Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[meono]

[img]-snip-[img]

  Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on  

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

Are you trying to make an argument? Because I don't see any.

No. He's just trolling and trying to bait.

ICEBREAKER is a well known XMR troll who goes to threads of other coins to spread FUD and do personal attacks.
I'm invested in Monero, but I think his actions cause much more harm than good. (By hurting the image of that community)

He was also the biggest shill for the mining fraud, Hashfast.

The dude literally thinks everyone here would take him seriously.

pity for him.

[1714488314]

1714488314

[1714488314]

1714488314

[1714488314]

1714488314

[Zarathustra]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location:  

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Forum Statistics

Discussions:    22

Messages:    148

Members:    70

LOL, so much for Frap.doc's blather about network effects, Metcalfe's Law, and how altcoins are all doooomed because they dare defect from BTC's longstanding all-powerful majority.

Serves him right!  

Cypherdoc's new Gold thread: 2818 views
iCEBREAKER's Szabo Thread: 370 views

LOL, so much about network effects

[jonald_fyookball]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

[Lauda]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and partially by the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.
Update:

Completely ignored by the industry???

Corrected it.

[Zarathustra]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry,

Completely ignored by the industry???

[jonald_fyookball]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Edit:

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

Your posts don't seem like you are pointing possibilities but facts. Please correct from now on if you are just pointing possibilities!

[jonald_fyookball]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Edit:

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

Your posts don't seem like you are pointing possibilities but facts. Please correct from now on if you are just pointing possibilities!

Huh?  I said maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect as some people think.
To me that sounds like expressing a possibility rather than a fact.

My posts probably just seem like facts because I'm usually on the right side of reality.   
 

 

[SirChiko]

blockstream train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

[Westin Landon Cox]

One last time:

Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes

Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!

Then why do they fight so hard against them?

The reasons the core devs associated with Blockstream have opposed proposals to raise the block size are most likely the reasons they've given -- the same reasons some of them gave even predating the formation of Blockstream. I'm assuming everyone has been reading both sides of this debate and knows what those reasons are, right?

I don't agree at all that Blockstream or the associated core devs are a "cancer" for Bitcoin. But if that's how the XT supporters really feel, maybe it's time for a divorce. I'd rather not be in a community with people who always think "evil conspiracy" when they hear the word "profit."

[Westin Landon Cox]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

[Peter R]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anti-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

[knight22]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

[knight22]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anit-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.

[tvbcof]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

[cypherdoc]

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

[Westin Landon Cox]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

Forking the code without changing the protocol rules isn't a big deal. XT wasn't much of an issue before it changed the protocol rules (yes, conditionally, but even a conditional change is a change). If XT ends up with a big block protocol, it will be very hard for someone to fork XT and change the protocol again -- just like it's hard for XT to do it against Core now. On the other hand, if Hearn decides to implement more protocol changes in XT (and it's completely up to him), I strongly suspect people will be inclined to just go along with it.

Why do I think people will go along with it? I've been following this for a while.

Before BIP101, people were saying "oh, there won't be a hard fork unless there's 90% of miner agreement." Yes, 90%. I read that over and over. Then BIP101 came out and it said 75%. And supporters just switched to saying 75% instead of 90%. I won't be shocked at all if 75% gets dropped lower.

Then when it became clear XT would be released with BIP101, supporters were saying that Mike Hearn would make Gavin Andresen the main committer (or benevolent dictator). There was never any signal this would happen, but people (cypherdoc?) said he would "have to." Well, Hearn clearly intends to keep that role himself. Has this driven XT supporters away? Not that I've seen. They just accept it.

Would they accept it if Hearn adds blacklisting redlisting? If Hearn dropped support for Tor altogether? If Hearn added a condition that a block is only valid if the rewards are paid out to mining addresses registered with an official government agency? Well, let's just say I haven't been impressed by XT supporters being willing to stand up to Mike Hearn. He'll get whatever he wants. And you'll like it.

[knight22]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

Forking the code without changing the protocol rules isn't a big deal. XT wasn't much of an issue before it changed the protocol rules (yes, conditionally, but even a conditional change is a change). If XT ends up with a big block protocol, it will be very hard for someone to fork XT and change the protocol again -- just like it's hard for XT to do it against Core now. On the other hand, if Hearn decides to implement more protocol changes in XT (and it's completely up to him), I strongly suspect people will be inclined to just go along with it.

Why do I think people will go along with it? I've been following this for a while.

Before BIP101, people were saying "oh, there won't be a hard fork unless there's 90% of miner agreement." Yes, 90%. I read that over and over. Then BIP101 came out and it said 75%. And supporters just switched to saying 75% instead of 90%. I won't be shocked at all if 75% gets dropped lower.

Then when it became clear XT would be released with BIP101, supporters were saying that Mike Hearn would make Gavin Andresen the main committer (or benevolent dictator). There was never any signal this would happen, but people (cypherdoc?) said he would "have to." Well, Hearn clearly intends to keep that role himself. Has this driven XT supporters away? Not that I've seen. They just accept it.

Would they accept it if Hearn adds blacklisting redlisting? If Hearn dropped support for Tor altogether? If Hearn added a condition that a block is only valid if the rewards are paid out to mining addresses registered with an official government agency? Well, let's just say I haven't been impressed by XT supporters being willing to stand up to Mike Hearn. He'll get whatever he wants. And you'll like it.

I get your point but I don't think Mike Hearn could easily make that kind of modification to the protocol and gain a lot of support behind. In that kind of scenario, if Mike introduce blocks that fits the agenda of a US government agency, it has good chances to be outright rejected by most international businesses and they will fork the code just like Mike and Gavin did. Also, what guarantees you have that Core won't do such a thing? There is none actually (I don't trust Mike as much as I don't trust Core team). The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

[cypherdoc]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.