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

[brg444]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?   

It does.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

[iCEBREAKER]

Glorious: Peter R reposts his lame pie chart and gets proper fukkin' rekt by no less than Paul "It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be Above the Law” Sztorc!

Deprecating Bitcoin Core : Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tv7v8/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/

psztorc 1 point 14 hours ago

Um, what is the game being discussed here? You can't have a NE without a game...that's like saying "it melts at 60 degrees" without ever mentioning what "it" is. Is there a giant blog post about this graphic somewhere?

Whatever the game is, it's really weird:

Why is "switching" to a different implementation (apparently) a best response for some members of a group, but not others? If the players have a hidden distribution of heterogeneous types (which is not presented), is it just assumed that the types will reach the proportions of the final graphic? If so, why are some groups ("Unlimited") switched-to later than other groups (and what is the point of [mis]labeling a mere assumption an "equilibrium")?

Given that nodes of different implementations will ignore each other as soon as their differences become relevant, why would players care about other nodes? The logic of the graphic requires that they be aware of their node share, and/or the node share of rival implementations (as, unless there is more to the game, this is the only information available to them). Yet this is clearly not the case, because no one is willing or even able to verify the number of implementations running of various other nodes (because they could easily be faked, as in the case of NotBitcoinXT).

I mean, it just really, really looks like someone who had no idea what they were talking about slapped "Nash Equilibrium" on something in an embarrassingly wrong way. Or there is some genius ESS thing going on, but of course an ESS is specifically not a Nash.

[–]SatoshisDaughter 2 points 14 hours ago

You do realize that this post has been banned, don't you? Can you explain from a game theory perspective why Blockstream may have done so?

[–]psztorc 1 point 5 hours ago

To keep Peter__R distracted on irrelevant reddit politics?

 

[hdbuck]

Glorious: Peter R reposts his lame pie chart and gets proper fukkin' rekt by no less than Paul "It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be Above the Law” Sztorc!

Deprecating Bitcoin Core : Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tv7v8/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/

psztorc 1 point 14 hours ago

Um, what is the game being discussed here? You can't have a NE without a game...that's like saying "it melts at 60 degrees" without ever mentioning what "it" is. Is there a giant blog post about this graphic somewhere?

Whatever the game is, it's really weird:

Why is "switching" to a different implementation (apparently) a best response for some members of a group, but not others? If the players have a hidden distribution of heterogeneous types (which is not presented), is it just assumed that the types will reach the proportions of the final graphic? If so, why are some groups ("Unlimited") switched-to later than other groups (and what is the point of [mis]labeling a mere assumption an "equilibrium")?

Given that nodes of different implementations will ignore each other as soon as their differences become relevant, why would players care about other nodes? The logic of the graphic requires that they be aware of their node share, and/or the node share of rival implementations (as, unless there is more to the game, this is the only information available to them). Yet this is clearly not the case, because no one is willing or even able to verify the number of implementations running of various other nodes (because they could easily be faked, as in the case of NotBitcoinXT).

I mean, it just really, really looks like someone who had no idea what they were talking about slapped "Nash Equilibrium" on something in an embarrassingly wrong way. Or there is some genius ESS thing going on, but of course an ESS is specifically not a Nash.

[–]SatoshisDaughter 2 points 14 hours ago

You do realize that this post has been banned, don't you? Can you explain from a game theory perspective why Blockstream may have done so?

[–]psztorc 1 point 5 hours ago

To keep Peter__R distracted on irrelevant reddit politics?

 

even the cypherprick is getting an old school reckage:

[–]cypherdoc2 11 points il y a 21 heures
It's not like you have contributed anything code wise
why does this seem to be a recurring theme around here? so what if he hasn't contributed code. that's not the only measure of contributing to Bitcoin.
as an example, i've been around here longer than most of you guys and when the price was plunging from 32 to 1.98 at the end of 2011, i was investing hard earned dollars into supporting the price and infrastructure. and simultaneously continuing to educate and evangelize Bitcoin to those who failed to understand what this monetary revolution is all about. and this was in the face of tremendous over the top trolling from just about everyone on the Spec Forum of BCT. see here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48850.0
go thru that thread and see the abuse i took there. now tell me if investors like myself have not contributed to Bitcoin. i dare you.

