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

[knight22]

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.  
  

That's because people are upgrading to 0.11.B smart ass  

[1714007610]

1714007610

[1714007610]

1714007610

[1714007610]

1714007610

[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.  
  

That's because people are upgrading to 0.11.B smart ass  

Good point. 

7. /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0B/ (145)   2.5%

So, 6.89 + 2.5 = 9.39%

Still not 10.5%

[Lauda]

nice to see XT nodes drop to

6.99% 6.89% (30 minute later lol)

Honestly, you should not be even looking at the node count at all. It does not matter if they have 10, 20 or 500% of the nodes. This does not change anything, and without the support of the miners XT can not happen.

7. /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0B/ (145)   2.5%

So, 6.89 + 2.5 = 9.39%

Still not 10.5%

It will probably keep on declining unless someone starts deceiving the count again. As was demonstrated, the node count can be easily manipulated and thus should be completely disregarded.

[camponez]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now 

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

No, they don't.

The code is available so anyone can modify as they like. XT is a great example of how anyone can just fork, release a new code and (if the majority of miners like it) be the code that rules the network.

Only because some one wrote the code that the majority uses now, doesn't give any absolute power over what might happen next. Of course their saying has some influence, but the choice is still for the miners (individually) to make.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

nice to see XT nodes drop to

6.99% 6.89% (30 minute later lol)

Honestly, you should not be even looking at the node count at all. It does not matter if they have 10, 20 or 500% of the nodes. This does not change anything, and without the support of the miners XT can not happen.

7. /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0B/ (145)   2.5%

So, 6.89 + 2.5 = 9.39%

Still not 10.5%

It will probably keep on declining unless someone starts deceiving the count again. As was demonstrated, the node count can be easily manipulated and thus should be completely disregarded.

Stealth mode in XT has made node count irrelevant.

[Trent Russell]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

Brilliant!

[brg444]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

wtf!?

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.

[brg444]

Peter R managed to fit XT shilling & blockstream trolling in his presentation. Amateurish at best

[jonald_fyookball]

Peter R managed to fit XT shilling & blockstream trolling in his presentation. Amateurish at best

where can we watch the replay

[yayayo]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

wtf!?

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.

It appears that you just became witness of a double identity.

Let me sum up: Trent Russell = Peter R, but keep in mind that Trent Russell is not on Peter R's side in the XT debate.

Comedy gold.  

ya.ya.yo!

[jonald_fyookball]

bizarre... not sure why Peter would admit he logged into the wrong account
instead of just editing his post to say "Peter's talk".
I guess he doesn't really care if you know he has an alt.

Doesn't really help his credibility, but I still support his ideas on this topic.

---> see below

[Peter R]

Haha I'm not Trent.  Trent, are you claiming that you are me?

[RoadTrain]

People, what's the point. We likely can't have any proof of wheter Trent is Peter or not. So it's just fun and games.

[Trent Russell]

Haha I'm not Trent.  Trent, are you claiming that you are me?

Haha! All is going according to plan!

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.

As for whether or not I'm a "proxy account" for Peter R, I thought of a way to convince you I'm not. I start by telling you I am. Then I can log in as Peter R and publicly deny that I am his proxy. Then your opposition to Peter R will lead you to believe he's lying and that I must, in fact, be Peter R's alt. Then you'll decide that's just what I/he/we want you to think, and so it must not be true. Therefore, I am not a proxy account for Peter R.

People, what's the point. We likely can't have any proof of wheter Trent is Peter or not. So it's just fun and games.

Yes, RoadTrain is correct. I'm obviously not Peter R. And me saying this is no more proof that I'm not Peter R as when I implied I was. It was just a bit of fun following up on the odd exchange I had with hdbuck earlier this week on this thread.

@Peter_R: I enjoyed my your talk. I'm not an XT supporter, but I thought the main content of your talk was very clear. I'm curious if you're catching much grief over the last part about Theymos and Blockstream. I expect it got a lot of people's attention.

[hdbuck]

[iCEBREAKER]

The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea.

[chek2fire]

and 5% in nodes... only 345

[VeritasSapere]

and 5% in nodes... only 345

That might change if Core takes to long to increase the blocksize. We should be thankful that XT has given us an alternative. The freedom of choice should be embraced.

[iCEBREAKER]

and 5% in nodes... only 345

That might change if Core takes to long to increase the blocksize. We should be thankful that XT has given us an alternative. The freedom of choice should be embraced.

According to the Gavinista Manifesto (*snicker*), Core has ALREADY taken too long to increase the blocksize (and blacklist TOR, etc).

But their putsch failed, so now you're lowering the bar for XT all the way down to the ground.  First XT was a revolution against Blockstream and Thermos, but now it's just a handy motivational poster?  Give me a break...you are spinning like a pulsar! 

Hundreds of other altcoins existed before XT.  And some of them (eg Monero) have adaptive block sizes.  Where have you been?

If XT is the first alternative to Bitcoin you've ever encountered, you really should get out more.