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

[knight22]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

Don't see where the problem is.

Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee.

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.

Do not be confused: The fact that most of the dozens of developers choose to collaborate to build a stronger and better Bitcoin implementation than we could build alone does not make development non-distributed.

The process is Bitcoin is one that amplify the independence of developers generally, even beyond the level of open source software, -- including down to the fact that multiple developers must collaborate to produce releases (so we do not just end up with only one or two person who knows how), that any user can produce the same binaries that we do, that we do not have an auto-update process, and so on.  Many more complex features begin life in developers personal forks (which exist, though most don't make releases from them intended for the public (although Luke-Jr has for years)). Our software licensing enables developers to go off and do their own thing based on the codebase, even if the original authors strongly disagree with them.

When you say stuff like this, given the permissive open source software and development process what you're effectively saying is that developers should cooperate less and instead expend their efforts on more duplicated work.

I don't think that is a way to make Bitcoin successful. But I can think of a few parties that would benefit from that outcome...

Thank you for responding, I do respect much of the work you have done within Bitcoin Core.

Even if the internal governance structure of Core is as perfect as it can be it does not change that this still represents a singular governance and organizational structure which is ultimately controlled by just a few people. By extension having multiple implementations being worked on in tandem would in effect distribute this power of development more, since decentralization does exist on a spectrum. This would also allow for more freedom of choice which would further lead to the Bitcoin protocol better reflecting the will of the economic majority.

That the Bitcoin protocol should reflect the will of the economic majority however should be considered a subjective ideology. When there are fundamental ideological disagreements this type of split might be justified considering that one side of this disagreement is unable to have their choice reflected in Core.

I understand that distributing/decentralizing development more would slow down development. In the same sense that more totalitarian forms of governance can reach decisions quicker and more efficiently compared to more democratic systems. I would argue however that even though this would cause development to slow down, it would still be worth it considering that the protocol would better reflect the will of the economic majority. Especially considering that some of the issues that the governance of Bitcoin or body politic needs to decide on now and into the future are fundamentally ideological in nature, which should not be decided on by a small group of technical experts.

Cooperation will still be important, since in such a future different implementations would still need to negotiate consensus critical changes depending on how the miners vote. Since it would not be in the interests of everyone involved to split the network unless there are fundamental ideological differences that can not be resolved. Much of the work Core has done recently surely would not be rejected by other implementations, it adds value to the entire Bitcoin ecosystem so I do thank you for that and I do appreciate your contribution.

For some issues however like the blocksize specifically, it does seem like some other alternative implementations are willing to implement this change sooner then Core is willing to. So when it comes to fundamental disagreements like the blocksize in this case at least having multiple implementations might speed up the implementation of what the economic majority wants. More then seventy five percent of the miners are voting for an increased blocksize after all.

[Zarathustra]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

Don't see where the problem is.

Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee.

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

The Todd seems to be surprised about the centralization effects of the 1 MB joke:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-113#post-4035

[hdbuck]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

Don't see where the problem is.

Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee.

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

The Todd seems to be surprised about the centralization effects of the 1 MB joke:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-113#post-4035

Cool story Bro, but who cares about withdrawing from some exchange 10min faster?

[knight22]

Small blocks will lead to fee market!

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

lol NOPE.

BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.

Don't see where the problem is.

Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee.

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

The Todd seems to be surprised about the centralization effects of the 1 MB joke:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-113#post-4035

Cool story Bro, but who cares about withdrawing from some exchange 10min faster?

You completely miss the point but that's not quite surprising.

[DiamondCardz]

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

Indeed. We should be disappointed with this, though I don't see how this should affect the block size debate. The issue here is the fact that we're even satisfied with a pool centralising the priority of transactions and not allowing the Bitcoin protocol and fees to dictate it.

[knight22]

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

Indeed. We should be disappointed with this, though I don't see how this should affect the block size debate. The issue here is the fact that we're even satisfied with a pool centralising the priority of transactions and not allowing the Bitcoin protocol and fees to dictate it.

No one with a right mind think it's a good idea but it has everything to do with the block size and it's the first symptom of small blocks being full:

Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

[iCEBREAKER]

It means now pools can start colluding negotiating with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization competition of pools and discourage bootstraps a fee market.

FTFY.  So many errors in such a small space, like a 5th grader trying to do calculus despite not understanding what most of the symbols mean.

XT 

Unlimited 

[knight22]

It means now pools can start colluding negotiating with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization competition of pools and discourage bootstraps a fee market.

