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

[hdbuck]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

[Zarathustra]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

And you? From the STASI?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

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.

1.  The bet-defining blockchain one year from now will be the blockchain attracting the most hash power.

2.  Define "needed".

[hdbuck]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with..  

Im not talking to you. Please move along, noob.


Or is this Peter R's pitiful way of eluding the question?

Are you Peter R?!

Can't help but notice you both somehow have the same fallaciously bourgeois writing style, you just seems a bit less academic, just cheering up whatever the other one says.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

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.

Not sure if trolling or very stupid.  

Doesn't matter; the payout of imaginary_username being forced to write two pages of rationalizations is comedy gold topped with tears of unfathomable sadness.

I can't believe XT's brilliant plan to take over Bitcoin by using a single port at Slush's spoofed XT pool wasn't a resounding success!

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Not for long!  CoreDefense's 25Gb lulzcannon is going to blast them off the face of the internet...  

[Lauda]

It seems to me like you guys have completely departed from the discussion. Let's get back on track, shall we? If we honestly asses the situation there is a low chance that XT or BIP101 are going to happen, especially if Core implements some BIP (related to the block size and scaling).

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Who said that? As far as I see there is 0 support from the miners. Anyone can easily verify this here. I doubt that it is going to change anytime soon (if ever).

[Trent Russell]

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.  

While I'm not on Peter R's side in the XT debate, he's correct about this. The terms of this potential "bet" are clear. In any case, even if there were some ambiguity, that's one reason there's a neutral third party in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Now for something completely different. Consider this modified version of "the bet": Peter R and anti-Peter R each put 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig with a neutral third party. One year from now, the 2 BTC are paid out to Peter R on every chain that has had a block over 1MB. The 2 BTC are paid out to anti-Peter R on every chain that has not had a block over 1MB. This would actually give people a way to trade potential coins on potential multiple forks before the potential forks actually occur. It's a little surprising there aren't services offering something like this, given how adamant many people on different sides seem to be.

[Trent Russell]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with..  

No one should be pressured to give identifying details about their life. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

Also, references to the STASI are not an example of Godwin. An example of Godwin would be comparing doxxing people to outing people who were helping hide Jews during the war.

[hdbuck]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

who are you?

ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

And you? From the STASI?

lol the little follower flying at the rescue of his secretly beloved internet anon, can't help the godwin point his sorry clueless mind provide him with..  

No one should be pressured to give identifying details about their life. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

Sure, altho he is the one that keeps on shilling his pseudoscience over the bitcoin's dev mailing list, wasting people's time that are fully public.
They got nothing to hide.. Does peter?
Hell even dat troll stolfi has came out at some point to somehow try at back his stuff up!

You dont throw your 'enlightening' opinion or whatever WPs, pretending it to somehow be valid without backing your 'research' by a full curriculum vitae.
And even more regarding the academics.

SO PETER, WHO ARE YOU?

Also, references to the STASI are not an example of Godwin. An example of Godwin would be comparing doxxing people to outing people who were helping hide Jews during the war.

lol wtf, so smart, completely redirecting the subject, im not doxxing anyone.
why the sudden interest in defending the anon peter? dont you think he is old enough to simply answer? or are you one of peter's proxy account too?
junior member, suddenly caring enough to post in here, talking bets n stuff.

[hdbuck]

It seems to me like you guys have completely departed from the discussion. Let's get back on track, shall we? If we honestly asses the situation there is a low chance that XT or BIP101 are going to happen, especially if Core implements some BIP (related to the block size and scaling).

5 more BIP101 mining pools are now online

Who said that? As far as I see there is 0 support from the miners. Anyone can easily verify this here. I doubt that it is going to change anytime soon (if ever).

XT and BIP101 are born dead.
Beside the small fuss they managed with all their fakes accounts, fake nodes etc.. they are just a buncha squeaking minority.
There is no point discussing it besides uncovering the real truth that lies behind such pathetic attempt at highjacking bitcoin.

I can't believe XT's brilliant plan to take over Bitcoin by using a single port at Slush's spoofed XT pool wasn't a resounding success!

See this is what really interest me, such rushing into it.. WHY?

Why Gavin felt such urge to implement an untested/muddled solution that would have endangers bitcoin's security/decentralization and in such a radical way?
(plus, 20MB then 8MB wtf? does he think we're that stupid? just throwing random numbers at us? think we'll follow him wherever he goes? - even at CIA?)

He could have done it more smoothly within the next couple of years without raising as much suspicions as he did whilst hastening the whole internet with his monster FUD.

Also, why the need for implementing a new "governance"?
Wasn't his experience at the Ph0undation enough?


My 2 cents tells me that looking at the rest of the financial world, they are indeed quite pressured by time.
OTOH Bitcoin is here to stay, and in its current paradigm, it is the best alternative to protect secure your wealth before the final "reset", "shut down" or whatever financial disaster looming upon us.

[jonald_fyookball]

-- ranting and raving--

If Bip101 is such a tiny minority (yet it was endorsed by major companies),
why are you spending so much energy on it?

Regarding Peter R, what if he's "just a man"? 

Obviously he has enough intellectual clout to
elicit a response from the devs.

I think Greg Maxwell is smart enough to filter
out who deserves a response worthy of his
time and who doesn't, without your help, MKAY? 

[brg444]

-- ranting and raving--

If Bip101 is such a tiny minority (yet it was endorsed by major companies),
why are you spending so much energy on it?

Regarding Peter R, what if he's "just a man"?  

Obviously he has enough intellectual clout to
elicit a response from the devs.

