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

[brg444]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake?

You also wrote

That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

which is what I was mainly addressing.

Spare me the rest of your platitudes....

[sgbett]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.

Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?

Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.

Starting to be a bit bored with the rhetoric manoeuvres that implies exactly what they are imposing here with their "opinions stated as facts".
If you can call it opinions though.. Magic futuristic numbers and rainbow mass projections imho.

Clearly THE NETWORK has consensually rejected XT and BIP101.

At this point, I wonder what is the percentage of shills vs idiots amongst these forkers. (oh and yes that's an opinion, and a fact)

I post here because I think it is a good place to discuss bitcoin. On the whole I like the community. I don't subscribe to the belief that there is rampant censorship either here or on r/bitcoin. I think that all that commentary is cliched nonsense from people who think they are the first person to ever be butthurt on the internet. I don't think there is some grand conspiracy afoot. Though I do think that different people have different motives. I accept that a person's fundamental beliefs about what bitcoin is/should be may lead them to have different opinions about what is desirable in terms of protocol decisions, or development.

I'm not shill or an "idiot forker" I'm a bitcoin enthusiast who believes that bitcoin can revolutionise 'money' at its very core. I think that is desirable and so I think that anything that furthers that end is also desirable. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd vs governance. I am probably somewhat libertarian in my outlook. I tell you these things so you can know who I am and because I am not afraid of people knowing who I am even though they may try to use that against me.

I think the massive hypocrisy displayed by both 'sides' is embarrassing. Each accuses the other of objectionable conduct, seemingly oblivious that they themselves are doing the very same thing.

They are the petulant children I am referring to, and they are not 'this forum'. I stopped posting on this thread because I didn't like the place I was being taken. I've started posting again because after reflecting I think I can avoid making the same mistakes.

I think the truth will emerge, regardless of hyperbole from either side. I think the wisdom of the crowd will prevail. That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen. I think if they are not needed, it will be because something happened that obviated any need.

I'm really happy with the way things are going at the moment, despite what anyone else might think on the subject.

[sgbett]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake?

You also wrote

That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

which is what I was mainly addressing.

Spare me the rest of your platitudes....

The second sentence was referring to much of the discussion on this thread. This was not clear and I apologise for the confusion this may have caused.

(EDIT: so we agree then? the developers aren't arguing like the petulant children on this forum and will find common ground)

[brg444]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake?

You also wrote

That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

which is what I was mainly addressing.

Spare me the rest of your platitudes....

The second sentence was referring to much of the discussion on this thread. This was not clear and I apologise for the confusion this may have caused.

(EDIT: so we agree then? the developers aren't arguing like the petulant children on this forum and will find common ground)

I agree.

If anything we should get a clearer idea of where this is going this weekend but all the while Bitcoin continues to be awesome and has no foreseeable obstruction in sight. .  

[sgbett]

If anything we should get a clearer idea of where this is going this weekend but all the while Bitcoin continues to be awesome and has no foreseeable obstruction in sight. .  

Lets hope so. It would be pretty annoying if something that could have been easily averted proved to be problem!

[Carlton Banks]

I think the massive hypocrisy displayed by both 'sides' is embarrassing. Each accuses the other of objectionable conduct, seemingly oblivious that they themselves are doing the very same thing.

They are the petulant children I am referring to, and they are not 'this forum'. I stopped posting on this thread because I didn't like the place I was being taken. I've started posting again because after reflecting I think I can avoid making the same mistakes.

Isn't that both an exaggeration on one hand and misdirection in another? I caught you telling the Gold Collapsing thread "Relax, let it happen" re: XT, which I think minimally placed you in the position of all the other ignorant coercers.

It's also interesting to note that you are willing to personalise your arguments in much the same way that you simultaneously cite as a mark of disrepute, and yet don't have the courage to talk to the objects of your contempt directly. You'll notice I'm talking directly to you now, about your cynical, hypocritical petulance.

[iCEBREAKER]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.

Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?

Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.

As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems  

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/

The Gavinista shitlords didn't anticipate NotXT (despite my warning of weaponized version signals).

And they didn't anticipate NotGavinistas emulating their assclownery within the tight parameters of Poe's law, nor the chaos that would ensue from their being unable to tell genuine-but-dim friends from fake-but-clever foes.

