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

[BitUsher]

It is not, these are irreconcilable differences that can not be resolved another way, otherwise it would just be tyranny of the majority or minority. "Forcing" a fee market early as opposed to allowing the fee market to develop organically through supply and demand over a longer period of time are incompatible concepts, we can not have it both ways, at least not on the same chain.

I also do not consider "Core" an authority on Bitcoin. The differences in vision have become ideological not technical.

Not all the developers assume there will be a fee market and believe that their scalability improvements will outpace adoption. You are not respecting a nuanced and diverse set of philosophical differences in our ecosystem and insisting on creating a wedge for political purposes. There is a spectrum of ideas and solutions and our community will come together with a rough consensus where we will all have to make certain sacrifices in solidarity... others like yourself who appear to make no concessions can fork the chain at any time.

You are correct though that your disagreements aren't technical , but ideological . I look forward to your fork and hearing about who will be the maintainer of your repository when Hearn walks away.

I seriously doubt that miners and payment processors are going to alienate 99.5%+ of the developer community for XT/101.

[1715117435]

1715117435

[1715117435]

1715117435

[1715117435]

1715117435

[BitUsher]

Coinbase Director of Engineering Charlie Lee takes a stand against Bip 101/XT and CEO
Brian Armstrong of coinbase mostly agrees with him -
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.v9g5uu893
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/677170417979625472

I wonder if this post will be updated to reflect all the recent changes in position against BIP101/XT?

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

[tl121]

is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?

There is not, this could lead to a split, at least then the market will be able to choose the superior chain, which I believe will be big blocks.

"developer consensus" is not real Bitcoin consensus and the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize.

This is a false dichotomy. Almost all developers support and have always supported bigger blocks and a majority of the miners support the developers and will go along with their proposals. You are creating a false wedge where none exists.

The wedge is caused by a few developers.  If developers really supported larger blocks they would have acted months (or even years) ago to increase block size.

[BitUsher]

The wedge is caused by a few developers.  If developers really supported larger blocks they would have acted months (or even years) ago to increase block size.

You unnecessarily assume bad faith, that the Developers cannot change their mind with new data, and ignore the fact that developers were simply wanting better proposals and more testing done.


We are developing a rough consensus now:

Jeff Garzik's opinion-

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Andreas agrees-
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/677201459541315585

Adam Back agrees -
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/677201289449730048

SIPa is fine with a quick bump hard fork if extremely widespread agreement is reached:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011974.html


jl2012 says we need either  BIP102 or 2-4-8 by may -
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011975.html


Looks like a comprehensive and conservative scaling solution is going to happen. Only issue is with certain devs like pieter wuille who understandably want extremely wide consensus for all hard forks. I would assume this would mean that a vote for a specific hard fork agreed upon by 95% or miners and most wallets/devs/and merchant processors. 

[iCEBREAKER]

When I heard yesterday that btcdrak was made a moderator of /r/btc, my first thoughts were "Maybe /r/Bitcoin finally has a bit of competition" and "I wonder how long that'll last". The answer: probably not very long. As someone (iCEBREAKER?) predicted, these people will just keep forking themselves into oblivion.

Across the verdant plains of La Serenissima, mighty herds of fattened Gavinista LOLCOWS grazed peacefully upon the fodder provided by their XT overlords.

As they patiently waited in line to pass though the various checkpoints (provided for their continued security and comfort), some of the LOLCOWS noticed BTCDrak had been appointed to moderate /r/btc.

Suddenly, the mood of the thick-headed dim-witted creatures shifted to abject fury and helpless rage.

"HOW THE FUCK DOES FUCKING DRAK GET ROGER VERIFIED?" the enraged LOLCOWS demanded to know.

"HE'S A FUCKING THOUGHT CRIMINAL WORKING FOR BLOCKSTREAM!!!11" the enraged LOLCOWS mooed.

And the drama-loving folk of Bitcoinland looked out upon the vituperating bovines, who were now rolling around in pools of their own sweet, delicious LOL-milk, which was being frothed by their thrashing, stomping, and foaming.  And it was good.   

