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

[Carlton Banks]

Also, what?: "All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin"

That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they?

bett, you talk the largest amount of shit out of almost everyone.

XT proponents dismissed every other proposition for any reason they could think of, they rejected:

Stupid argument. Some did, most didn't.

Well, if you accept that "some" XT proponents rejected every other proposal, then presumably they were championing those other proposals too?

They weren't though, and so they rejected them by omission. So maybe you can see that your argument is, in fact, a little thin.

As usual, I am happy to continue with this line of reasoning, do keep going.

[mexicantarget]

A bunch of known companies are accepting the idea of XT. Not sure if that's good, or bad for the entire bitcoin ecosystem.
Time will show. I'm against the XT protocol.

[sgbett]

Also, what?: "All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin"

That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they?

bett, you talk the largest amount of shit out of almost everyone.

XT proponents dismissed every other proposition for any reason they could think of, they rejected:

• Lightning
• Decreasing the block interval
• 2-4-8
• IBLT
• Separating tx blocks from coinbase blocks
• Dynamic cap
• Countless others I cannot recall currently

"XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin" is what this thread has largely been about, you and others variously rejected a whole catalogue of more credible/responsible scaling schemes.

Oh, and what a surprise; another XT shit-talker (you, bett) has come back to say: "XT wasn't so bad!". What next? Presumably: "Have you considered that XT was the answer all along?"

Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening?

bett, you're wriggling visibly.

I never said you said what you said you never said: in other words, you're using the same BS strawman tactics that your friends were so fond of using.

Tell me more about how all XT proponents were not essentially presenting one choice only or certain doom. Oh no, that's right, you were talking shit.

I can't stop you misinterpreting everything I say so it fits your preconceived notions, but I can just keep restating what I think.

Anyone else who reads this thread can then come to their own conclusions about what I think. Any attempts at misdirection will then hopefully seen for what they are.

I don't think the only way to scale bitcoin is through blocksize increase.

This is in direct opposition to the repeated claim by you and others that all XT proponents claim its the only way.

It only looks like wriggling if you think I have some hidden agenda. I don't I write exactly what I think, and leave it up to everyone else to misinterpret it!

[Carlton Banks]

This is in direct opposition to the repeated claim by you and others that all XT proponents claim its the only way.

Liar. No such quote exists

It only looks like wriggling if you think I have some hidden agenda. I don't I write exactly what I think, and leave it up to everyone else to misinterpret it!

And I do my interpreting out loud, problem?

[Nordicbeast]

This thread has some very good opinions and points, makes for good reading. Thanks

[Zarathustra]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

[VeritasSapere]

I never claimed that the economic majority is presently siding with XT, I am not in a position to know that, furthermore I suspect that January will be a very informative month in that regard. So you are arguing a straw man here, for the rest of your post you have not actually made any arguments.

Why January? Something to do with XT? Why do you suspect January will be informative wrt "economic majority"?

I must have misread the following from you:

However the core developers should not decide what goes into the Bitcoin protocol, this is a very important distinction, it is the economic majority that should and does ultimately decide on what the Bitcoin protocol should be, not the core developers. That is why it is so important that we have multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, including multiple competing development teams.

=> Core is evil, "economic majority" should decide

I do not think that the economic majority would want to pay $100 per transaction that is my point.

=> XT is good, wants to prevent increased fees, "economic majority" wants that too

Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

=> XT is good alternative implementation, Core is evil totalitarian

It seems like Core does not want to test the consensus using proof of work and multiple implementations, therefore Core does just implement whatever they want to implement. I am saying that we should allow the economic majority to decide by allowing people to choose from multiple implementations, this is the best and really the only way to reach true and legitimate consensus.

=> Multiple implementations good ("economic majority" will make evil Core obsolete)

If you think your vision for a Bitcoin competitor is such a good idea, go and get your own hashrate to subject it to. Your agenda is to change a system that doesn't want your proposal, and you just won't go away. You're in a minority, and a decreasing minorty at that. The real plan to scale Bitcoin up responsibly is now underway with BIP 65 rolling out. Get your own coin.

The economic majority might not agree with you, time will tell. Bitcoin is also not your coin, it belongs to everyone, Satoshi's gift to the world.

=> "Economic majority" *might* hate evil Core

Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"?

The will of the economic majority is more important then Satoshi's vision. Invoking Satoshi's vision surely must be a mistake on your behalf however since he did support increasing the blocksize:

=> "economic majority" disagrees with brg444, thus agrees with XT huge blocks

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.

=> multiple implementations good, "economic majority" does not want Core

XT is not a takeover of Bitcoin, I wish you would stop saying this, I can respect your position, but saying that XT is a takeover actually harms all of Bitcoin regardless of what you believe.

Rule by the economic majority is how Bitcoin is meant to be governed. So if the majority of people freely choose to adopt an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol then this should be considered legitimate, even if you disagree. XT requires seventy five percent consensus in order for it to even initiate a fork after all.

=> XT is good, enables "economic majority" to decide

Enough with this. Please stop this masquerade. Write short and to the point.

There is also much more to Bitcoin governance then just the full nodes. That would be an oversimplification, the governance of Bitcoin exists as an interconnected web of variant interests, represented by the nodes as well as the miners among other parties.

There is no "governance of Bitcoin". Bitcoin is not a state. It is a p2p network.

