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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

Pretty standard code review there brg. I dont know the code intimately, but I reckon there is no more than a few hours to remedy it.

You must be getting pretty desperate if you are skulking around in that forum. Maybe that was the smell Gavin was getting?   

[keepdoing]

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

XT... XT... XT... footsteps approaching.  

[Zarathustra]

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

He's rekting your destroying streamblocking core solution much more.

[brg444]

Oh god how did I miss this #REKTING 

Pretty standard code review there brg. I dont know the code intimately, but I reckon there is no more than a few hours to remedy it.

You must be getting pretty desperate if you are skulking around in that forum. Maybe that was the smell Gavin was getting?   

Pretty standard except that it point out flaws in code already used in production 

I can only imagine how  disappointed you were when your employer told you you had to shill for a bunch of amateur charlatans 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Pretty standard except that it point out flaws in code already used in production 

I can only imagine how  disappointed you were when your employer told you you had to shill for a bunch of amateur charlatans 

Yeah, so your gonna tell me your Yahoo Google Gubmint paymasters are more... what? Professional?   

ps  His comments refer more to format and lazy blocking than at any functional aspect of the code. But you knew that, right?

[tl121]

It is very misleading claim that bitcoin users do not need to trust centralized authority, in fact every one uses bitcoin is trusting this centralized protocol originally designed by Satoshi: Every miners, nodes, exchanges, merchants, users, no exception

One does not have to "trust" a protocol.  Actually, in the case of bitcoin, there is no protocol separate from some version of bitcoin software.  One can inspect that software and see in detail what it does and how it does it.  One can build the software from source code if one doesn't trust the downloadable binaries. If one lacks the necessary skills to understand the source code one can hire people to do review on your behalf. 

Now contrast this situation with you you face as the user of the fiat banking system, or a fractional reserve bitcoin exchange such as Mt. Gox.

[johnyj]

It is very misleading claim that bitcoin users do not need to trust centralized authority, in fact every one uses bitcoin is trusting this centralized protocol originally designed by Satoshi: Every miners, nodes, exchanges, merchants, users, no exception

One does not have to "trust" a protocol.  Actually, in the case of bitcoin, there is no protocol separate from some version of bitcoin software.  One can inspect that software and see in detail what it does and how it does it.  One can build the software from source code if one doesn't trust the downloadable binaries. If one lacks the necessary skills to understand the source code one can hire people to do review on your behalf. 

Now contrast this situation with you you face as the user of the fiat banking system, or a fractional reserve bitcoin exchange such as Mt. Gox.

What you said is very true, bitcoin's open source nature is its biggest advantage

However, when the protocol become 1 million + lines, I guess your trust is not so easy to establish if you try to inspect the code by yourself, you start to rely on other more involved devs

This is especially the case for most of the users without IT expertise, they just blindly download a wallet recommended by bitcoin.org and never question the validity of those clients, and they blindly upgrade to the latest version without reading the change log

Full nodes are more careful in selecting software, but still I doubt that those node operator really go to Git and read the source when they apply an upgrade. Typically they just read change log, and even if they do not fully understand a change's details, they still applies it based on the "Claimed" higher performance, stronger security, or newer feature etc... e.g. they put all their trust on core devs, believing that they will not screw it (And that's the reason we had 2013 hard fork incident)

Unfortunately currently the split in the core devs started to change all that trust. But then the question is: If you can not trust core devs, who can you trust?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I'd say what almost everyone actually trusts is that various experts and people with a lot of money on the line have vetted the code.

[johnyj]

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-21-million-seed-capital/ Linkedin, Airbnb, Google, Yahoo ... many of the software heavy weights are backing blockstream, no doubt there are so much slides from that direction, they have been preparing for over one year with all these solutions

Its funny how ice and brg construe any connection with yahoo and google on Mike or Gavins part as "Gubmint", but seem happy to take the feds sheckles when it is paid via Blockstream...

Are you indicating that they all have the same boss and this is just a show?  