[iCEBREAKER]

But that was still not enough LULZ for one day!  Behold, Justus R has been shadowbanned from /r/bitcoinxt!   

OH LAWD THE SENSOR SHIPS!1!!!111!!!

[QuestionAuthority]

iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.

[Zarathustra]

iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.

Our Front National / Monero Troll is still trying to destroy the reputation of the small blockers with his Avatar and his Hooligan appearence. Which is really not necessary anymore.
Everybody knows that they act criminal.

"In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an ECE
without warning users loudly, months in advance:  "Dear users, ECE has
accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to
FFM."

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Jeff Garzik: If blocksize stays 1MB, Core devs should sign a collective note stating desire to transition to new economic policy, of "healthy fee market", and strongly urge users to examine their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible user impacting outcomes.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

[BitUsher]

Jeff Garzik: If blocksize stays 1MB, Core devs should sign a collective note stating desire to transition to new economic policy, of "healthy fee market", and strongly urge users to examine their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible user impacting outcomes.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Peter Todd appears to be one of the developers which is fine with staying with 1 MB blocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x34wt/in_a_66b_economy_it_is_criminal_to_let_the/cy15xbn

While some core developers-(sipa) appear to want to simply maintain or follow the will of the community without forcing anything through, and miners want leadership and a clear path they can rally behind.

In one sense I can empathize with Pieter as he doesn't want to give developers too much power or set any precedents that reflect they should be responsible for economic changes, in another sense I can understand with Gavin/Hearns/and their supporters frustration when no "benevolent dictator" is leading the course and driving a decision through. The miners are naturally humble enough from indication at the scalability conference to want some leadership and direction from the developers as well so are waiting on guidance.

There needs to be some manner to efficiently determine " extreme widespread acceptance" as the miner vote only encompasses one segment of our ecosystem. Or perhaps if one of the proposed BIPs that is introduced has a better set of tradeoffs than everyone will just rally behind it without too much disagreement like segwit.

[VeritasSapere]

It is not, these are irreconcilable differences that can not be resolved another way, otherwise it would just be tyranny of the majority or minority. "Forcing" a fee market early as opposed to allowing the fee market to develop organically through supply and demand over a longer period of time are incompatible concepts, we can not have it both ways, at least not on the same chain.

I also do not consider "Core" an authority on Bitcoin. The differences in vision have become ideological not technical.

Not all the developers assume there will be a fee market and believe that their scalability improvements will outpace adoption. You are not respecting a nuanced and diverse set of philosophical differences in our ecosystem and insisting on creating a wedge for political purposes. There is a spectrum of ideas and solutions and our community will come together with a rough consensus where we will all have to make certain sacrifices in solidarity... others like yourself who appear to make no concessions can fork the chain at any time.

You are correct though that your disagreements aren't technical , but ideological . I look forward to your fork and hearing about who will be the maintainer of your repository when Hearn walks away.

I seriously doubt that miners and payment processors are going to alienate 99.5%+ of the developer community for XT/101.

My preferred implementation is presently BU not XT. I am not sure how long you think I should wait, many people said that after the scaling conference they would come up with a proposal. They still have not, some Core developers definitely do want a fee market now which is completely incompatible with my vision for Bitcoin going into the future.

Even if they do want to increase the blocksize soon they have failed to communicate this, after all a hard fork like this should at least require six months warning. Understand that in order for this "fee market" to come about all that these Core developers need to do is stall. I refuse to "trust" them, I believe this would be antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin and there is to much at stake for such a leap of faith. If they came out with an announcement tomorrow stating that on this specific day the network will be forked with this specific code then it would be a different story. Even if this is only a failure of communication it is still damming enouth to justify a split, we should not ever be expected to "trust" any group with the future of Bitcoin.

It could even be that even with the best of intentions they will not be able to implement this because of "developer consensus" one person could literally block the entire thing. I do not consider this to be an adequate model for the governance of Bitcoin, this is why multiple implementations are needed.