[–]Guy_Tell 1 point il y a 3 heures
now tell me if investors like myself have not contributed to Bitcoin. i dare you.
I'll take your challenge : aren't you the guy that scammed people and stole their bitcoins  (trust -16 "trade with extreme care") ?
And you're presenting yourself has an investor, and you expect to be thanked for your "contribution" to Bitcoin ? Are you kidding ? There is no worst contributor to a community than scammers. Scammers contribute negatively to the community.
But let's forget about your scams for a second. Investors invest in expectation for futur rises, they don't invest to have a voice in the community. If you want a voice, you contribute technically : welcome to meritocracy. If you don't like what the technical community is doing, the leave the same way you entered : by selling your bitcoins. Simple as that.

[–]cedivad -1 point il y a 19 heures
Oh, give me a break. You invested so wisely you felt the need to rob 3000 BTC in late 2013.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1106381.0

[Zarathustra]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?  

It does.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

Agreed. Banning and censoring is obviously a trigger to decentralization, which is happening as soon as it is necessary. Now it obviously is, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

[hdbuck]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?  

It does.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

Agreed. Banning and censoring is obviously a trigger to decentralization, which is happening as soon as it is necessary. Now it obviously is, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

in the end, you got couple brand new forums and some subreddits to freely express yourself.
so why you still complaining?!

[brg444]

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or not, it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography. Why do you think the creator of BitTorrent hangs around them and has started collaborating on development to a lesser extent rather than spinning up his own implementation?

You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.*

**(Actually there is: the #bitcoin-assets folks, although I'm not so sure you'd get along with them)

What are you actually disagreeing with here? My freedom of choice to choose an implementation that best aligns with my beliefs? That this freedom further extends to all people, what could you be possibly be opposed to here? Unless you are concerned that the majority will not choose your preferred choice? I think that is something you must accept if you accept the conception of freedom within Bitcoin which it does seem like you are opposed to. I do not understand what else you could possibly be arguing against otherwise.

If you do believe that we should have top down control, and the economic majority should not have any say and that the five or so people within Bitcoin Core should decide on the future of Bitcoin for us, then that is fine. I can even respectfully debate with fascist, totalitarians and communists.

I don't care for your strawman.

Your inability to perceive the utter idiocy of proposing that an open source project is somehow a totalitarian form of governance exemplifies how little you understand what you attempt to debate.  

[Zarathustra]

Glorious: Peter R reposts his lame pie chart and gets proper fukkin' rekt by no less than Paul "It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be Above the Law” Sztorc!

And who got the votes? Banning couldn't help.

[iCEBREAKER]

even the cypherprick is getting an old school reckage:

Meh, I doubt the attempts to clawback a fairly straightforward sales commission will amount to anything.  The lawyers are just desperate to shove their blood funnels into anything that smells like money.

I miss the Frap.doc of old, and the fun we had making fun of his vision of Bitcoin as the Ultimate Retail Payment Rail.

Good to see Frap.doc is still Frap doccing:



Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?   

I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....   

[Zarathustra]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?  

It does.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/c1/wellkept_gardens_die_by_pacifism/

Agreed. Banning and censoring is obviously a trigger to decentralization, which is happening as soon as it is necessary. Now it obviously is, otherwise it wouldn't happen.

in the end, you got couple brand new forums and some subreddits to freely express yourself.
so why you still complaining?!

Complaining? I'm amused about this banning behavior. They are so funny. They do it because they have no life experience. They must be very young.

[brg444]

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....  

Exactly.  

I remember when we used to debate sidechains he took great pleasure in accusing me of attempting to turn Bitcoin into a "WoW marketplace" while he was apparently busy disrupting the world's forex markets....So much for that.

[Zarathustra]

Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?  

I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....  

The right wing socialist Front National should never have the chuzpah to spell the Name of Satoshi.

[VeritasSapere]

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or not

This is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.

it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.

I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise.

You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.

We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development.

[Carlton Banks]

Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?  

I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....  

The right wing socialist Front National should never have the chuzpah to spell the Name of Satoshi.

