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

[chek2fire]

i think this project is official dead.
0 blocks the last 24 hours
600 nodes now 170 less from yesterday
Epic Fail Gavin

[erik777]

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.  

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Deadline for implementing a yet-nonexistent solution -- that boggles my mind. I hope you understand what you are writing.

Your suggested feel of urgency only means that anyone can feed you anything pretending to scale Bitcoin and you will be happy to eat it. In this case, I see no point in continuing arguing with you.

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

It will likely go down like this:

1. Sep-Oct Devs will pick one of the solutions they have been talking about.
2. They will develop detailed plans.
3. They will test it rigorously and subject it to peer review.
4. They will plan its deployment, and announce the date of the fork.
5. January 1st will hit, and XT will be clearly rejected. 
6. The solution will go live.
6. Hearn, Gavin and their puppets will be remembered as obstacles in the process, never to be trusted or respected.
 

[erik777]

...

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

How have you helped to develop a solution?  The devs have volunteered for years.  New developers continue to be welcome.  People who do not contribute to development while whining about the devs not meeting their perception of how fast a solution should be designed, developed, tested, peer reviewed and deployed contribute nothing.

[squatter]

...

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

How have you helped to develop a solution?  The devs have volunteered for years.  New developers continue to be welcome.  People who do not contribute to development while whining about the devs not meeting their perception of how fast a solution should be designed, developed, tested, peer reviewed and deployed contribute nothing.

+1

most of this debate = "not fast enough, need solution implemented yesterday"

[HostFat]

The problem is discussed from the 2013

[poeEDgar]

The problem is discussed from the 2013

It was discussed since 2010. Not sure I see your point.

[erik777]

The problem is discussed from the 2013

And the problem of the blocks filling up and high transaction fees still hasn't happened.  In fact, the biggest problem today versus 2013 is coinbase rewards being higher than tx fees, leading to higher centralization.

[iCEBREAKER]

The problem is discussed from the 2013

And the average block is still less than half full.

Sell your false sense of urgency somewhere else.  We aren't buying into the panic over backlogs or the rush to bloat blocks.

[HostFat]

And the average block is still less than half full.

lol, there were full block all past days
I'm sure that you have a lot of altcoin little troll.

It was discussed since 2010. Not sure I see your point.

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussions on the 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

[brg444]

And the average block is still less than half full.

lol, there were full block all past days
I'm sure that you have a lot of altcoin little troll.

What is the issue with full blocks? Are you suggesting these were full of legitimate prioritized transactions and not the result of spam?

It was discussed since 2010. Not sure I see your point.

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

[iCEBREAKER]

And the average block is still less than half full.

lol, there were full block all past days
I'm sure that you have a lot of altcoin little troll.

Yes, there have been some full blocks.

And yet, the *AVERAGE* block is still less than half full.

Sell your false sense of urgency somewhere else.  We aren't buying into the panic over backlogs or the rush to bloat blocks.

[tvbcof]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

[brg444]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

+1.

This is especially true considering it has been made clear enough by me and a few others that Blockstream's two currently public projects, Sidechains & Lightning, are not at all subject to suffer and would actually benefit from a block size increase.

[knight22]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

[brg444]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

Oh succeed they will, and they should eventually become a leading force for Bitcoin (if we're to argue they are not already). Meanwhile Mike & Gavin will be thrown into the sewers of history, a footnote about some early developers who attempted a power grab and were #REKT by the steamroller that is Bitcoin.

Obviously you cannot prove in away that Blockstream has any intention or ability to force everybody down their path but if we were to entertain this nonsense have you considered that "their path" is one of open-source, permissionless technology?

[knight22]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

Oh succeed they will, and they should eventually become a leading force for Bitcoin (if we're to argue they are not already). Meanwhile Mike & Gavin will be thrown into the sewers of history, a footnote about some early developers who attempted a power grab and were #REKT by the steamroller that is Bitcoin.

