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

[RoadTrain]

I find it difficult to comprehend ...

We know that.

You should try reading more than 6 words at a time. Or has smallblockism extended into text as well?  

For the record, I'm not smallblockist, whatever you mean by it.

If you support Core you are supporting small blocks, unless you believe that Core will raise the blocksize. Even though Jeff Garzik himself no longer believes this is the case.

Some Developers wish to accelerate the Fee Event, and a veto can accomplish that. In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely would veto any block size increase.

I have discussed this with you before, you do seem like one of the more reasonable Core supporters, I would hope that eventually you would also lose faith in Core. Since surely there should also be a limit to your patience.

I'm not sure our definitions of "support" are the same. For me, "supporting" Core means that I'm convinced by their arguments and see their approach as compatible with my own vision. Once this stops being the case, I might stop "supporting" them.

I also think they will increase the limit, one way or another, during 2016. I know you don't "trust" them with this, but I don't care.

[1714127285]

1714127285

[1714127285]

1714127285

[1714127285]

1714127285

[VeritasSapere]

I find it difficult to comprehend ...

We know that.

You should try reading more than 6 words at a time. Or has smallblockism extended into text as well?  

For the record, I'm not smallblockist, whatever you mean by it.

If you support Core you are supporting small blocks, unless you believe that Core will raise the blocksize. Even though Jeff Garzik himself no longer believes this is the case.

Some Developers wish to accelerate the Fee Event, and a veto can accomplish that. In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely would veto any block size increase.

I have discussed this with you before, you do seem like one of the more reasonable Core supporters, I would hope that eventually you would also lose faith in Core. Since surely there should also be a limit to your patience.

I'm not sure our definitions of "support" are the same. For me, "supporting" Core means that I'm convinced by their arguments and see their approach as compatible with my own vision. Once this stops being the case, I might stop "supporting" them.

I also think they will increase the limit, one way or another, during 2016. I know you don't "trust" them with this, but I don't care.

Fair enough, I suppose I am not convinced by their arguments and I consider their views to be fundamentally incompatible with my own vision for the future of Bitcoin and the vision that was laid out by the founder Satoshi Nakamoto which i still believe in and think we should follow. I do not think we should "trust" any group or organization with the future of Bitcoin.

[sgbett]

Oh theres only one person left lol.. Ive aleady read into this and debated with that person and proved to him or her why bigger blocks are not needed right now but i guess hes back for more.

there is only one person that thinks there is any point posting on topic in this thread

[MarketNeutral]

I'd be remiss not to remind everyone, as an aside to this discussion as it pertains to gold and debt and money, that money and currency are not the same thing, that gold is (among other things) that which extinguishes debt, and that bitcoin shares some properties with gold, such as fungibility and scarcity (i.e., cannot be created via debt or other fiat mechanisms; must be mined), as well as other properties that still need to time to gain confidence and acceptance, such as bitcoin's ability to function, much like gold can, as a unit of account and globally as a supranational commodity-currency. Moreover, bitcoin, like gold, is cannot borrowed into existence.

Not all money is currency, but all currency is money. Aristotle defined currency as being durable, portable, fungible and that it should have intrinsic value.

This is why I mentioned the history of money earlier in this thread, since for the majority of known human history we have had commodity money. Which is not based on debt, fiat or money by authority is only a relatively recent development. Bitcoin represents a return to true commodity money, Bitcoin is an asset based currency not a debt based currency like fiat.

One important factor when comparing Bitcoin to gold in terms of its value, is actually its utility, it is this utility that gives Bitcoin the advantage as a store of value compared to gold. After all we can not sprinkle gold dust down a phone line and send it across the world cheaply in a matter of seconds without relying on third parties.

In those days some families whole possessions weren't worth one single gold coin.

I have repeatedly stated that different types of precious metals where used, including silver and bronze. Which poor families could afford, often coins where also divided, this is where the term quarter comes from for example. Currency has been used by most people for the majority of our known history, it is as old as civilization itself.

Aye. Good info. Studying monetary history is a passion of mine, and I can tell you know your history! Cheers!

[MarketNeutral]

Let's be careful with our arguments here. Nearly everyone supports increasing the block size. Arguing against people who don't support an increase is a straw argument that misses the point. The point, rather, is precisely how increasing the block size ought to be implemented. imho, the most insightful and thoughtful opinion on the matter has come from Dr. Adam Back.