I think Greg Maxwell is smart enough to filter
out who deserves a response worthy of his
time and who doesn't, without your help, MKAY?  

...these companies will do whatever Gavin tell him. They just wanna tell their investors Bitcoin's 7 tps "issue" is solved. They'd sign up for a 200mb increase if this was an option.

About Greg I think he is mostly concerned that Peter is parading his work around as some sort of conclusive evidence that a block size cap is not necessary.

He truly is a mysterious man this Peter R:



I'll be sure to raise my hands for a couple questions then Pete 

[jonald_fyookball]

About Greg I think he is mostly concerned that   --snip--

Its a good thing Greg has you and hdbuck watching his back.
The entire blockchain might collapse without you two vigilant watchdogs.
We forever owe you a debt of gratitude.


 

[hdbuck]

Hey Peter, you show me yours I show you mine

[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.  

While I'm not on Peter R's side in the XT debate, he's correct about this. The terms of this potential "bet" are clear. In any case, even if there were some ambiguity, that's one reason there's a neutral third party in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Now for something completely different. Consider this modified version of "the bet": Peter R and anti-Peter R each put 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig with a neutral third party. One year from now, the 2 BTC are paid out to Peter R on every chain that has had a block over 1MB. The 2 BTC are paid out to anti-Peter R on every chain that has not had a block over 1MB. This would actually give people a way to trade potential coins on potential multiple forks before the potential forks actually occur. It's a little surprising there aren't services offering something like this, given how adamant many people on different sides seem to be.

When a guy has been around as long as I (and is somewhat analytical by nature), one can spot certain things.  Attacks by competent attackers are normally set up well ahead of time, and it's possible to see them coming.

One example which is classic is that big who-ha about 'block will fill and we are all going to die so we have to do something by {magic date}.  The artifacts of this one continue to linger which is why we still see people who should know better and who were not taken for a ride by the XT/BIP101 attack continue to feel a subconscious need to 'do something'.  Even if it makes no sense (e.g., a paltry 1x block size increase which will do absolutely zilch over what we have at 1MB.)  The manipulation of the herd through psychological means is a high art and science and is extremely well developed by 2015.

Another one is the idea of the 'longest valid chain.'  The 'valid' part is very deliberately stripped out (though a lot of people who have no clue will parrot the words of those who do.)  I'll tell you what is going on here:  Even today it will be quite trivial to form a 'longest chain' which is of whatever structure TPTB desire.  It's not a matter of generating certain blocks but rather of keeping blocks from being generated.  This is trivial to do with injunction since blocks are generated at the pleasure of corporate service providers (especially network providers) and TPTB 'own the net.'  Most of the real world who actually uses Bitcoin (e.g., Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) are under the same sets of pressures.

The end-play of this 'longest chain' attack will be a bunch of people (such as Peter R) saying 'of course we don't like with the attack on the chain and it is terrible and all, but it's the longest chain(tm) so what can ya do?'

[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.  

While I'm not on Peter R's side in the XT debate, he's correct about this. The terms of this potential "bet" are clear. In any case, even if there were some ambiguity, that's one reason there's a neutral third party in a 2-of-3 multisig.

Now for something completely different. Consider this modified version of "the bet": Peter R and anti-Peter R each put 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig with a neutral third party. One year from now, the 2 BTC are paid out to Peter R on every chain that has had a block over 1MB. The 2 BTC are paid out to anti-Peter R on every chain that has not had a block over 1MB. This would actually give people a way to trade potential coins on potential multiple forks before the potential forks actually occur. It's a little surprising there aren't services offering something like this, given how adamant many people on different sides seem to be.

One example which is classic is that big who-ha about 'block will fill and we are all going to die so we have to do something by {magic date}.  The artifacts of this one continue to linger which is why we still see people who should know better and who were not taken for a ride by the XT/BIP101 attack continue to feel a subconscious need to 'do something'.  Even if it makes no sense (e.g., a paltry 1x block size increase which will do absolutely zilch over what we have at 1MB.)  The manipulation of the herd through psychological means is a high art and science and is extremely well developed by 2015.

Good reference post by Peter Wuille:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009098.html

I do, however, fundamentally disagree that a fear for a change in economics should be considered to necessitate larger blocks. If it is, and there is consensus that we should adapt to it, then there is effectively no limit going forward. This is similar to how Congress voting to increase the copyright term retroactively from time to time is really no different from having an infinite copyright term in the first place. This scares me.

Word.

[hdbuck]

He truly is a mysterious man this Peter R:



I'll be sure to raise my hands for a couple questions then Pete  

lol he is the only one on that list without having his full name on. wtf? https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/#schedule

bring us some treats brg! ^^

[jonald_fyookball]

Good reference post by Peter Wuille:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/009098.html
 

This is a great example of Pieter giving lip
service to bigger blocks to attempt to appear
unbiased, while at the same time pushing his
agenda.  He sounds just like a politician.


People want bigger blocks so Bitcoin can scale
on chain, not because of some "fear for a
change in economics", whatever that means.

[hdbuck]

about coinwallet.io: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321

such bs, lmao.

[tvbcof]

...
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.

2.  Define "needed".

Potential participants who need a very highly secured, expensive, and enduring monetary solution and are willing to pay for it's support are being forced out.

I'll go a step farther and provide a rational for this definition:  It is this class of entities who are capable of providing enduring support for the solution.  Even if they wish to, they would not be able to support anywhere near the mass of 'Free Shit Nation' leaches that the attackers such as Hearn are desperate to burden them with.  At least not on the main chain.  They can support said leaches (and most of their own economic use as well) with sidechain-like solutions built on top of the secure core however, and probably quite easily.