[VeritasSapere]

Jeff Garzik: If blocksize stays 1MB, Core devs should sign a collective note stating desire to transition to new economic policy, of "healthy fee market", and strongly urge users to examine their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible user impacting outcomes.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Peter Todd appears to be one of the developers which is fine with staying with 1 MB blocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x34wt/in_a_66b_economy_it_is_criminal_to_let_the/cy15xbn

While some core developers-(sipa) appear to want to simply maintain or follow the will of the community without forcing anything through, and miners want leadership and a clear path they can rally behind.

In one sense I can empathize with Pieter as he doesn't want to give developers too much power or set any precedents that reflect they should be responsible for economic changes, in another sense I can understand with Gavin/Hearns/and their supporters frustration when no "benevolent dictator" is leading the course and driving a decision through. The miners are naturally humble enough from indication at the scalability conference to want some leadership and direction from the developers as well so are waiting on guidance.

There needs to be some manner to efficiently determine " extreme widespread acceptance" as the miner vote only encompasses one segment of our ecosystem. Or perhaps if one of the proposed BIPs that is introduced has a better set of tradeoffs than everyone will just rally behind it without too much disagreement like segwit.

I consider not increasing the blocksize as a change to the economic policy of Bitcoin, not the other way around.

It seems like Jeff Garzik has joined our side, Surely you can now see why I might not believe Core when even Jeff Garzik is now voicing these same concerns. Of course if there is a huge spike in adoption an increase to 2MB would still not be enough since it would still in effect allow their "fee market" to form, in direct contrast to the contrary vision of Bitcoin many other people hold.

Jeff Garzik also said this:

This is an extreme moral hazard: A few Bitcoin Core committers can veto increase and thereby reshape bitcoin economics, price some businesses out of the system. It is less of a moral hazard to keep the current economics [by raising block size] and not exercise such power.

Without exaggeration, I have never seen this much disconnect between user wishes and dev outcomes in 20+ years of open source.

It is a valid and rational economic choice to subsidize the system with lower fees in the beginning

Higher Service prices can negatively impact system security. Bitcoin depends on a virtuous cycle of users boosting and maintaining bitcoin's network effect, incentivizing miners, increasing security. Higher prices that reduce bitcoin's user count and network effect can have the opposite impact.

The simple fact is *inaction* on this supply-limited resource, block size, will change bitcoin to a new economic shape and with different economic actors, selecting some and not others. It is better to kick the can and gather crucial field data, because next-step (FFM) is very much not fleshed out.

[BitUsher]

I consider not increasing the blocksize as a change to the economic policy of Bitcoin, not the other way around.

I completely agree with the above and Garzik that introducing a fee economy is a dramatic change in bitcoins economic policy. I am withholding judgment without more data if this is positive or negative.  

Just saw that statement by Jeff Garzik, do you really expect me to believe that they will change the blocksize when they are saying things like this. Of course if there is a huge spike in adoption an increase to 2MB would still not be enough since it would still in effect allow their "fee market" to form, in direct contrast to the contrary vision of Bitcoin many other people hold.

It certainly is possible they don't wish to increase the blocksize and their concerns of governance and hardfork completion times is merely a stall tactic. Unlike you, I am not assuming bad faith without further evidence.

I refuse to "trust" them, I believe this would be antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin and there is to much at stake for such a leap of faith. If they came out with an announcement tomorrow stating that on this specific day the network will be forked with this specific code then it would be a different story. Even if this is only a failure of communication it is still damming enouth to justify a split, we should not ever be expected to "trust" any group with the future of Bitcoin.

I am not suggesting you trust anyone. Just because I do not assume bad faith in the core devs doesn't mean I implicitly trust or have faith in them.

. I am not sure how long you think I should wait,

I have been suggesting the opposite. I agree with you that you should fork... the sooner the better as bitcoin is still young and BU/XT group stalling is just as damning as the core taking their time. It will be fascinating to watch and some really good data can be analyzed even if there is a temporary negative economic outcome with Bitcoin splitting.

