BIP100, BIP 101 and XT nodes status

[Ingatqhvq]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

We are heading toward consensus which is good news
Support for BIP100 has been steadily growing and currently stands at 58.87%
BIP101? 0.71%

Only the  majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.
BIP 100 should be modify of reject.

[TibanneCat]

Only the  majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.

But in this particular case, the miners' votes are the ones that count
I think most in the community just want to see a consensus being reached
and that consensus will not result in the adoption of XT

[VeritasSapere]

Only the  majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.

But in this particular case, the miners' votes are the ones that count
I think most in the community just want to see a consensus being reached
and that consensus will not result in the adoption of XT

The community still needs to be behind it. You can not have a cryptocurrency with only miners after all.

[PolarPoint]

Only the  majority miners like BIP 100, not the majority of Bitcoin community.
BIP 100 should be modify of reject.

I see BIP100 as Core removing a hardcoded limit of 1M replacing with a variable limit of 1M. Basically no change of the blocksize limit. But it has a significance. I think this makes the limit easier to change in the future, and easier to get consensus.

[LiteCoinGuy]

14,2% for XT - not bad.

[uxgpf]

14,2% for XT - not bad.

It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/

Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:

Code:

I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!

[iCEBREAKER]

14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.

I fixed it for you.

I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.   

[VeritasSapere]

14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.

I fixed it for you.

I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.   

Just a reminder for everyone that the NotXT nodes where put up by core supporters, and this should be considered as a malicious attack on the network. Since anyone that tries to forcibly prevent a consensus driven hard fork in this way is in effect trying to hijack Bitcoin. Since it is the ability to hard fork that ensures the freedom and decentralization of the Bitcoin protocol.

[alani123]

14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.

I fixed it for you.

I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.  

Just a reminder for everyone that the NotXT nodes where put up by core supporters, and this should be considered as a malicious attack on the network. Since anyone that tries to forcibly prevent a consensus driven hard fork in this way is in effect trying to hijack Bitcoin. Since it is the ability to hard fork that ensures the freedom and decentralization of the Bitcoin protocol.

Take a chill pill, the people that went on Reddit to announce that they were running hundreds of nodes did it to prove a point and show that the number of nodes means nothing (for both sides actually, but XT is the one  on the spotlight at the moment). They didn't do it to exclusively show support towards core. If you look at http://xtnodes.com/, on August 25, the same person that was running 3k+ spoofed nodes switched from XT to core (which can also be faked) at some point.

[VeritasSapere]

14,2% for XT/NotXT/PseudoNode - not bad.

I fixed it for you.

I'm sure you didn't mean to intentionally mislead the public by pretending you can tell RealXT nodes apart from FakeXT spoofs.  

Just a reminder for everyone that the NotXT nodes where put up by core supporters, and this should be considered as a malicious attack on the network. Since anyone that tries to forcibly prevent a consensus driven hard fork in this way is in effect trying to hijack Bitcoin. Since it is the ability to hard fork that ensures the freedom and decentralization of the Bitcoin protocol.

Take a chill pill, the people that went on Reddit to announce that they were running hundreds of nodes did it to prove a point and show that the number of nodes means nothing (for both sides actually, but XT is the one  on the spotlight at the moment). They didn't do it to exclusively show support towards core. If you look at http://xtnodes.com/, on August 25, the same person that was running 3k+ spoofed nodes switched from XT to core (which can also be faked) at some point.

Fair enough and I do agree, however not all of the fake nodes are setup for such benign reasons. For example:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154520.0

[iCEBREAKER]

14,2% for XT - not bad.

It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/

Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:

Code:

I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!

Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.   

[iCEBREAKER]

14,2% for XT - not bad.

It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/

Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:

Code:

I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!

Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.   

Yeah don't use logic or debate to persuade people to the better fork go ahead and congratulate people who hurt other bitcoiners. You are such an idiot iCEBREAKER.

If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core?

[iCEBREAKER]

14,2% for XT - not bad.

It was around 15%, but there have been DDOS attacks against XT nodes so the node count has dropped somewhat.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3iumsr/udp_flood_ddos_attacks_against_xt_nodes/

Seems like some russian(?) guy behind it:

Code:

I have long use r/Bitcoins and I like it very much.
I watch the fight fork XT and I like it all stopped. because my savings can depreciate.
Since there is a link between coinwallet.eu (DDoS attack on the Bitcoin network) and XT, as well as hirkom and Andersen, I decided to contribute to the fight for a just cause
Well, what do you want? if I do mess (r/Bitcoin network attacks and planned attacks in September) then be prepared for a retaliatory lawlessness.
For clean and free future!

Thank you ivan37337, for fukkin' rekkin' XT and demonstrating Team Gavin can't even keep their nodes/pools up, much less be trusted to (competently) take over Bitcoin.   

Yeah don't use logic or debate to persuade people to the better fork go ahead and congratulate people who hurt other bitcoiners. You are such an idiot iCEBREAKER.

If Team XT can't even deal with a small DoS, how can they deal with taking over Bitcoin from Team Core?

and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.

There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.

If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.

[VeritasSapere]

and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.

There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.

If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.

If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

[brg444]

and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.

There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.

If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.

If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor 

[VeritasSapere]

and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.

There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.

If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.

If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor 

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost. That is why it would be more accurate to say that it should be the people that think Bitcoin should be high cost that should create the altcoin not the other way around. High volume at low cost, is better then low volume at high cost. Even from the miners perspective, in the long run this would be better for Bitcoin.

[brg444]

and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more.

There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam.

If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly.

If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor 

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost. That is why it would be more accurate to say that it should be the people that think Bitcoin should be high cost that should create the altcoin not the other way around. High volume at low cost, is better then low volume at high cost. Even from the miners perspective, in the long run this would be better for Bitcoin.

Nowhere was it ever said the Bitcoin network should have a low cost to run. You leeches trying to externalize the cost to the users running the network have no claim here. Your "original vision" was misguided. The value of Bitcoin was never meant to be a low-cost payment system but primordially a low-trust layer. 

[poeEDgar]

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.

Source?

And how do we define "low cost?" This is, of course, subjective. Low cost vs. check clearing? Low cost vs. bank wires? Low cost vs. value of output?

Does "low cost" take on a new meaning in the context of decentralized, irreversible, censorship-free payments?

[VeritasSapere]

The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost.

Source?

And how do we define "low cost?" This is, of course, subjective. Low cost vs. check clearing? Low cost vs. bank wires? Low cost vs. value of output?

Does "low cost" take on a new meaning in the context of decentralized, irreversible, censorship-free payments?

The Bitcoin whitepaper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

Satoshi Nakamoto also thought that the block size should be increased in the future, quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.""But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.""The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

[poeEDgar]

You make some good points, in terms of how do we define low cost, however if we did not increase the block size at all and there was an increase in adoption, then the fee would become prohibitively expensive, this most certainly can not be defined as low cost.

The logical problem here is that you are using a subjective definition to define "low cost." Whether the cost is "prohibitively expensive" is, of course, subjective. $.05 may be prohibitive for some. $100 may be prohibitive for another.