Let's all brigade their rump subs and forums, acting really stupid (but not too stupid) by constantly reposting debunked FUD about RBF, CLTV, Peter (The) Todd, Blockstream, Theymos, and Sensor Ships.  Then throw tantrums when our shitposts are moderated...

Oh wait, we're already doing that...  


EDIT: ZOMG THE PRECIOUS 'FREE STOLFI' POST!  ITS BEEN THREADLOCKED!!1!  ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS SENSORING MUH SUB!!!  WORSE THAN A POL POT-STALIN-MAO-SERPENTOR-HILLARY HYBRID1!!1

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/

[hdbuck]

[iCEBREAKER]

That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

which is what I was mainly addressing.

Spare me the rest of your platitudes....

You have my sympathies.  sgbett's mutant superpower is the ability to become tremendously and unbearably tedious much faster than a normal human.   

[Monnt]

XT was never going to work. The spirit of bitcoin lives within. XT Cannot exist when everyone has tasted the wonders of p2p.

[hdbuck]

EDIT: ZOMG THE PRECIOUS 'FREE STOLFI' POST!  ITS BEEN THREADLOCKED!!1!  ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS SENSORING MUH SUB!!!  WORSE THAN A POL POT-STALIN-MAO-SERPENTOR-HILLARY HYBRID1!!1

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/

Hehe notice now the kids supplicating for daddy /u/memorydealers to come over and wave his magic freedom wand. Pathetic. ^^

[Cconvert2G36]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028."

4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.)

Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market.  

Code:

Max Blocksize	Block Reward	Year(~)		Native TPS(~)
1MB		50		2009		3
2MB		25		2013		6	
4MB		12.5		2016		12
8MB 		6.25		2019		24
16MB		3.125		2022		48
32MB		1.5625		2026		96
64MB		0.78125		2029		192
128MB		0.390625	2033		384
256MB		0.1953125	2037		768
512MB		0.09765625	2041		1536

There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut.

[marcus_of_augustus]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028."

4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.)

Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market.  

Code:

Max Blocksize	Block Reward	Year(~)		Native TPS(~)
1MB		50		2009		3
2MB		25		2013		6	
4MB		12.5		2016		12
8MB 		6.25		2019		24
16MB		3.125		2022		48
32MB		1.5625		2026		96
64MB		0.78125		2029		192
128MB		0.390625	2033		384
256MB		0.1953125	2037		768
512MB		0.09765625	2041		1536

There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut.

This could cut either way and one is disastrous for security:

1) If the block space is being fully-utilised and the fee-market is producing optimal returns based on full blocks then doubling the block size at the same time as halving the reward would be a double whammy for miners as more blockspace will lead to a drop off in fees at the same time reward is halved.

2) the other way is speculative but what big-blockers use as an argument, block size doubles and miraculously fees do not drop but the number of transactions goes up so sweet nirvana, bigger blocks brings in more total fees.

Lots more here to think about than simply making blocks bigger. Fees need to pay increasingly for security out into the future and blocks cannot grow faster than the technological progress that can accommodate them on a sufficiently decentralised network. It seems there is probably an optimum blocksize for bringing in the maximal total fees and another optimum blocksize that maximises network decentralisation. Those two criteria are not necessarily compatible and neither of those two criteria maybe fully observable variables given the input metric data internally available to the network (in a control theoretic system analysis).

[iCEBREAKER]

ZOMG THE PRECIOUS 'FREE STOLFI' POST!  ITS BEEN THREADLOCKED!!1!  ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS SENSORING MUH SUB!!!  WORSE THAN A POL POT-STALIN-MAO-SERPENTOR-HILLARY HYBRID1!!1

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/

Hehe notice now the kids supplicating for daddy /u/memorydealers to come over and wave his magic freedom wand. Pathetic. ^^

Meet the new thermos.  Same as the old thermos.

lol rekt

[gmaxwell]

From a little watching of my connection activity, I observed that a lot of the upload bandwidth was loading older blocks.  A limit on bandwidth provided for uploading older blocks would certainly help.

Implemented in Bitcoin Core git master a couple months ago, will be in 0.12; along with many other resource control tools. Though if widely used it will further congest getting blocks to begin with. It's a good trade-off, but not without costs. None of this is magic: cutting down this source of traffic or that is mostly just constant factor reductions. To operate the system needs a safety margin, and we're bumping up against actual limits.