If a developer works for an enterprise, then it is very difficult for his proposal to be accepted by the community, no matter how brilliant it is. We all know that you can not work for an enterprise without listen to your boss. A developer from an enterprise only represent that enterprise's interest, and bitcoin is designed to be free from censorship, including the code level censorship from enterprises

Another reason that enterprises are not suitable to make development decisions for bitcoin is because their limited view. In today's society, it is the monetary system set the game rules and enterprises are just game players. They do not have the overview like central bankers, this makes their decision short sighted

If you are designing a global monetary system, then you better not listen to those who only knows how to make money, your view should be higher than those central bankers around the world, and it requires much higher level of understanding in money, human and society. And these are all areas with almost non existing knowledge, since only a handful of human can reach such a position that require him to master these topics

However some enterprises hold some power in deciding bitcoin main chain's direction, and the possibility of two parallel existing fork is almost 0, so the future of bitcoin is still quite uncertain

I think it worth the effort for all the participants to study some basics about money, human and society and decide a set of constitution-like rules to guide all the enterprises in bitcoin space. So far the only clear guidance is limited total supply. SW already gave an example that you can change bitcoin's architecture by using a soft fork, but should that still be called bitcoin?

What makes bitcoin bitcoin?

[plorph]

Can someone explain to me how not raising the block size limit is a good thing? All transactions should be able to go thru in a semi-timely manner and if the limit is reached in a block then that transaction is just cancelled? That doesnt' make sense to me, I don't see a good reason NOT to switch to bitcoin XT. Secondly, why wasn't this thought of originally in the making of bitcoin? Seems odd.

[coinmaster222]

It was thought of at the start,when satoshi left it in 2010 he decided then that by leaving it was fully decentralized and the first test would be the block size.Now if it comes out of this it will be a stronger currency if not a disaster in the making
Why are humans deciding things on the Blockchain it should be left to software and the nodes.I think the best guy to ask is Gavin he worked on the design and code back in 2007

[plorph]

shouldn't blocks have variable size and it be declared at the beginning of the block, such as # of transactions?

[coinmaster222]

Slightly off topic but a bit of history the first bitcoin transaction ever   http://blockexplorer.com/b/170 the first address is Satoshi's the second Hal's

[sidhujag]

shouldn't blocks have variable size and it be declared at the beginning of the block, such as # of transactions?

Start from page 1

[coinmaster222]

Not having read much of this thread I dont want to go over things covered,but a major concern must be fees,do we raise fees or just let the Chinese miners dictate what they want for there work

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-21-million-seed-capital/ Linkedin, Airbnb, Google, Yahoo ... many of the software heavy weights are backing blockstream, no doubt there are so much slides from that direction, they have been preparing for over one year with all these solutions

Its funny how ice and brg construe any connection with yahoo and google on Mike or Gavins part as "Gubmint", but seem happy to take the feds sheckles when it is paid via Blockstream...

Are you indicating that they all have the same boss and this is just a show?  

I wasn't, but now that I think of it, you could be on to something there.... *grabs tinhat*   

brg has made many infantile ad hom attacks on Mike Hearn, citing his previous work for Google as evidence that he is in some way a US gov. agent. I just thought it funny - ironic even - that the very company he schills for 24/7 is heavily funded by these same firms. 

[valiz]

What is bitcoin? Why should it's properties be determined by humans via populist means?

Veritas?

[runam0k]

Not having read much of this thread I dont want to go over things covered,but a major concern must be fees,do we raise fees or just let the Chinese miners dictate what they want for there work

This is a longer term concern -- we're still in the bootstrapping phase so not immediately relevant, even with the upcoming halving. Ultimately miners will dictate fees (preferable IMO to block space scarcity forced by max block size), but that's another discussion.

[VeritasSapere]

Not having read much of this thread I dont want to go over things covered,but a major concern must be fees,do we raise fees or just let the Chinese miners dictate what they want for there work

Miners can decide for themselves what transactions to include or not to include in the blocks they create, this has always been the case.

Transaction-fee levels are not in any general need of being artificially pushed upward. A 130-year transition phase was planned into Bitcoin during which the full transition from block reward revenue to transaction-fee revenue was to take place.

[VeritasSapere]

What is bitcoin? Why should it's properties be determined by humans via populist means?

Veritas?

I might ask you another question, who or what else should determine the properties of Bitcoin if not human beings? In the absence of sentient AI, it is left to human beings to decide on the rules of the protocol. Fortunately Bitcoin has incentive and governance mechanism build into the protocol to allow this process to happen in a much more fair and free fashion when compared to the state democracies that we are used to. This is a part of the genius behind the invention of Bitcoin, it has solve some of these age old problems like tyranny of the majority and volunteerism.

Bitcoin is also less likely to fall victim to populists politics considering that it is in effect ruled by the economic majority who are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin. Unlike our present political systems where often the incentives become perverted. If I had to describe what Bitcoin is in one word I would say that Bitcoin is freedom.