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

[knight22]

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean.....

Do you even economics?

Right. Fees will probably never rise as people will be driven away from bitcoin as they realize it doesn't scale. Not much better output though.

[muyuu]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in business range dedicated connections or in datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

[sgbett]

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean.....

Do you even economics?

I think your confusion is trying to apply economics to something that is grade school math,

100 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 10BTC reward

200 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 20BTC reward

heres the complicated bit, pay attention

20 > 10

[brg444]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here?

Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain.

Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain.

My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them.

[knight22]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

[brg444]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in business range dedicated connections or in datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

"Too bad. No full node for you!"

[brg444]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

[knight22]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

[brg444]

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean.....

Do you even economics?

I think your confusion is trying to apply economics to something that is grade school math,

100 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 10BTC reward

200 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 20BTC reward

heres the complicated bit, pay attention

20 > 10

Jesus christ you are stupid.

So subsidizing transactions by increasing supply will keep average transaction fee constant. Got that...  

[knight22]

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean.....

Do you even economics?

I think your confusion is trying to apply economics to something that is grade school math,

100 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 10BTC reward

200 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 20BTC reward

heres the complicated bit, pay attention

20 > 10

Jesus christ you are stupid.

So subsidizing transactions by increasing supply will keep average transaction fee constant. Got that...  

It will keep average transaction fees as competitive as possible.

[brg444]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

No you dumb noob. The value of Bitcoin is that everyone can validate their own transactions so that we don't have to trust anyone to do it.

Of course an idiot like you would believe that if you trust someone's else node somehow you are still a peer but let me break it to you: you aren't. Anytime you have to refer to authority to validate your transactions you no longer have sovereignty over your money.

And that is what Bitcoin is about : monetary sovereignty. If you don't run a full node, you don't use Bitcoin as it was intended too :

PURELY peer-to-peer

[sgbett]

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here?

Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain.

Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain.

My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them.

You know what you are right, I forgot that nodes have to relay blocks not just transactions.

That could be a problem then!

[knight22]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

No you dumb noob. The value of Bitcoin is that everyone can validate their own transactions so that we don't have to trust anyone to do it.

Of course an idiot like you would believe that if you trust someone's else node somehow you are still a peer but let me break it to you: you aren't. Anytime you have to refer to authority to validate your transactions you no longer have sovereignty over your money.

And that is what Bitcoin is about : monetary sovereignty. If you don't run a full node, you don't use Bitcoin as it was intended too :

PURELY peer-to-peer

False, you don't have to run a node to know and verify that the network is supposed to work as is.
 
For anything else, there is an altcoin.

[QuestionAuthority]

Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!

ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute. 

[brg444]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

No you dumb noob. The value of Bitcoin is that everyone can validate their own transactions so that we don't have to trust anyone to do it.

Of course an idiot like you would believe that if you trust someone's else node somehow you are still a peer but let me break it to you: you aren't. Anytime you have to refer to authority to validate your transactions you no longer have sovereignty over your money.

And that is what Bitcoin is about : monetary sovereignty. If you don't run a full node, you don't use Bitcoin as it was intended too :

PURELY peer-to-peer

False, you don't have to run a node to know and verify that the network is supposed to work as is.
 
For anything else, there is an altcoin.

Your understanding: it's broken. It's not about verifying that the network works as advertised but to VALIDATE YOURSELF every single transaction you are involved with.

If you don't do that you depend on an authority to do so (an actual, true-to-form, peer in the Bitcoin network). If you depend on an authority then you are not using Bitcoin peer-to-peer.

I know it might be hard to process for your 10 year old brain but that's just the way it is.

[brg444]

Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!

ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute.  

You'll have to excuse me these clowns have a particular ability to make my blood boil.. consider what I have to deal with:

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here?

Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain.

Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain.

My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them.

You know what you are right, I forgot that nodes have to relay blocks not just transactions.

That could be a problem then!

[brg444]

All slander aside sgbett I propose you read this article until your eyes bleed, then maybe, just maybe, you will see the light:

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

Notice the phrase “pure P2P”. Bitcoin’s whitepaper never uses the word “decentralized”, instead favoring the term “peer-to-peer” (which is very easy to measure: “Is every pair of nodes ‘two peers’?” and/or “Does any node have a privileged status?”).

Money is “knowing you’ve been paid”. When does “that knowing” occur more locally?

Experience vs. Persuasion

To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.

The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.

It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”.

[QuestionAuthority]

Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!

ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute.  

You'll have to excuse me these clowns have a particular ability to make my blood boil.. consider what I have to deal with:

Please don't stop on my account. I'm waiting at a doctors office and currently have no other entertainment. lol

[Holliday]

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

A Bitcoin enthusiast with dedicated hardware and top tier home internet can't run a full node today without taking measures to cut down on the bandwidth. Increasing the amount of data that must be shared is obviously going to make it even more difficult to possibly downright impossible. I would say that is a huge step away from decentralization.

...And this is under the best possible conditions. What happens if/when some authority decides its time to try and prevent the flow of Bitcoin data (at an ISP level).

So, I'm a bit confused when you say that the value of Bitcoin is as a decentralized, P2P cash system, but it's OK if we move away from decentralization and have fewer peers. Wut?

[coalitionfor8mb]

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The trend! The biggest challenge for Bitcoin is not how to find the right balance between the decentralization and efficiency, but rather how to stop there and keep it sustainable over the long term. If there is no resistance to blockchain bloat, then it simply becomes another attack vector for the network.