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

[brg444]

The market should decide. Not a bunch of corporate-types. Let the dogs run, I say.

@HdBuck

Gavin works at MIT. Am I wrong?

Market has decided.

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco?

[1714778150]

1714778150

[1714778150]

1714778150

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The market should decide. Not a bunch of corporate-types. Let the dogs run, I say.

@HdBuck

Gavin works at MIT. Am I wrong?

Market has decided.

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco?

I learned that a corporate interest has Core developers on their payroll and their LN depends on small blocks...

Exchanges and other industry members that wish to join the Liquid sidechain must subscribe through Blockstream, which charges a monthly fee.

Business savvy

[brg444]

The market should decide. Not a bunch of corporate-types. Let the dogs run, I say.

@HdBuck

Gavin works at MIT. Am I wrong?

Market has decided.

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco?

I learned that a corporate interest has Core developers on their payroll and their LN depends on small blocks...

"Their LN"?

LN is an open source protocol.

One guy at Blockstream is contributing to an implementation, another team is working on their own.

It certainly doesn't depend on small blocks.

But of course you know that and you'll continue parotting the same stuff in the future even when you know you're wrong.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The market should decide. Not a bunch of corporate-types. Let the dogs run, I say.

@HdBuck

Gavin works at MIT. Am I wrong?

Market has decided.

Did you learn nothing from the XT fiasco?

I learned that a corporate interest has Core developers on their payroll and their LN depends on small blocks...

"Their LN"?

LN is an open source protocol.

One guy at Blockstream is contributing to an implementation, another team is working on their own.

It certainly doesn't depend on small blocks.

But of course you know that and you'll continue parotting the same stuff in the future even when you know you're wrong.

Gavin works for the USG anyway. Isn't it?

[brg444]

Gavin works for the USG anyway. Isn't it?

Yep, so pick your poison I guess

By the way:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

Tentative date for fully coded SW implementation : April 2016.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Gavin works for the USG anyway. Isn't it?

Yep, so pick your poison I guess

By the way:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq

Tentative date for fully coded SW implementation : April 2016.

Sorry. I'm not up on the latest goings-on. Last I heard Gavin was working at MIT's Digital Currency Lab. Has he left to work for the Department of Defence? NSA? US Postal Service?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It certainly doesn't depend on small blocks.

LULZ!!   

[johnyj]

During the July and September spam attack, almost every block was full, but there were only a few users complained about the confirmation speed because they did not include enough fee. So the fee market is far from reaching its pain point, and people will adapt to the rising fee by reduce transaction frequency or use other solutions

And of course you can't compete with payment processors, web wallet service providers and exchanges fee wise, since they send hundreds or thousands of coins at once and can afford much larger fee. But that's exactly the point, large and frequent transactions should only be done by large actors and they are the backbone of the ecosystem. Rest of the people will be using off-chain services for daily spending, so that they can get many consumer oriented features. And every one should still be able to do low frequency high value transfer so that the long term storage security and convenience is not affected.

I think this also comes down to whether we want Bitcoin to be used as a currency directly without third parties or not, I presume you do not think this is possible, I do think this is possible, which is fine. However I would argue that if it is possible being able to do both is actually better since adding more utility to Bitcoin does in turn make it a better store of value. It is Bitcoins utility that I believe even sets it apart from gold as a store of value. 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, we can do this with Bitcoin and I do not think that we should change this. I did sign up for the original vision of a p2p electronic cash system after all.

As the chart below shows we are approaching and will exceed network capacity within a few months if this trend continues.

It is a very efficient way to use subway to do passenger transport in big cities, all the passengers must board on the same train (centralized service nodes). If all the passengers wants to drive their own car to their destination, then the total cost will be magnitudes higher than centralized service provider, and quickly becomes unfeasible when infrastructure can not handle it any more

In some large cities in China they have already limited the cars that can be driven during a certain day based on its registration nr. Simply because the infrastructure can not grow exponentially following the car growth

[johnyj]

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Anyway, it will be meaningless action.

I wish he would [censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo as suggested by Rizun.]  It would take about 3 minutes for a replacement (or 15) to pop up.  

This was already discussed before. The alert keys are also held by Gavin IIRC and they have not been removed because an abuse attempt would be stopped within minutes and Gavin would lose all credibility and become one of the most hated persons in the Bitcoin world. Peter R's suggestion just confirms what we have known all along, he's paid by someone to do this.
Luckily XT is living its final days.

And Gavin is paid by the US Governement. This we know for sure.

Are you paid by Blockstream, too?

Nope sry wrong conspiracy.

Still Gavin is on a USG payroll.

Peter Todd and BtcDrak have their very own shitcoin. Why do you have to get personal tho?

nothing personal, just stating that Gavin is paid by the Government of the United States of America.

Ah and has openly met with CIA.

This is the result of complexity: When a complex solution can not be fully understood by the stakeholder, the potential risk will make people start to question the trustworthiness of the solution provider, and then it will diverge the discussion to political and personal interest behind that solution

Imagine that Gavin promoted a block size increase of 0.5MB, he would not have faced such large resistance from the community. But 8MB is just too large a change that brings so many complex scenario that are not able to be understood by miners and node operators

Similarly, I see the same challenge with SW solution, the stakeholders would question the political and personal interest behind SW if they could not fully understand SW

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength.

Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.

This screenshot from the Capacity Increases page at Github shows more lobbying for Peter R sure to be ignored:

[Peter R]

The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength.

Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Well, shouldn't OP know this?

He definitely doesn't know everything and he often makes mistakes too.  I've met him more than once, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.  
  

[Cconvert2G36]

The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength.

Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Well, shouldn't OP know this?

He definitely doesn't know everything and he often makes mistakes too.  I've met him more than once, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.   

Who? brg444? or gavin? Was it in Virginia?     

[Peter R]

The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength.

Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.

Does Gavin have this power??

Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it.

Well, shouldn't OP know this?

He definitely doesn't know everything and he often makes mistakes too.  I've met him more than once, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this.   

Who? brg444? or gavin? Was it in Virginia?     

The guy apparently lobbying Gavin. 

[sickpig]

I think we should all need to take a few minutes and read latest Peter Todd's email (on btc dev mailing list):

"Segregated witnesses and validationless mining"
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html

[hdbuck]

I think we should all need to take a few minutes and read latest Peter Todd's email (on btc dev mailing list):

"Segregated witnesses and validationless mining"
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html

reading between the lines:

separates transaction information

so convenient!

segregated witnesses makes validationless mining
easier and more profitable than the status quo

yeay for teh miners!

easily fixed by changing the protocol

lets just throw bitcoin protocol away already

Of course, when this goes wrong it goes very wrong, greatly amplifying
the effect of 51% attacks and technical screwups

seems all we are left with is hope and faith.

We can fully expect miners to take advantage of
this to reduce latency and thus improve their profitability.

yeay for teh miners! part 2

At best the codepaths that actually do validation will be rarely,
if ever, tested in production.

who test anyway?

Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks
that in isolation appear totally normal and contain apparently valid
transactions.

nice!


and it goes on and on:
 

# Easy [] solution: previous witness data proof

To return segregated witnesses to the status quo, we need to at least
make having the previous block's witness data be a precondition to
creating a block with transactions; ideally we would make it a
precondition to making any valid block, although going this far may
receive pushback from miners who are currently using validationless
mining techniques.

We can require blocks to include the previous witness data, hashed with
a different hash function that the commitment in the previous block.
With witness data W, and H(W) the witness commitment in the previous
block, require the current block to include H'(W)

A possible concrete implementation would be to compute the hash of the
current block's coinbase txouts (unique per miner for obvious reasons!)
as well as the previous block hash. Then recompute the previous block's
witness data merkle tree (and optionally, transaction data merkle tree)
with that hash prepended to the serialized data for each witness.

This calculation can only be done by a trusted entity with access to all
witness data [ ] from the previous block, forcing miners to both publish
their witness data promptly, as well as at least obtain witness data
from other miners. (if not actually validate it!) This returns us to at
least the status quo, if not slightly better.

This solution is a soft-fork [yea we all know by now hardforks are failures, so lets be more practical and sneaky in debasing satoshi's codebase] . As the calculation is only done once per
block, it is *not* a change to the PoW algorithm and is thus compatible
with existing miner/hasher setups. (modulo validationless mining
optimizations, which are no longer possible)

# Proofs of non-inflation vs. proofs of non-theft

Currently [yep that's right.. c u r r e n t l y] full nodes can easily verify both that inflation of the
currency has no occured, as well as verify that theft of coins through
invalid scriptSigs has not occured. (though as an optimisation currently
scriptSig's prior to checkpoints are not validated by default in Bitcoin
Core)

It has been proposed that with segregated witnesses old witness data
will be discarded entirely. This makes it impossible to know if miner
theft has occured in the past[]; as a practical matter due to the
significant amount of lost coins this also makes it possible to inflate
the currency.

How to fix this problem is an open question; it may be sufficient have
the previous witness data proof solution above require proving posession
of not just the n-1 block, but a (random?) selection of other previous
blocks as well. Adding this to the protocol could be done as soft-fork [sneaky sneaky tiny winy bikini]
with respect to the above previous witness data proof.

god damit forkers, seems you figured it all out, bravo!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

god damit forkers, seems you figured it all out, bravo!

Hey, hdfuck!  I heard you are offering 1BTC for the severed head of renowned phorker brg444?

Is that true?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channels??

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channel??

.... do you even know what a payment channel is?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channels??

.... do you even know what a payment channel is?

Do I know what a payment channel is? DO I KNOW WHAT A PAYMENT CHANNEL IS?!?

...

(If I'm wrong explain it to me like I don't know what a payment channel is.)

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channels??

.... do you even know what a payment channel is?

Do I know what a payment channel is? DO I KNOW WHAT A PAYMENT CHANNEL IS?!?

...

you know I had you with benefit of the doubt for the longest time, on the odd occasion you say something vaguely interesting but generally keep a low level of snark, just below the level of ignore radar ... too bad for you that you stuck your head up today ... ignored.