spoiled child pretending like all of their transactions absolutely need censorship resistance and billions of dollars of proof of work piled on them 

I am confident I should encounter only on a few occasions, in my whole life, a situation where Bitcoin blockchain security will be absolutely mandatory. For everything else, there's gonna be Lightning 

[knight22]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

[DooMAD]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Of course I understand, you've been very clear.  I just happen not to agree.  Therein lies the dilemma.  As far as it goes for the "mess" you mention, I still can't help but see the timeline like this:

Early adopters buy in,
Satoshi then introduces the 1mb cap (without testing) and there's little-to-no drama whatsoever,
Early adopters realise this could benefit them immensely if they can keep it capped for as long as possible,
Someone proposes a change to the cap as they realise not doing so could be detrimental to late adopters,
Drama ensues.

While I recognise there are implications for decentralisation if the blocksize is too large, I still have a feeling this is being overplayed.  I'm prepared to support smaller increases if that's what it takes to break the deadlock (as are others, so work with us, not against us), but I won't accept something that only results in creating a safe haven for some one-percenters if everything else in the global economy goes tits up.  There's a balance to be struck.  Either we find that balance, or things get messy and we find out how much the asset class is really worth when the people who want a global currency are on another chain.  I guarantee you won't attract the same level of hashpower if it plays out like that, so think this through very carefully.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

So yea, privilege it is.

For the rest there is mastercard.

or ripple...

I'm sure you'd like us to believe it's impossible and to go somewhere else, but we're not going anywhere.  I'm sure you'd like us to stop having this discussion and allow a slim possibility of a safe haven for a privileged few, but we're not going to stop.  And even if we did stop, you still probably wouldn't get what you want.  Ultimately, larger blocks will provide greater financial benefits to miners than small ones.  Ergo, miners are going to choose larger blocks given the opportunity.  I can't see how you're going to prevent that from happening.  There is no reality or alternate universe where this doesn't hold true.  Choose your next investment more carefully if that's not what you wanted.

[hdbuck]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

lol, my statement is perfectly correct.

If you cant understand its not my problem. I'm done teaching the n00bs/shills.

Also, please educate yourself before byzantinamaze us all with your persistant ignorance: https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001522.html (the difference between Byzantine Generals and BFT)

Else go byzantine yourself.

[alani123]

There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

Truly, a great circlejerk. Weirdest thing is that bitcointalk staff aren't even censoring XT/BIP101 discussion. Maybe few posts are moved to the altcoin section but that's all. It's funny to see people get mad over promotion of a non consensus fork not being welcome in bitfcointalk.org