FTFY.  So many errors in such a small space, like a 5th grader trying to do calculus despite not understanding what most of the symbols mean.

XT  

Unlimited  

Quoting myself:

No one with a right mind think it's a good idea [...]

 

[Zarathustra]

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

Indeed. We should be disappointed with this, though I don't see how this should affect the block size debate. The issue here is the fact that we're even satisfied with a pool centralising the priority of transactions and not allowing the Bitcoin protocol and fees to dictate it.

No one with a right mind think it's a good idea but it has everything to do with the block size and it's the first symptom of small blocks being full:

Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tkhu4/btcc_launches_priority_blockchain_transactions/

But the Todd has a new strategy: HOPE (despite that "Bitcoin is poorly designed")

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-114#post-4078
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-115#post-4086

[marcus_of_augustus]

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit ... the general has left soldier, battle is over, go home to your wife and kids and farm some bitcoins.

[Zarathustra]

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit

Yes, that's all you still can say, given the new development on 'poorly designed' miniblock centralization.

[iCEBREAKER]

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit

Yes, that's all you still can say, given the new development on 'poor designed' miniblock centralization.

CONFIRMED:

The Gavinista dead-ender zero-percenter attempts to spin every new development into FUD and Bitcoin Obituaries are now so old as to be clichéd.

XT   

[Cconvert2G36]

Mah censhoreship-free, anonymous, digital gold, store of value:



Hear me roar!

[Zarathustra]

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit

Yes, that's all you still can say, given the new development on 'poor designed' miniblock centralization.

CONFIRMED:

The Gavinista dead-ender zero-percenter attempts to spin every new development into FUD and Bitcoin Obituaries are now so old as to be clichéd.

XT   

Todd.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13029224#msg13029224

[iCEBREAKER]

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

Indeed. We should be disappointed with this, though I don't see how this should affect the block size debate. The issue here is the fact that we're even satisfied with a pool centralising the priority of transactions and not allowing the Bitcoin protocol and fees to dictate it.

No one with a right mind think it's a good idea but it has everything to do with the block size and it's the first symptom of small blocks being full:

Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tkhu4/btcc_launches_priority_blockchain_transactions/

But the Todd has a new strategy: HOPE (despite that "Bitcoin is poorly designed")

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-114#post-4078
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-115#post-4086

Sorry, but Frap.doc's rump forum doesn't display on my browser correctly.  No, I can't try a different one.   

As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords.

@petertoddbtc

Idea: (ab)use BTCC's BlockPriority to doublespend w/ a zero-fee doublespend paying a BTCC wallet addr, followed by high-fee to merchant.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/667754533800382465

Heh, so rekt.  You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd.   

[Zarathustra]

It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market.

Indeed. We should be disappointed with this, though I don't see how this should affect the block size debate. The issue here is the fact that we're even satisfied with a pool centralising the priority of transactions and not allowing the Bitcoin protocol and fees to dictate it.

No one with a right mind think it's a good idea but it has everything to do with the block size and it's the first symptom of small blocks being full:

Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases."

The miniblockists are finally quiet:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tkhu4/btcc_launches_priority_blockchain_transactions/

But the Todd has a new strategy: HOPE (despite that "Bitcoin is poorly designed")

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-114#post-4078
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-115#post-4086

Sorry, but Frap.doc's rump forum doesn't display on my browser correctly.  No, I can't try a different one.   

As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords.

@petertoddbtc

Idea: (ab)use BTCC's BlockPriority to doublespend w/ a zero-fee doublespend paying a BTCC wallet addr, followed by high-fee to merchant.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/667754533800382465

Heh, so rekt.  You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd.   

They are finished. BIP101 triggered the turning tide. The BTTC event will force core to raise the limit even more soonish than intended until yesterday.

[gmaxwell]

The BTTC event will force

What?  Miners have taken payments for prioritizing transactions for eons. MTGox was doing the same thing in _2011_ (it gave hosting to eligius in exchange for prioritizing transactions).  F2Pool apparently has an API that you can pay access too.

Google 'gmaxwell out of band fees' and you can find lots of posts where I'm schooling people about this possibility (and actuality)-- including pushing for fee estimator designs that don't get confused by it.

There is nothing all that interesting about it, in this case: In Bitcoin, a fee is pretty much a fee regardless of its paid in or out of band.