[hdbuck]

Let's be careful with our arguments here. Nearly everyone supports increasing the block size. Arguing against people who don't support an increase is a straw argument that misses the point. The point, rather, is precisely how increasing the block size ought to be implemented. imho, the most insightful and thoughtful opinion on the matter has come from Dr. Adam Back.

nothing currently justify increasing the blocksize, hence all previous attempts miserably failed..

modifying any parameter of the bitcoin protocol is more hazardous than simply leave it as is, with its features.

hardfork is a failure strategy and will only result in some other altcoin.

considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.

[VeritasSapere]

Let's be careful with our arguments here. Nearly everyone supports increasing the block size. Arguing against people who don't support an increase is a straw argument that misses the point. The point, rather, is precisely how increasing the block size ought to be implemented. imho, the most insightful and thoughtful opinion on the matter has come from Dr. Adam Back.

I get the impression that Core will not increase the blocksize, specifically because of "developer consensus".

In the current developer dynamics, 1-2 key developers can and very likely would veto any block size increase.

I do agree with you actually, that most people do support an increase in the blocksize, which is why I think Jeff Garzik said this:

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

Aye. Good info. Studying monetary history is a passion of mine, and I can tell you know your history! Cheers!

Thanks, I am glad that you appreciated my discussion about the history of money, putting Bitcoin within this context does shine a light on the profound nature of it all.

[bambou]

...
considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.

Indeed, the protocol being subject to design change would go against the very concept of a decentralized technology and would irrevocably introduce a point of failure precedent.

This is not FED nor ECB meme, to hell with "adjustments" and "quantitative easing".

[Cconvert2G36]

...
considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.

Indeed, the protocol being subject to design change would go against the very concept of a decentralized technology and would irrevocably introduce a point of failure precedent.

This is not FED nor ECB meme, to hell with "adjustments" and "quantitative easing".

You two seem to have it all figured out.

A passion for decentralization even led both of you to join the forum around the same time.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Let's be careful with our arguments here. Nearly everyone supports increasing the block size. Arguing against people who don't support an increase is a straw argument that misses the point. The point, rather, is precisely how increasing the block size ought to be implemented. imho, the most insightful and thoughtful opinion on the matter has come from Dr. Adam Back.

And yet, the Gavinistas compete to out-do one another in the stridency of their condemnations of Dr. Backamoto.

Plus, you have uber-shitlord hearn@sigint.google.mil encouraging such insufferable ingratitude and exorbitant contempt for Adam's demonstrated expertise.

coblee's recent "Eating the Bitcoin Cake" op-ed is also very good, as it summarizes and builds upon Backamoto's work, while making it accessible for the ELI5 crowd.

Bitcoin Is Not One-Size-Fits-All

I contend that we should design Bitcoin for security and decentralization above all else. Transactions that need the highest security and decentralization will need to pay the higher transaction fees required to use the Bitcoin network. Not all transactions can afford this fee, but then they likely don’t need the security and decentralization. And that’s perfectly fine. They can use Litecoin and altcoins, sidechains, payment channels, lightening networks, off-blockchain networks, and other yet to be created networks to send those transactions. Heck, they can still use Visa if merchants are willing to pay the fees.

You would use bitcoin to buy a house or a car. A 60-minute wait and a $1 fee for an extremely secure, decentralized, and irreversible transaction is perfectly fine. If you are buying coffee and need a cheap but fast transaction but don’t care about security or decentralization, you can use Litecoin, lightening networks, sidechains, or even Starbucks off-blockchain transactions. As long as everything is seamless, users don’t care. Transactions will be routed to the payment network that makes the most sense based on the needs of that transaction type. Technologies like on-chain swaps, lightening networks, payment channels, and sidechains will allow seamless and cheap/free conversions between Bitcoin and everything else. Wallets will hide all that complexity from the users. We are not there yet, but that future is very exciting. Not every transaction will be native Bitcoin transactions but every person will use Bitcoin.

[Cconvert2G36]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

The only security against nation states with hundreds of billions of $ at their disposal is either through obscurity (monero) or through ubiquity (too big and important to attack).

Practically, it seems a compromise to 2MB would buy time to develop and roll out other solutions (segwit, LN, SC, etc) and could allow us to have more productive dialog in the interim. 

[danielW]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

[Cconvert2G36]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

You're missing the point that it would take much longer for that "two weeks" to happen at 30% hashing power.

