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

[Zarathustra]

No, there is no consensus. On which planet do you live?

Consensus of ideas? Who cares -- we will never achieve that. Consensus of the protocol? We already have consensus -- after all, there is only one blockchain.

There is only one valid law in my municipality. But there is no consensus.
Nuclear communities (Dunbar's Number) only are consensus driven. Societies are always majority driven, since the birth of the tragedy: the birth of the society.

The Bitcoiners are going to totally destroy your society and your "laws"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=470593.0

[brg444]

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

[tvbcof]

[img - https://i.imgur.com/AyuQhfn.png [/img

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

This smacks of the 'voting' fiasco which was so exploitable that it hit little old me within moments.  They are making it to easy...and that makes me uneasy.

If I had Conformal's 'bctd' implementation in my back pocket and wished to switch to it, I might be inclined to make a lot of 'mistakes' in XT then blame the (very real) messiness of the Satoshi-based core.

People should consider what they are going to do if, say, Coinbase and various trinket vendors adopt the 'new' XT.  And, concurrently, established financial players (e.g., Paypal) suddenly see a green light and choose the 'appropriate' fork.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen.  I am saying that if I had my hands on certain levers and a desire to achieve a certain favorable result for TPTB, this is how I might proceed.

[knight22]

[img - https://i.imgur.com/AyuQhfn.png [/img

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

This smacks of the 'voting' fiasco which was so exploitable that it hit little old me within moments.  They are making it to easy...and that makes me uneasy.

If I had Conformal's 'bctd' implementation in my back pocket and wished to switch to it, I might be inclined to make a lot of 'mistakes' in XT then blame the (very real) messiness of the Satoshi-based core.

People should consider what they are going to do if, say, Coinbase and various trinket vendors adopt the 'new' XT.  And, concurrently, established financial players (e.g., Paypal) suddenly see a green light and choose the 'appropriate' fork.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen.  I am saying that if I had my hands on certain levers and a desire to achieve a certain favorable result for TPTB, this is how I might proceed.

At some point something like that will happen if Core doesn't scale properly.

[brg444]

[img - https://i.imgur.com/AyuQhfn.png [/img

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

This smacks of the 'voting' fiasco which was so exploitable that it hit little old me within moments.  They are making it to easy...and that makes me uneasy.

If I had Conformal's 'bctd' implementation in my back pocket and wished to switch to it, I might be inclined to make a lot of 'mistakes' in XT then blame the (very real) messiness of the Satoshi-based core.

People should consider what they are going to do if, say, Coinbase and various trinket vendors adopt the 'new' XT.  And, concurrently, established financial players (e.g., Paypal) suddenly see a green light and choose the 'appropriate' fork.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen.  I am saying that if I had my hands on certain levers and a desire to achieve a certain favorable result for TPTB, this is how I might proceed.

At some point something like that will happen if Core doesn't scale properly.

Core will begin scaling by first getting rid of spam and making more efficient use of the existing space on the block chain.

[hdbuck]

[img - https://i.imgur.com/AyuQhfn.png [/img

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

This smacks of the 'voting' fiasco which was so exploitable that it hit little old me within moments.  They are making it to easy...and that makes me uneasy.

If I had Conformal's 'bctd' implementation in my back pocket and wished to switch to it, I might be inclined to make a lot of 'mistakes' in XT then blame the (very real) messiness of the Satoshi-based core.

People should consider what they are going to do if, say, Coinbase and various trinket vendors adopt the 'new' XT.  And, concurrently, established financial players (e.g., Paypal) suddenly see a green light and choose the 'appropriate' fork.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen.  I am saying that if I had my hands on certain levers and a desire to achieve a certain favorable result for TPTB, this is how I might proceed.

At some point something like that will happen if Core doesn't scale properly.

Core will begin scaling by first getting rid of spam and making more efficient use of the existing space on the block chain.

hellyea ^^

The coinwallet greedy-poor-n00bs-spam-attacks just showed that the blockchain is not suitable to do low value high frequency transaction, no matter how big the block size is

[iCEBREAKER]

another round of.....

#REKT

Peter R: this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

OUCH!  Glad I'm not the one who has to change Heam's oozy/stinky bandages (once he gets out of the burn ward's oxygen tank).

[uxgpf]

this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

GitHub is probably better place for peer review and discussing patches than reddit:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/61#issuecomment-139344632

I guess Peter Todd knows that too, but just couldn't resist posting a good propaganda piece on Reddit.

Anyway the patch works to limit mempool size, so can be enabled during the current "stress test" if needed. There's also some follow up ideas on Bitcoin XT mailing list like picking two random transactions and evicting the lower fee/kB one. In case you have more insight to the issue I'm sure that constructive criticism is appreciated.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

GitHub is probably better place for peer review and discussing patches than reddit:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/61#issuecomment-139344632

I guess Peter Todd knows that too, but just couldn't resist posting a good propaganda piece on Reddit.

Anyway the patch works to limit mempool size, so can be enabled during the current "stress test" if needed. There's also some follow up ideas on Bitcoin XT mailing list like picking two random transactions and evicting the lower fee/kB one. In case you have more insight to the issue I'm sure that constructive criticism is appreciated.

