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

[danielW]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

[danielW]

More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

They are really buttrekt about the RBF thing; they know their ludicrous vision of coffees-on-the-Holy-Ledger is now truly dead and buried.

I haven't seen such wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments at FrappeForum since the original Great Schism.   

Hearn@signint.google.mil willingly jumps into a deep pit of (obviously satirical) stupidity here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ul6ox/beyond_rbf_blockstream_is_working_on_blocking/

Guess he's never heard of Poe's Law!   

Bonus lulz:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3u8aqh/are_we_trading_one_theymos_for_another/
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/this-vs-forum-bitcoin-com.84/#post-1579
(In which BitcoinJudas doesn't play nicely with other self-appointed Gavinista leadership as they squabble over the few remaining True Believers.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ul23l/all_the_posts_here_about_rbf_and_not_one_peep/cxfr0as
(In which /r/btc mods respond to anti-RBF crapflood with SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/
(In which /r/btc mods are accused of Jorge Stolfi SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

Looks like thermos is in danger of losing his 'Epitome of Authoritarianism' world record!   

Yes, Roger Ver pulled a pretty shitty move when I wrote to him a few weeks ago and asked to support us and to tweet about the new forum to his followers. What he did instead is rush to start a separate forum, hoping to drive traffic to his sponsors and shove wallet services down people's throats and stuffed everything with ads.

Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424

[marcus_of_augustus]

Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424

Adam's trade is cryptography mathematics, there is zero wiggle room for half-truths, obfuscation, falsehoods or lies in mathematics.

[danielW]

Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424

Adam's trade is cryptography mathematics, there is zero wiggle room for half-truths, obfuscation, falsehoods or lies in mathematics.

I am not sure what you are saying? I believe that Roger Ver is taking money for having promoting wallets on his site. Adam was correct. Roger is trying to distract from that by aggressively calling Adam a liar.

[VeritasSapere]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it[/b]. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

[brg444]

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

You can go and get a clue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3urm8o/optin_rbf_is_misunderstood_ask_questions_about_it/

[danielW]

A good laugh  

https://archive.is/lQCHp

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it[/b]. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.

[VeritasSapere]

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.

I accused Core of hypocrisy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason they gave for not presently increasing the blocksize. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious change. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

[brg444]

Yes I acussed Core of hypocracy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason why they are presently not increasing the blocksize according to them. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious issue. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

Opt-in RBF is a twist on Satoshi's original implementation of unconfirmed transaction replacement.

It is not imposed on any individual user and therefore is as much a contentious issue as multi-signature is, which is to say not at all.

Different variations of it have been discussed over the years and the current implementation has been reviewed, vetted & ACKED by a majority of the participants to the Bitcoin open-source repo.

Every single miner is free to opt out from this behaviour hence the outright stupidity of suggesting it requires miner consensus.

Go and do your homeworks will ya?

[VeritasSapere]

Yes I acussed Core of hypocracy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason why they are presently not increasing the blocksize according to them. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious issue. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

Opt-in RBF is a twist on Satoshi's original implementation of unconfirmed transaction replacement.

It is not imposed on any individual user and therefore is as much a contentious issue as multi-signature is, which is to say not at all.

Different variations of it have been discussed over the years and the current implementation has been reviewed, vetted & ACKED by a majority of the participants to the Bitcoin open-source repo.

Every single miner is free to opt out from this behaviour hence the outright stupidity of suggesting it requires miner consensus.

Go and do your homeworks will ya?

It reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions. If I am a merchant should I reject RBF? Since if I did do this it could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transaction that chooses to opt in not the receiver.

You claiming that this is not a contentious issue is obviously not true considering the noise that is presently being made on reddit even with all of the censorship.

Even Gavin Andresen is against RBF and last time I checked he was still a Core developer, so now you do not even have your all important "developer consensus".

This "developer consensus" seems to be the proposed governance model of Core, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, as opposed to rule by the economic majority through proof of work consensus.

[brg444]

Yes I acussed Core of hypocracy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason why they are presently not increasing the blocksize according to them. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious issue. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

Opt-in RBF is a twist on Satoshi's original implementation of unconfirmed transaction replacement.

It is not imposed on any individual user and therefore is as much a contentious issue as multi-signature is, which is to say not at all.

Different variations of it have been discussed over the years and the current implementation has been reviewed, vetted & ACKED by a majority of the participants to the Bitcoin open-source repo.

Every single miner is free to opt out from this behaviour hence the outright stupidity of suggesting it requires miner consensus.