Remember all your wailing about ad hominem and appeals to authority? Clearly not 

[Carlton Banks]

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or not

1
This is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.

it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.

I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise.

You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.

3We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development.

Answers 1 & 3 are addressing a different point to the one being made. You're the king of Strawman arguing, aren't you?

• 1. He said "you", not "people"
• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

You're literally wriggling around like a fish out of water, are you not embarrassed?

[Lauda]

You're the king of Strawman arguing, aren't you?

• 1. He said "you", not "people"
• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

Incoming strawman in order to win this "argument" as well. You better watch out; just your everyday shill things. That side has no "We're/I'm wrong" option, it says so in their contract.

[VeritasSapere]

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

For the millionth time it's not a matter of you agreeing or not

1
This is my point that you seem to not to understand, it has everything to do with people agreeing or not.

it's the current reality that no collection of people* have so far challenged Core's group as far as technical prowess, ingenuity and deep understanding of the complex matters of distributed systems and cryptography.

I do not care if Core is the most qualified group of people technically, especially when I have a fundamental ideological disagreement with the direction that they are taking Bitcoin into. In this case ideology is more important then technical expertise.

You can lie to yourself as much as you want about the feasibility of "distributing development" at this point in the game but the facts are there is simply no one that can step up to the plate with enough support, experience and abilities.

3We will soon have three alternative implementations which will support increasing the blocksize. So the facts do tell a different story, we certainly do have enough support to further distribute development.

Answers 1 & 3 are addressing a different point to the one being made. You're the king of Strawman arguing, aren't you?

• 1. He said "you", not "people"

I am a person.

• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

He did use the word "support" actually.

Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!

[Zarathustra]

Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?  

I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes?

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....  

[–]HostFat

Back to the truth.

Bitcoin.pdf

Abstract

    A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Introduction

    The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.


[–]aminok

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

    What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

Satoshi on doing small transactions on the blockchain:

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/318/

    While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

This was the vision most adopters signed up for. Adoption has slowed as the attempt has been made to implement a new vision.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tyxz7/bitpay_the_original_vision_for_bitcoin_was_the/

[iCEBREAKER]

It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....  

Exactly.  

I remember when we used to debate sidechains he took great pleasure in accusing me of attempting to turn Bitcoin into a "WoW marketplace" while he was apparently busy disrupting the world's forex markets....So much for that.

Frap.doc won't admit it, but so great is his cosmic butthurt over losing the Civil War that he's gone off the rails and is now deep into Buttcoiner territory.  That's why he pals around with Jorge Trolli, the buttcoiner brain bug.  They have more in common than he does with us.  No wonder he's wasting his precious BTC on crap like discount coffee.  You'd think a guy with his income level could find/afford a good local micro-roast!

Another classic worth a repost:

[Carlton Banks]

I am a person.

I don't find that statement altogether convincing.

• 3. He said "competence", not "support"

He did use the word "support" actually.

Furthermore I would also consider both XT and BTCD to be competent, Bitcoin unlimited has not been released yet but I am confident that it will also be coded well when implemented. Freedom of choice!

He actually didn't use the word "competence" in that part either, but then again, it's no surprise that the details are lost on you.

You've made a point of letting us know that you have little to no knowledge of computer science/machine logic, and yet you're simultaneously expecting people to take your software recommendations seriously? Your assessment is based entirely on a superficial: do they support blocks bigger than 1MB. The details of the implementation clearly don't matter to you, hence your recommendation of a piece of software that has zero developers and zero code. I might just pass.

And the irony is, XT is a highly competent piece of software; the 99.99% of it that was coded by competent programmers, of course. The handful of lines added by Hearn & Andressen have been widely derided by both the technical and user community, hence it's overwhelming popularity. Why would extending the same design approach, as used with XT, constitute a broadening of meaningful choice?

[iCEBREAKER]

First, the "iCEBREAKER Desperation" curve should be relabeled "iCEBREAKER Amusement."

And now that the XT adoption curve has inflected, you should update your old/outdated/rekt graphic by labeling the resultant new integral "TOTAL SMUGNESS."  "Lolcow Production" is also an acceptably apt descriptor.

 

PS

Are you going to Hong Kong or staying home and pouting?