There's a variety of ways something like this could be countered, but that's not the point, if a full scale nation state attack happened, it would likely be coordinated and fairly comprehensive. Our former trajectory forever changed.

[danielW]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

You're missing the point that it would take much longer for that "two weeks" to happen at 30% hashing power.

There's a variety of ways something like this could be countered, but that's not the point, if a full scale nation state attack happened, it would likely be coordinated and fairly comprehensive. Our former trajectory forever changed.

If a powerful nation state decided to launch an attack on Bitcoin it could likely do a lot of damage.

Thats pretty irrelevant to China currently having a lot of hashing power now tho. Current hashing power location does not effect (in any significant way) any states ability to pro-actively attack bitcoin.

 

[Cconvert2G36]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

You're missing the point that it would take much longer for that "two weeks" to happen at 30% hashing power.

There's a variety of ways something like this could be countered, but that's not the point, if a full scale nation state attack happened, it would likely be coordinated and fairly comprehensive. Our former trajectory forever changed.

If a powerful nation state decided to launch an attack on Bitcoin it could likely do a lot of damage.

Thats pretty irrelevant to China currently having a lot of hashing power now tho. Current hashing power location does not effect (in any significant way) any states ability to pro-actively attack bitcoin.

You think it's irrelevant. I think that both are pretty related, and if (one of) the important nation(s) did it for reasons™, others would likely strike while the iron is hot. Sure, it would be fun hacker pesos once it was all over, maybe... but then we're back to the obscurity bit.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Anybody silly enough to run an XT node should just send all their coins directly to Uncle Sam now and bypass all the formalities, stress and hassle that lies along that route.

[Cconvert2G36]

Anybody silly enough to run an XT node should just send all their coins directly to Uncle Sam now and bypass all the formalities, stress and hassle that lies along that route.

The few people running XT nodes (I imagine) do so in protest of the consensus paralysis experienced by the reference implementation. Stasis requires one vote, evolution requires all votes, an unnatural arrangement. There is a relief valve, and some have already grabbed it. 

[Trent Russell]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

You're missing the point that it would take much longer for that "two weeks" to happen at 30% hashing power.

There's a variety of ways something like this could be countered, but that's not the point, if a full scale nation state attack happened, it would likely be coordinated and fairly comprehensive. Our former trajectory forever changed.

The Chinese government could order the Chinese miners to only accept txs that are whitelisted (or not blacklisted) and to only mine on top of other China-approved blocks. Since the majority of the hashing power is in China, Bitcoin would become a China-controlled payment system at that point.

The only way to fix this would be an emergency hard fork, probably to change the POW. It might be that everyone would quickly come together on a hard fork. Or it might be that some parts of the community would veto a hard fork unless they got some other changes they wanted (e.g., BIP101).

It's also possible that some people would be OK with China making this decision. I see United Stations complaining about Coinbase for invading their privacy. Then others defend Coinbase as simply following government regulations. It's easy to imagine a similar divide if there were Chinese regulations on Bitcoin mining.

[Cconvert2G36]

[danielW]

Do we really have security and decentralization today when a few phone calls from the PRC could shut the whole thing down?

This is tangential ... but why do people assign so much influence to mining. All that would happen in that scenario is the hashing power goes down 70% or so and confirmations take a long time for about 2 weeks (until difficulty adjusts). Sucks but not end of Bitcoin.

Whats the worst that could really happen? Am I missing something?

You're missing the point that it would take much longer for that "two weeks" to happen at 30% hashing power.

There's a variety of ways something like this could be countered, but that's not the point, if a full scale nation state attack happened, it would likely be coordinated and fairly comprehensive. Our former trajectory forever changed.

The Chinese government could order the Chinese miners to only accept txs that are whitelisted (or not blacklisted) and to only mine on top of other China-approved blocks. Since the majority of the hashing power is in China, Bitcoin would become a China-controlled payment system at that point.

The only way to fix this would be an emergency hard fork, probably to change the POW. It might be that everyone would quickly come together on a hard fork. Or it might be that some parts of the community would veto a hard fork unless they got some other changes they wanted (e.g., BIP101).

It's also possible that some people would be OK with China making this decision. I see United Stations complaining about Coinbase for invading their privacy. Then others defend Coinbase as simply following government regulations. It's easy to imagine a similar divide if there were Chinese regulations on Bitcoin mining.

Right on cue for this discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3xnchr/rand_corporation_is_researching_how_to_destroy/