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

[Peter R]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

[1715158624]

1715158624

[tvbcof]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

[Peter R]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

[brg444]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

Yes you can all stop bickering about it I'm never going to spend a satoshi on such a worthless endeavour.

"Let's bet" Seriously?!

[tvbcof]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible.  (You a tech writer?  If so, just on contract or genuine interest?)  If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'.  I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed.  It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news.  I think it more unlikely than not though.

[jonald_fyookball]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible.  (You a tech writer?  If so, just on contract or genuine interest?)  If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'.  I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed.  It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news.  I think it more unlikely than not though.

I think we all know what he means.  The "main" chain of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin forks, then whichever main chain of a fork has more work done in the blocks.

Its irrelevant since brg doesnt want to bet.

[knight22]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible.  (You a tech writer?  If so, just on contract or genuine interest?)  If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'.  I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed.  It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news.  I think it more unlikely than not though.

I think we all know what he means.  The "main" chain of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin forks, then whichever main chain of a fork has more work done in the blocks.

Its irrelevant since brg doesnt want to bet.

Because he know he will lose. Obviously.

[brg444]

The trouble with most of these bets (which have been ubiquitous as long as I've been around) is that it is extraordinarily labor intensive to prepare the terms and definitions.  For instance, there is a very good chance that within a year there will be a >1MB block on 'the longest proof-of-work chain'.  But which chain is 'the'.

Clearly the longest proof-of-work chain built from Bitcoin's Genesis Block.  The terms and definitions are trivially simple.

It's not simple at all of the blockchain forks because different groups consider different blocks to be 'valid.'  This is a very real possibility and within this timeframe.

Regardless of anyone's definition of validity, one chain will be longer than the rest (it will contain more cumulative work).  I am betting that this (longest) chain will contain a block greater than 1 MB in size by this time next year.  

There is no ambiguity in that definition.  

If there is 'no ambiguity' in your mind that is because your mind is not very flexible.  (You a tech writer?  If so, just on contract or genuine interest?)  If one burns a lot of cycles mining an invalid block it does not count toward 'cumulative work' by any definition.

I would not even take your bet if I got to define 'longest'.  I, like every other '1MBer' I can think of except perhaps MP, would be delighted to see larger blocks as long as they are safe _and_ needed.  It's possible that that could happen within the next year and that could be great news.  I think it more unlikely than not though.

I think we all know what he means.  The "main" chain of Bitcoin.  If Bitcoin forks, then whichever main chain of a fork has more work done in the blocks.

Its irrelevant since brg doesnt want to bet.

Because he know he we will lose. Obviously.

  a bunch of sheeps 

I can't imagine how bored you must be to hang around spreading such platitudes.

you go on ignore

[jonald_fyookball]

Its also interesting to think about:  What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

[tvbcof]

Its also interesting to think about:  What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times.  To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect.  The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible.  There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.)

The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101.  You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist.  If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call.  I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause.

[jonald_fyookball]

Its also interesting to think about:  What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times.  To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect.  The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible.  There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.)

The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101.  You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist.  If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call.  I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause.

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

[marky89]

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

[brg444]

Its also interesting to think about:  What happens if the fees are too HIGH (nevermind too low?).

Will users be more willing to wait for longer blocktimes and get lower fees if they think the security is ample?

There are a fair number of people (greater than, say, 'the one-percent') who don't live hand-to-mouth and who are not very sensitive to 'long' wait times.  To such people the security of the transaction is the most critical aspect.  The same people will tend to consider transaction fees in the $10's, or even $100's per to be fairly negligible.  There are enough such people in this world to create a demand for a high security system for transfer and storage of value alone, and to be fair one needs to add in the potential as a foundation upon which more flexible and well tuned systems can be built (e.g., 'sidechains'.)

The demands that the aformentioned classes of users makes on the system is conducive to having the system being well hardened against attacks of the type which will be able to complete hamstring a real-time trinket buying solution such as Paypal or XT/BIP101.  You people (excluding the shills who know exactly what I am saying) who can only see the latter use-case should understand that the former use-case will exist.  If you wish to consider it 'competition' and be actively adversarial to it is your call.  I would suggest you do not both because it doesn't make much sense and because it could elicit a response which is problematic for your cause.

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

We're telling you it doesn't, can't and never will.

Use VISAchain for that.

[jonald_fyookball]

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

I'm with you.  fractions of a cent aren't important, but I reject the "Bitcoin is only for people who don't mind paying $100 transaction fee" mentality.

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

We're telling you it doesn't, can't and never will.

Use VISAchain for that.

You can argue about the future till you're blue in the face,
but Bitcoin actually CAN and DOES handle transactions of all sizes
right now, ya knucklehead.

[knight22]

I hear you, but respectfully disagree.  I think Bitcoin should strive to handle all sizes of transactions, big and small, if possible.

To an extent, I can agree with this. However, I am absolutely not concerned that people be able to transact in amounts in the cents or fractions of a cent. I don't think our focus should be on how to include ever-smaller amounts of value on the blockchain. I don't know the details - has anyone ever done an analysis of what % of total transactions are below a given amount (say, < 0.0001 output)? If capacity is an issue, this is one approach to take.

I think it won't be possible even with a fee market with unlimited size blocks. The fees will make it uneconomical. But isn't Lighting network supposed to be able to do such small transactions?

[RoooooR]

nah, Bitcoin XT isn't the biggest FAIL in altcoin history

Just the biggest FRAUD

[hdbuck]

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.






ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

[tvbcof]

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.

h ttp://data.whicdn.com/images/57338344/large.jpg

ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

I bet the guy was trolling those reddit ijuts.  Funny one way or another.

It was especially droll that he said with a straight face that he set up 10 nodes then laments that people are 'gaming' things.

[Zarathustra]

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/

I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this.

sweet redditard tears.



ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed..
but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS.

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

The 1MB'ers are downvoted here as well; not only on reddit. Make a poll and you'll realise that you can't win the community with your language.

[Peter R]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.