Go and do your homeworks will ya?

It reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions. If I am a merchant should I reject RBF? Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver. You claiming that this is not a contentious issue is obviously not true considering the noise that is presently being made on reddit even with all of the censorship.

Most people on reddit haven't got a clue what they are talking about. Most of the noise is done by XTards such as yourself trying to make an issue out of everything that comes out of Core's shop nowadays because you are so butthurt your little fork remains marginal no matter how hard you shout while consensus clearly sits with Core.

What an oblivious little whiner you are... the partisan act really is getting tired. It's time you fall into irrelevance and quit the stage, or, you know, just fork off.

[danielW]

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.

I accused Core of hypocrisy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason they gave for not presently increasing the blocksize. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious change. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

Nothing in the protocol changed. There is absolutely 0 change to Bitcoin protocol. They did not implement any changes to the protocol.  This is not a change! Since they did 0 change to the protocol, they did 0 contentious change to protocol. Since they did not do a contentious change they have stuck to their work so there is no hypocrisy.

Clearly the comments were said in the context of changes to the consensus rules. Not to absolutely any changes to the client or wallet. You dont need consensus to change for example the colour of the buttons on core. That is not what they meant.

This is simply a change to the non-consensus working of one client, bitcoin core. Like you yourself said it is not special. Bitcoin is decentralised and there are many clients.

Thats not a problem as long as they follow the same protocol.

[tvbcof]

It [Opt-in RBF] reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions.

Good!  zero-conf was the definition of stupid when I got interested in Bitcoin, and with good reason.  It's not Bitcoin's fault if later arrivals ignorantly tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole.  (Gavin can take a lot of credit for this mis-hap due to his chronic mis-management which, as best I can tell,  was at first out of ignorance and later out of malice.)

If I am a merchant should I reject RBF?  Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver.

Transfer your Bitcoin (in the unlikely event that you have any) to a wallet service which guarantees not to do RBF then and let them interact with vendors.  Or just use ACH/PayPal if you like it so much.  Many of the rest of use have use for something different.

You claiming that this is not a contentious issue is obviously not true considering the noise that is presently being made on reddit even with all of the censorship.

You are welcome to move onward and upward to redditcoin at your earliest convenience.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[VeritasSapere]

It [Opt-in RBF] reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions.

Good!  zero-conf was the definition of stupid when I got interested in Bitcoin, and with good reason.

I would like to preserve and strengthen zero confirmation transactions, like XT and Bitcoin unlimited have stated. There is a fundamental disagreement of believe here.

If I am a merchant should I reject RBF?  Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver.

Transfer your Bitcoin (in the unlikely event that you have any) to a wallet service which guarantees not to do RBF then and let them interact with vendors.  Or just use ACH/PayPal if you like it so much.  Many of the rest of use have use for something different.

This proves another one of my points, the solution according to you as a merchant is to transfer my Bitcoins to a third party wallet service or stop using Bitcoin completely. I would not consider this to be an "improvement".

I operate a brick and mortar store which accepts zero confirmation transactions directly, I would not like it if I would have to stop accepting Bitcoin or use a third party, which would mean I would then need to take down the Bitcoin sign I have in my store, I would still accept other cryptocurrencies of course. The blocksize would also be a factor in this, I do not agree with the path Core is taking Bitcoin into, fortunately we now do have alternative implementations to choose from and more are also now starting to appear.

These alternative implementations are critical for the freedom of the Bitcoin protocol. Alternative implementations represent alternative choices for us to choose from as a community, this is a good thing, without alternative implementations it would be an election with only one option, that would not be a choice at all.

[danielW]

It [Opt-in RBF] reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions.

Good!  zero-conf was the definition of stupid when I got interested in Bitcoin, and with good reason.

I would like to preserve and strengthen zero confirmation transactions, like XT and Bitcoin unlimited have stated. There is a fundamental disagreement of believe here.

If I am a merchant should I reject RBF?  Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver.

Transfer your Bitcoin (in the unlikely event that you have any) to a wallet service which guarantees not to do RBF then and let them interact with vendors.  Or just use ACH/PayPal if you like it so much.  Many of the rest of use have use for something different.

I operate a brick and mortar store which accepts zero confirmation transactions directly, I would not like it if I would have to stop accepting Bitcoin or use a third party, which would mean I would then need to take down the Bitcoin sign I have in my store, I would still accept other cryptocurrencies of course. The blocksize would also be a factor in this, I do not agree with the path Core is taking Bitcoin into, fortunately we now do have alternative implementations to choose from and more are also now starting to appear.