Not sure what happened with that, looks like it didn't make it into 0.12, but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough. Or maybe there was a good reason not to include it (apparently network message anti-spamming measure did make it into 0.12)

You weren't looking hard enough , it's called -maxuploadtarget   see also doc/reduce-traffic.md (though not all of the features are documented yet).   (amusingly, this was one of the relatively few PR's that Mike Hearn commented on-- opposing it.)

That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen.

This was one of the big fallacies involved in the "crash landing" spin by Gavin and Hearn; this notion that Bitcoin would willfully commit suicide.  Cranking the scale ahead of addressing scaliablity is/was controversial (not just among the most technical, though it's nearly universal there); but if it were strongly _necessary_, and better than the harm of not; then it would no longer be. That we're not there now, shows it isn't. QED.  And there is a tone of activity gone on to improve scalablity at all levels of the system, from micro optimizations, to protocol design.

[danielW]

This was one of the big fallacies involved in the "crash landing" spin by Gavin and Hearn;

Gregory, that was only Hearn. In-fact Gavin said that he thinks that scenario is far-fetched (I am paraphrasing I can not remember the exact words). Gavin also said that he thinks Bitcoin will be successful either way.


As an aside, I wonder if there is a need for a PR person or liason for core development. Somebody who has decent technical knowledge but can devote most of their time to informing community of what is going on with development and its direction.

(yes all the information is already there in mailing lists, github etc. but it needs to be in easily digestible format, in locations where people will read it)


Many in the Bitcoin ecosystem have no knowledge about the direction of Bitcoin development. Thats actually a problem when talking about such a big economy. There is a gap between developers and eco-system. People need a long term vision to know where we stand and where we going. To many the changes come as total surprise, seemingly from up above.

People dont like surprises (in this context).

[Cconvert2G36]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028."

4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.)

Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market.  

Code:

Max Blocksize	Block Reward	Year(~)		Native TPS(~)
1MB		50		2009		3
2MB		25		2013		6	
4MB		12.5		2016		12
8MB 		6.25		2019		24
16MB		3.125		2022		48
32MB		1.5625		2026		96
64MB		0.78125		2029		192
128MB		0.390625	2033		384
256MB		0.1953125	2037		768
512MB		0.09765625	2041		1536

There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut.

This could cut either way and one is disastrous for security:

1) If the block space is being fully-utilised and the fee-market is producing optimal returns based on full blocks then doubling the block size at the same time as halving the reward would be a double whammy for miners as more blockspace will lead to a drop off in fees at the same time reward is halved.

2) the other way is speculative but what big-blockers use as an argument, block size doubles and miraculously fees do not drop but the number of transactions goes up so sweet nirvana, bigger blocks brings in more total fees.

Lots more here to think about than simply making blocks bigger. Fees need to pay increasingly for security out into the future and blocks cannot grow faster than the technological progress that can accommodate them on a sufficiently decentralised network. It seems there is probably an optimum blocksize for bringing in the maximal total fees and another optimum blocksize that maximises network decentralisation. Those two criteria are not necessarily compatible and neither of those two criteria maybe fully observable variables given the input metric data internally available to the network (in a control theoretic system analysis).

First the fee market. People already pay fees, and blocks are 60-70%(?) or so to capacity on avg. (fudging a bit for reward only blocks). They will continue to do so with blocks smaller than max, as seen today. More of them, more fees. It really comes down to whether we force the fee market artificially now (soon), or let the miners set the prices for their services. Doing nothing, staying at 1MB max, is doing something, implementing an artificial fee market at 25 or 12.5 btc per block. This is a change from the state of the network up until now. And too early imo.

Impact on the decentralized node network is a valid concern, and I'm not dismissing it, that's why I'm liking this much more conservative proposal. It seems the reward schedule looks like it does, front loaded, in order to act as a sort of launching subsidy. This allows the network to grow faster than if all mining costs were placed directly on the user, ~$5 or more per tx. This can't have been an afterthought on satoshi's part, to me, it means grow as fast as possible (while maintaining a sufficiently wide attack surface) into the 2020's.

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule. 

[da2ce7]

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.  

This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage.

People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads.

[Cconvert2G36]

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.  

This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage.

People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads.

I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do.

[da2ce7]

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.  

This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage.

People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads.

I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do.

Except we all know that it is the same charlatans that have been pressuring the miners to include more transactions and create max-block-size blocks on average. - Who are also pressuring to increase the same max-block-size limit.

So the argument about max-size vs actual-size is a bit of a moot-point, really.