Obviously you cannot prove in away that Blockstream has any intention or ability to force everybody down their path but if we were to entertain this nonsense have you considered that "their path" is one of open-source, permissionless technology?

I will believe it when the block size will be increased. Not before. I have absolutely no reasons to trust them.

[brg444]

You are right, I was here, but it did return on scene with different discussion on 2013.
The real problem is that if someone has a business plan that it depends by not solving a problem, it's easy that it will take a loooong time.

Do you have concrete proof of what you are inferring?

He seems to be referring to Blockstream.  To this I would say that the problem they seem to be focused on is keeping Bitcoin 'free' (using the term in a systems and political sense) and secure while at the same time making it's strengths filter down to everyone.  It's a tricky operation.  Much more involved than the brain-dead 'bigger blocks yesterday already' strategy, but they seem to be making progress at a comfortable clip and easily fast enough to beat the race against any significant block size constraints which currently exist.

Back in 2011 a lot of people were all indignant about the idea that Satoshi made a lot of money off his work on Bitcoin.  I never understood this.  Even if he did, fantastic.  He deserved to for Christ's sake!  If Blockstream makes a ton of money off their work on LN and sidechains and whatever, that would seem fair enough to me.  Some of the crypto they are working on is cutting edge and the problems they are attacking are difficult and new-ish to network and to monetary science.  I honestly don't see how they are going to become ultra-wealthy tycoons off it though, and nobody making this accusation seems to be able to put their finger on it either.

You must be kidding right? Satoshi didn't forced anybody to use bitcoin while Blockstream is trying to force everybody down their path. They won't succeed though.

Oh succeed they will, and they should eventually become a leading force for Bitcoin (if we're to argue they are not already). Meanwhile Mike & Gavin will be thrown into the sewers of history, a footnote about some early developers who attempted a power grab and were #REKT by the steamroller that is Bitcoin.

Obviously you cannot prove in away that Blockstream has any intention or ability to force everybody down their path but if we were to entertain this nonsense have you considered that "their path" is one of open-source, permissionless technology?

I will believe it when the block size will be increased. Not before. I have absolutely no reasons to trust them.

Believe what? Their code is already out in the open. Are you even aware that the last functioning proposal for a Lightning network implementation was created by someone outside of Blockstream? No one's asking you to trust them.

[VeritasSapere]

I will believe it when the block size will be increased. Not before. I have absolutely no reasons to trust them.

Believe what? Their code is already out in the open. Are you even aware that the last functioning proposal for a Lightning network implementation was created by someone outside of Blockstream? No one's asking you to trust them.

I do not trust them to increase the block size, that is why it should be implemented by an alternative client. Unless the Core devs increase the blocksize, I will not trust them to do it. Especially since this has become a fundamental ideological disagreement, since not increasing the block size at all would lead to a very different future for Bitcoin compared to the future that restricting the block size would lead to.

[bambou]

...an alternative client...

there:

ALT... COIN

[poeEDgar]

I do not trust them to increase the block size, that is why it should be implemented by an alternative client. Unless the Core devs increase the blocksize, I will not trust them to do it.

I don't trust Gavin/Hearn to implement anything, since the basis for scaling in BIP101 is Moore's Law (unproven, unscientific, failing) and nothing more than the baseless assumption that we can address issues of scaling on an exponentially increasing schedule. Literally, the only answer provided to questions of delayed block propagation times is that "technology gets better over time." Never mind the basic premise in large scale systems that conditions in small scale =/= conditions in large scale, and how this basic oversight could force us to fork the limit down after a serious security lapse. One cannot test a regime in a .4MB block environment and simply assume that it is stable in an 8GB block environment.

We are simply supposed to believe that "technology gets better over time, therefore exponentially increasing block size limit presents no threats to bitcoin."

Pfff.....

If you believe a block size limit increase is necessary, it doesn't logically follow that you should accept the first reckless proposal that comes along.