You will not have to take down your Bitcoin sign, you can operate as before

[VeritasSapere]

It [Opt-in RBF] reduces the functionality of zero confirmation transactions.

Good!  zero-conf was the definition of stupid when I got interested in Bitcoin, and with good reason.

I would like to preserve and strengthen zero confirmation transactions, like XT and Bitcoin unlimited have stated. There is a fundamental disagreement of believe here.

If I am a merchant should I reject RBF?  Since if I did do this could cause other problems as well. Since it is the person that sends the transactions that chooses to opt in not the receiver.

Transfer your Bitcoin (in the unlikely event that you have any) to a wallet service which guarantees not to do RBF then and let them interact with vendors.  Or just use ACH/PayPal if you like it so much.  Many of the rest of use have use for something different.

I operate a brick and mortar store which accepts zero confirmation transactions directly, I would not like it if I would have to stop accepting Bitcoin or use a third party, which would mean I would then need to take down the Bitcoin sign I have in my store, I would still accept other cryptocurrencies of course. The blocksize would also be a factor in this, I do not agree with the path Core is taking Bitcoin into, fortunately we now do have alternative implementations to choose from and more are also now starting to appear.

You will not have to take down your Bitcoin sign, you can operate as before

Not when the blocks fill up rendering transactions unreliable and to expensive for the purchases made at that store, RBF certainly also does not help the situation.

There seems to be mixed responses about how damaging RBF will be to zero confirmation transactions, I suppose this will also depend on the extend of adoption of RBF. As far as I understand it however it will make double spends easier and therefore zero confirmation less secure and also therefore less reliable. While at the same time making Bitcoin less user friendly and more complex.

[Trent Russell]

@VS: Can you at least acknowledge that RBF is not a fork? I'm convinced you understand that RBF doesn't change the consensus rules (the definition of which blocks are valid). At this point it seems like you're trying to avoid acknowledging this.

The resistance to XT was mostly due to XTs attempt to force a contentious change to the consensus rules. I think XT already had relay policy changes before BIP 101 was added. There was no real resistance to XT at that point.

Just to let you know, it's clear to me that you support bigger blocks and alternative implementations.

[VeritasSapere]

@VS: Can you at least acknowledge that RBF is not a fork? I'm convinced you understand that RBF doesn't change the consensus rules (the definition of which blocks are valid). At this point it seems like you're trying to avoid acknowledging this.

The resistance to XT was mostly due to XTs attempt to force a contentious change to the consensus rules. I think XT already had relay policy changes before BIP 101 was added. There was no real resistance to XT at that point.

Just to let you know, it's clear to me that you support bigger blocks and alternative implementations.

I can acknowledge that RBF is not a fork. I was indeed mistaken about how this change is properly defined.

I do not consider the seventy five percent miner consensus that is required in order for BIP101 to be triggered to be an attempt to "force" a contentious change, quite the opposite actually it is a way to resolve a contentious decision through the proof of work mechanism.

[Trent Russell]

@VS: Can you at least acknowledge that RBF is not a fork? I'm convinced you understand that RBF doesn't change the consensus rules (the definition of which blocks are valid). At this point it seems like you're trying to avoid acknowledging this.

The resistance to XT was mostly due to XTs attempt to force a contentious change to the consensus rules. I think XT already had relay policy changes before BIP 101 was added. There was no real resistance to XT at that point.

Just to let you know, it's clear to me that you support bigger blocks and alternative implementations.

I can acknowledge that RBF is not a fork. I was indeed mistaken about how this change is properly defined.

I do not consider the seventy five percent miner consensus that is required in order for BIP101 to be triggered to be an attempt to "force" a contentious change, quite the opposite actually it is a way to resolve a contentious decision through the proof of work mechanism.

Fair enough. And you're probably right that I shouldn't have used the word "force." If at some point in the future 101 starts getting significant miner support (which seems unlikely), it also wouldn't "force" me or others to go along with the change. I could switch to another cryptocurrency or simply leave the space. This ultimate ability to opt-in or opt-out is one of the most appealing aspects of cryptocurrency.

[Zarathustra]

More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

They are really buttrekt about the RBF thing; they know their ludicrous vision of coffees-on-the-Holy-Ledger is now truly dead and buried.

I haven't seen such wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments at FrappeForum since the original Great Schism.  

The moronero shills shouldn't laugh to early. The chance, that the community will be unable to respond to the blockstream attack (change a 'Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' into a settlement layer for the banksters) is miniscule.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ush79/then_they_fight_you/