There is such a thing as Bitcoin governance, decisions do still need to be made after all. You are simply just arguing another huge straw man here, you are misrepresenting my views.

[DumbFruit]

Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening?

That's not what "begging the question" means. If you wanted to say he was begging the question here, then you could have said, "You asserted that I said these things, but that begs the question; Did I actually say these things?"
That might be spurious on other grounds (Was he actually saying that you said that?), but it would at least be an accurate usage of the Begging the Question Fallacy.
That is, unless you are actually trying to argue that the point Carlton has been trying to make is that he was listening.
Anyway... Carry on.

[VeritasSapere]

Also, what?: "All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin"

That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they?

bett, you talk the largest amount of shit out of almost everyone.

XT proponents dismissed every other proposition for any reason they could think of, they rejected:

• Lightning
• Decreasing the block interval
• 2-4-8
• IBLT
• Separating tx blocks from coinbase blocks
• Dynamic cap
• Countless others I cannot recall currently

"XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin" is what this thread has largely been about, you and others variously rejected a whole catalogue of more credible/responsible scaling schemes.

Oh, and what a surprise; another XT shit-talker (you, bett) has come back to say: "XT wasn't so bad!". What next? Presumably: "Have you considered that XT was the answer all along?"

You are generalizing and stereotyping a huge group of people, as if they are not even individuals. Such generalizations are always wrong, this is self evident.

[Carlton Banks]

Allow me to remind you that you're currently replying in a thread titled "Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)"   Kind of generalizing, no?

Maybe we should make the title equal to the length and content of the thread itself, then every nuance/minority can be adequately represented

[iCEBREAKER]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

Frap.doc is profoundly confused and no longer sure Gavin can be trusted.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-153#post-5204
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-154#post-5224

"But but XT"
"But but Unlimitard"

 

[sgbett]

Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening?

That's not what "begging the question" means. If you wanted to say he was begging the question here, then you could have said, "You asserted that I said these things, but that begs the question; Did I actually say these things?"
That might be spurious on other grounds (Was he actually saying that you said that?), but it would at least be an accurate usage of the Begging the Question Fallacy.
That is, unless you are actually trying to argue that the point Carlton has been trying to make is that he was listening.
Anyway... Carry on.

In response to Carlton saying I said something, I tell Carlton I have not. I then tell him I said something else. The implication here is that he is not listening. This may beg the question "are you even listening?"

[Carlton Banks]

Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening?

That's not what "begging the question" means. If you wanted to say he was begging the question here, then you could have said, "You asserted that I said these things, but that begs the question; Did I actually say these things?"
That might be spurious on other grounds (Was he actually saying that you said that?), but it would at least be an accurate usage of the Begging the Question Fallacy.
That is, unless you are actually trying to argue that the point Carlton has been trying to make is that he was listening.
Anyway... Carry on.

In response to Carlton saying I said something, I tell Carlton I have not. I then tell him I said something else. The implication here is that he is not listening. This may beg the question "are you even listening?"

be nice bett, he's only trying to help you 

[Zarathustra]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

Frap.doc is profoundly confused and no longer sure Gavin can be trusted.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-153#post-5204
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-154#post-5224

"But but XT"
"But but Unlimitard"

 

Front National posts are irrelevant.

[marcus_of_augustus]

looks like the zarathrusta nym is on the final flaming arc of infamous derp glory ... soon to be never seen again ... die quietly in embarassment friend

[Zarathustra]

looks like the zarathrusta nym is ...

"zarathrusta"??

You never heard of Zarathustra? "I have letters that even the blind will be able to see"

http://4umi.com/nietzsche/antichrist/62

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

If you follow bitcoin-dev mailing list segwit is being treated as a done deal. BIP within a month and soft fork soon after review.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

If you follow bitcoin-dev mailing list segwit is being treated as a done deal. BIP within a month and soft fork soon after review.

Finally cleans up issues with signature TX malleability, makes fraud proofs viable for real SPV security and incidentally frees up some capacity breathing room for the near term (2-3MB per block), who could argue against it? Unless there is some truly objectionable security risk discovered it should be soft-forked in ASAP. A few niggles about 'cleanest' way to do that but hopefully that wont turn into too much slide-rule swinging.

[forevernoob]

Gavin: Segregated Witness is cool

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

If you follow bitcoin-dev mailing list segwit is being treated as a done deal. BIP within a month and soft fork soon after review.

So if I'm understading this correctly...

Gavin likes SW but still think XT is the way to go since SW takes too long to implement?

[theymos]

Finally cleans up issues with signature TX malleability, makes fraud proofs viable for real SPV security and incidentally frees up some capacity breathing room for the near term (2-3MB per block), who could argue against it? Unless there is some truly objectionable security risk discovered it should be soft-forked in ASAP. A few niggles about 'cleanest' way to do that but hopefully that wont turn into too much slide-rule swinging.

One issue is that if the "effective max block size" with SW is 4 MB, then the maximum bandwidth that a full node will have to deal with is the same as if we had a hardfork to 4 MB blocks. With the current way that the network functions and is laid out, this might be too much bandwidth. Maybe this could be somewhat addressed with IBLT, weak blocks, and other tech, but that stuff doesn't exist yet.

I think that there's basically agreement that 2 MB would be safe, though.