Am I hearing you correctly?  It's okay for Hearn to post a short, generalized summary of an XT patch, but it's wrong for someone else to follow up with important vulnerability details about the patch, and comment on the patch's review process?

If the latter is propaganda, what is the former?

[mallard]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.

But we choose to run that code.

[jonald_fyookball]

this is what you get with a lack of peer review, enjoy your broken "implementations"

GitHub is probably better place for peer review and discussing patches than reddit:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/61#issuecomment-139344632

I guess Peter Todd knows that too, but just couldn't resist posting a good propaganda piece on Reddit.

Anyway the patch works to limit mempool size, so can be enabled during the current "stress test" if needed. There's also some follow up ideas on Bitcoin XT mailing list like picking two random transactions and evicting the lower fee/kB one. In case you have more insight to the issue I'm sure that constructive criticism is appreciated.

Am I hearing you correctly?  It's okay for Hearn to post a short, generalized summary of an XT patch, but it's wrong for someone else to follow up with important vulnerability details about the patch, and comment on the patch's review process?

If the latter is propaganda, what is the former?

Peter's comments are fine, and it's fine to use that an example of why peer review is good...But irrelevant to the important goal of scaling Bitcoin on the main chain.

[hdbuck]

http://qntra.net/2015/09/qntras-mascot-dixie-visits-consensus-2015/

[adamstgBit]

i lol'd really hard.

[hdbuck]

More seriously..


Bitcoin's value proposition lies in its fixed inflation. No number of dollars meeting the market can increase the supply schedule. Trilema clearly explains:

There's pretty much literally nothing those extra dollars nobody wants can do to increase the Bitcoin supply. It's very, very inelastic, and consequently the only stability point is when equilibrium is reached. Two billion dollars divided by 600`000 Bitcoins comes to three thousand dollars and change per Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is faced with hitting another inelastic limit in its maximum transaction volume. Consumers have come to expect to get what they demand – "the customer is always right". As such consumers have begun to revolt due to them not getting their demand of Bitcoin competing with Visa or as Trilema predicted in 2013:

…one of them is that consumers revolt, entrepreneurs intervene, before the end of 2015 there's about a thousand to a million different Bitcoin forks, each with its ten million-ish monetary base worth about a dollar, on global average. The size of the inter-Bitcoins market, the complexity and confusion ensuing makes pretty much everything unmanageable for the "ordinary person". Hedge funds and banks (the ones a little ahead of using Excel) that trade in this murky complexity make a killing and become the principal driver of economic growth worldwide. Not only is the consumer about as screwed as is currently the case, but to everyone's benefit he has just been clearly proven yet again that revolt = being fucked in the ass harder, longer, with a thicker implement with sharper barbs on it. Also conveniently, the thing to revolt at has become much more vague and intangible. On the balance of probabilities this would seem the most likely outcome, strictly because history unerringly flows in that direction which most cruelly rapes the "average person".

Many consumers have exclaimed they will leave Bitcoin to go to an altcoin which suits their "needs" if they don't get their way in Bitcoin being perverted into a system to compete with Visa. What they don't realize is the consequences they will face if they choose this option.




full article: http://qntra.net/2015/09/consumers-begin-revolting-bitcoin-is-not-visa/

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

i lol'd really hard.

On this thread we spell that "l'dol"

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

More seriously..

Bitcoin's value proposition  [..... more trilema/MP gypsy crap...]

You need to have the IQ of an amoeba to put any value in that shit.

[brg444]

More seriously..

Bitcoin's value proposition  [..... more trilema/MP gypsy crap...]

You need to have the IQ of an amoeba to put any value in that shit.

I thought you were dead  


I was happy  

Getting a little more difficult to troll after theymos made sure your sock puppets couldn't share with us your library of gay men enjoying themselves heh 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Regarding Peter's reply above - he does realise that the tx eviction is only on a particular node - that same transaction will likely remain on all other nodes. So why should it be rebroadcast? Additionally, this is only going to be a factor when the mempool is full - by then the majority of tx's sitting there ( as they didnt pay a fee or not enough) are going to be spam, so the likelihood is that it will be a spam tx that will get evicted.  Legitimate tx's will get processed quickly and are unlikely to ever be in the 'relegation zone'.

On the other hand, Peter's deterministic route means that if your transaction is unlucky enough to be the one to be dropped, then it it is dead on all nodes. Game over for you, unless you spot it ( ha!) and re-submit it. Thats a really lousy solution.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I thought you were dead  

I was happy  

Getting a little more difficult to troll after theymos made sure your sock puppets couldn't share with us your library of gay men enjoying themselves heh 

Tough shit, Troll. 

[erik777]

nice to see XT nodes drop to

6.99% 6.89% (30 minute later lol)

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/

Confused on how http://xtnodes.com/ is tracking nodes and updating the site.  Its tracking of 1 out of the last 1000 nodes supporting BIP 101 (and 99.9% not) looks correct.  But, how do they still claim that 10.5% of nodes are using XT? 

The nice thing about bitnodes.io is that it isn't configured to look for any specific user string, but rather lists a count of all user strings.  Unlike xtnodes.com, it is updated frequently.