[danielW]

Jeff Garzik: If blocksize stays 1MB, Core devs should sign a collective note stating desire to transition to new economic policy, of "healthy fee market", and strongly urge users to examine their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible user impacting outcomes.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Peter Todd appears to be one of the developers which is fine with staying with 1 MB blocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x34wt/in_a_66b_economy_it_is_criminal_to_let_the/cy15xbn

While some core developers-(sipa) appear to want to simply maintain or follow the will of the community without forcing anything through, and miners want leadership and a clear path they can rally behind.

In one sense I can empathize with Pieter as he doesn't want to give developers too much power or set any precedents that reflect they should be responsible for economic changes, in another sense I can understand with Gavin/Hearns/and their supporters frustration when no "benevolent dictator" is leading the course and driving a decision through. The miners are naturally humble enough from indication at the scalability conference to want some leadership and direction from the developers as well so are waiting on guidance.

There needs to be some manner to efficiently determine " extreme widespread acceptance" as the miner vote only encompasses one segment of our ecosystem. Or perhaps if one of the proposed BIPs that is introduced has a better set of tradeoffs than everyone will just rally behind it without too much disagreement like segwit.

I consider not increasing the blocksize as a change to the economic policy of Bitcoin, not the other way around.

Just saw that statement by Jeff Garzik, do you really expect me to believe that they will change the blocksize when they are saying things like this. Of course if there is a huge spike in adoption an increase to 2MB would still not be enough since it would still in effect allow their "fee market" to form, in direct contrast to the contrary vision of Bitcoin many other people hold.

On the other hand Jeff Garzik also said this:

This is an extreme moral hazard: A few Bitcoin Core committers can veto increase and thereby reshape bitcoin economics, price some businesses out of the system. It is less of a moral hazard to keep the current economics [by raising block size] and not exercise such power.

I agree that not changing block-size represents a change in functioning of system. But Gavins aggressive increases (aiming to get rid of limit altogether) also represent a change.

[johnyj]

Judging by your posts, it's certainly about expertise. And Gavin's attitude is likely also the result of his expertise allowing him to grasp the concept.

It's time. Given same amount of time, you can only become an expert in a specific area, this unavoidably limited your view. Or you can select to be a generalist thus giving up details (The smallest project I managed had 100+ developers, I seldom go below system integration level to check the codes)

I say this again: Bitcoin is a monetary system. To design and maintain a monetary system, you need at least the view of the central bank, not the view of programmers, because the programmers are in the lower part of financial industry, and they lack of overview of whole financial world

If in your eyes bitcoin is just a payment system, then naturally you are aiming to defeat paypal and visa, which is the industry leading solution. But this is almost the lowest level of concern for central banks

[BitUsher]

I agree that not changing block-size represents a change in functioning of system. But Gavins aggressive increases (aiming to get rid of limit altogether) also represent a change.

Agreed, but I am going to leave this discussion as there appears too much politics and too high of a signal to noise ratio. There are plenty of tasks that need to be done to improve our ecosystem rather than rehashing the same discussion and attacking each other. The developers of Core or any other implementations- libbitcoin/BU/XT really need our contributions, testing and support.  

[VeritasSapere]

I agree that not changing block-size represents a change in functioning of system. But Gavins aggressive increases (aiming to get rid of limit altogether) also represent a change.

Agreed, but I am going to leave this discussion as there appears too much politics and too high of a signal to noise ratio. There are plenty of tasks that need to be done to improve our ecosystem rather than rehashing the same discussion and attacking each other. The developers of Core or any other implementations- libbitcoin/BU/XT really need our contributions, testing and support.  

Well said, you have a good attitude. I also hope these alternatives speed up their development in order to become more viable sooner. It seems like Jeff Garzik is completely reaffirming the concerns I also have and have been stating here for months. This is a refreshing turn of events. I suggest that everyone should read this:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

[tvbcof]

iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.

I'd read his shit for that reason alone.  Happily he and I are generally on a similar frequency with respect to the direction of Bitcoin and the rational for it so it seems.  For this reason I'm extra glad that it was he more than anyone around who kissed the Blarney Stone.

[yupeicai]

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

[VeritasSapere]

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

I have read it actually, and having multiple implementations for people to choose from is the equivalent of giving the market freedom of choice.