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

[iCEBREAKER]

Your opinion is completely wrong.  Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible.

And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening?  101 is the 'red uniform' BIP.  It's dead, Jim.  

[pop culture reference.gif]

Its not nodes.  Its mined blocks.  derp.

"Mined blocks" require a node (Core, XT, or NotXT).  Do you even how Bitcoin works?

[1715434077]

1715434077

[1715434077]

1715434077

[knight22]

Your opinion is completely wrong.  Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible.

And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening?  101 is the 'red uniform' BIP.  It's dead, Jim.  

[pop culture reference.gif]

Its not nodes.  Its mined blocks.  derp.

"Mined blocks" require a node (Core, XT, or NotXT).  Do you even how Bitcoin works?

There are plenty of XT nodes ready to be mined when needed. Don't worry.

[iCEBREAKER]

And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.

Sidechains are part of an orthogonal scaling solution.  The "pathetic solution" is bloating Layer 1 until it loses it's unique properties, and then breaks.  XT is the canonical implementation of such a pathetic solution.  That's why it's fukkin' #R3KT, with no chance of ever winning.   

[jonald_fyookball]

Your opinion is completely wrong.  Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible.

And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening?  101 is the 'red uniform' BIP.  It's dead, Jim.  

[pop culture reference.gif]

Its not nodes.  Its mined blocks.  derp.

"Mined blocks" require a node (Core, XT, or NotXT).  Do you even how Bitcoin works?

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

[knight22]

And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.

Sidechains are part of an orthogonal scaling solution.  The "pathetic solution" is bloating Layer 1 until it loses it's unique properties, and then breaks.  XT is the canonical implementation of such a pathetic solution.  That's why it's fukkin' #R3KT, with no chance of ever winning.   

[iCEBREAKER]

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.   

[jonald_fyookball]

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.  

You brought it up in this thread in a goofish attempt to
pronounce my opinion "wrong" about Gavin's 75% consensus.
 
Guess you lost the plot again.  

But that's what trolls like you do.  

They bring up a point, and when the point is invalidated,
they move to the next point.

If that point is also invalidated, they go onto something else,
never bothering to revisit the original point. 

Let's review:  I said it was my OPINION that Gavin's 75%
consensus was reasonable (given the entrenched consensus
due to the core repository).

You claimed my opinion was "wrong" and started talking about
spoofed nodes.

I pointed out that blocks, not nodes determine the consensus.

You foolishly tried to conflate blocks with nodes.

I debunked that and you started talking about Slush.

Say whatever you want, you've already lost this round.




 

[knight22]

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.   

Says the guy who shit his pants because of XT 

[iCEBREAKER]

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.   

Says the guy who shit his pants because of XT 

When did that happen?  Please cite relevant posts.

Wait.  Nevermind.  I now recall the (ROFLSMP) circumstances:




No wonder Heam and his proxy Galvin are too ashamed to show up (tail tucked between legs) at the Scaling confabs.

[crazyivan]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

[Zarathustra]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

It will be great if those notorious warriors who notoriously call others noobs, n00bs, redditards, idiots and alike, will be finally forked out of the game. The soonisher the better.
A consensus with such characters is not possible.

[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.

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?'

I have also noticed people saying "longest chain" instead of "longest valid chain." I agree it's dishonest. It seems the debate is about if/how/when to change the definition of "valid."

But in the modified "bet" I described it wouldn't matter if the "longest chain" wasn't valid. He would "win the best" and get the 2 btc on the invalid chain. The other party would "win the best" and get the 2 btc on the valid chain. Both parties should be happy, in principle.

[Zarathustra]

Not all nodes are miners.  Do you even know how Bitcoin works?

YOU brought up spoofed nodes.  They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.

Slush brought up spoofed nodes.  Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks.

XT is dead, and it's never coming back.  Does that make you sad and angry?  Good.   

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won

The problem the community was faced with was that an adoption boom could happen at any time, but Core might stall at 1MB and kill it. Creating an alternative implementation and readying it, testing it, familiarizing people with it, and having the debates necessary for people to be comfortable with it - all that would take too long and we'd likely miss that adoption surge.