We even have a supported, documented, and maintained facility in Bitcoin Core for doing this, and have for years, written by the same people you seem to expect to be surprised by it:

prioritisetransaction <txid> <priority delta> <fee delta>
Accepts the transaction into mined blocks at a higher (or lower) priority

Arguments:
1. "txid"       (string, required) The transaction id.
2. priority delta (numeric, required) The priority to add or subtract.
                  The transaction selection algorithm considers the tx as it would have a higher priority.
                  (priority of a transaction is calculated: coinage * value_in_satoshis / txsize)
3. fee delta      (numeric, required) The fee value (in satoshis) to add (or subtract, if negative).
                  The fee is not actually paid, only the algorithm for selecting transactions into a block
                  considers the transaction as it would have paid a higher (or lower) fee.

Result
true              (boolean) Returns true

Examples:
> bitcoin-cli prioritisetransaction "txid" 0.0 10000
> curl --user myusername --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id":"curltest", "method": "prioritisetransaction", "params": ["txid", 0.0, 10000] }' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/


That it's surprising to /you/ only shows you weren't paying attention.    And maybe a little bit of desperation to infer something else to support an otherwise unsupportable position?   "Bitcoin Miner uses standard Bitcoin Core feature, Better drink my XT!"

In any case-- I suggest you stop thinking in terms of finding ways to "force" people to do things; it's unbecoming.

[iCEBREAKER]

As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords.

@petertoddbtc

Idea: (ab)use BTCC's BlockPriority to doublespend w/ a zero-fee doublespend paying a BTCC wallet addr, followed by high-fee to merchant.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/667754533800382465

Heh, so rekt.  You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd.   

They are finished. BIP101 triggered the turning tide. The BTTC event will force core to raise the limit even more soonish than intended until yesterday.

BTCC is a non-event, but cling to your latest FUD narrative if it helps soothe the sting of your crushing defeat by Team Core.

You Gavinistas have a thing for celebrating victory before the battle has started.  How did that work out for XT and BIP101?

Remember xtnodes.com?  And how you talked like every new XT node and block was a dagger in Blockstream's heart?  But then suddenly, NotXT, and then you failed!   

The only thing BIP101 triggered (besides a temporary fiat loss of 20%) was the banhammering and subsequent rage-quitting of Mikey and Frap.doc, who were transformed into lolcows of exceptional quality and productivity.

CLTV/RBF were going to be implemented anyway; even Gavin said so.  It's just our luck that they happened to help kill XT in the process. 

#R3KT

[hdbuck]

The BTTC event will force

What?  Miners have taken payments for prioritizing transactions for eons. MTGox was doing the same thing in _2011_ (it gave hosting to eligius in exchange for prioritizing transactions).  F2Pool apparently has an API that you can pay access too.

Google 'gmaxwell out of band fees' and you can find lots of posts where I'm schooling people about this possibility (and actuality)-- including pushing for fee estimator designs that don't get confused by it.

There is nothing all that interesting about it, in this case: In Bitcoin, a fee is pretty much a fee regardless of its paid in or out of band.

We even have a supported, documented, and maintained facility in Bitcoin Core for doing this, and have for years, written by the same people you seem to expect to be surprised by it:

prioritisetransaction <txid> <priority delta> <fee delta>
Accepts the transaction into mined blocks at a higher (or lower) priority

Arguments:
1. "txid"       (string, required) The transaction id.
2. priority delta (numeric, required) The priority to add or subtract.
                  The transaction selection algorithm considers the tx as it would have a higher priority.
                  (priority of a transaction is calculated: coinage * value_in_satoshis / txsize)
3. fee delta      (numeric, required) The fee value (in satoshis) to add (or subtract, if negative).
                  The fee is not actually paid, only the algorithm for selecting transactions into a block
                  considers the transaction as it would have paid a higher (or lower) fee.

Result
true              (boolean) Returns true

Examples:
> bitcoin-cli prioritisetransaction "txid" 0.0 10000
> curl --user myusername --data-binary '{"jsonrpc": "1.0", "id":"curltest", "method": "prioritisetransaction", "params": ["txid", 0.0, 10000] }' -H 'content-type: text/plain;' http://127.0.0.1:8332/


That it's surprising to /you/ only shows you weren't paying attention.    And maybe a little bit of desperation to infer something else to support an otherwise unsupportable position?   "Bitcoin Miner uses standard Bitcoin Core feature, Better drink my XT!"

In any case-- I suggest you stop thinking in terms of finding ways to "force" people to do things; it's unbecoming.

people actually willing to pay more fees to transact with bitcoin.

shocker.