But now the situation is different. XT is a thing. It's not winning by node count at all, but it doesn't have to, because the market will prefer conservatism until change is the only option. That was the very situation we were worried about: what if change is the only option yet change is blockaded by Blockstream? All XT has to do is be locked and loaded, ready with open arms to take in the longsuffering Core refugees.

XT doesn't need to be an open floodgate; it just needs to be a floodgate ready to be opened at any time. In that it has already succeeded, and Core feels the pressure as shown by the elevating pitch of attacks.

The only question now is, to misquote Mises, "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of the 1MB dam. The alternative is only whether the relief should come sooner as the result of Core's voluntary abandonment of the antiquated blocksize cap, or later as a final and total loss of centralized control by Core dev."
(@Noosterdam)

[uxgpf]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

Having a choice is always good and we need more of that. This is how open source works.

There's no need to have Bitcoin controlled by a single developer group, in fact it's dangerous and we should always be able to fork / move to another client if necessary. (more options the better)

You have no need to worry. The BIP 101 fork will only happen if a good majority of the Bitcoin economy thinks it's better. If it's worse, then it won't get adopted.

It's not good to have such a fit (shouting with all caps) over a freedom to choose.

[Lauda]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin.

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won

Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

[Trent Russell]

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?

Are you bothered by Satoshi remaining anonymous? I suspect given the slings and arrows suffered by the devs in recent months, some of them may wish they'd followed Satoshi's example.

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.

I'm glad you think I'm smart. Reading your intelligent posts in this thread has led me to have a great respect for you, so your opinion means a lot to me. I'm sorry if it sounds like I was accusing you of doxxing someone. I was just trying to clarify Godwin's Law. For the record, I also wasn't accusing you of being someone who would've hid Jews from the Nazis during the war.

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.

Regarding the multisig "bets", do you agree that it's a way people could trade bitcoins between chains now before the chains actually diverge? Maybe if the two (or more) sides could stop engaging in insults and conspiracy theories, one of the sides could make some money off of the poor predictive skills of the other(s).

Oh, and, yes, I'm a Jr. Member. If you keep responding to my posts though, I might be able to reach that coveting "Member" status sooner. Help me out.

[uxgpf]

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

Do you mean that one entity should have absolute power over Bitcoin protocol?

I'm glad that FOSS doesn't work that way. Face it or not, the fact is that anyone can make a fork of bitcoin code, anytime, with any parameters and features they wish and no one can stop that. If that fork is no good, no one will use it. It's that simple.

If it was as easy to "take over power" as you seem to think, then any malicious player could and would do it right now. The developers have no power over what software people choose to use.

[crazyivan]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

Having a choice is always good and we need more of that. This is how open source works.

There's no need to have Bitcoin controlled by a single developer group, in fact it's dangerous and we should always be able to fork / move to another client if necessary. (more options the better)

You have no need to worry. The BIP 101 fork will only happen if a good majority of the Bitcoin economy thinks it's better. If it's worse, then it won't get adopted.

It's not good to have such a fit (shouting with all caps) over a freedom to choose.

At this stage of BTC infancy, where this tech is still young, trying to force this kind of division has endangered the entire BTC project. These guys know this and STILL they ve been ready to risk the entire BTC existance over this.

There are many political parties. What s next, let us all have 5 different versions of BTC so each of us can use a different one. We already have those, they are called ALTcoins. There s no need to try to split BTC community. If they wanted an altcoin, they should ve try to make an altcoin. In my book, these 2 fuckers only wanted a piece of glory for them. They failed and now they can kiss their credibility goodbye.

[uxgpf]

At this stage of BTC infancy, where this tech is still young, trying to force this kind of division has endangered the entire BTC project.

No one is trying (or able) to force anything and the Bitcoin project is not endangered by this.
I'm sorry that you are so worried, but I guess we simply have to disagree.

[Zarathustra]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin.

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won

Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.