Szabo just tweeted this

[johnyj]

Everybody likes Star Wars.

The whole generation grows up in fighting culture 

That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset"

Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs

If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide

XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain

[1714046294]

1714046294

[1714046294]

1714046294

[1714046294]

1714046294

[1714046294]

1714046294

[1714046294]

1714046294

[luv2drnkbr]

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

This is basically it right here:

[XT Supporters] believe that Bitcoin should be able to handle all the transactions on planet earth, from everyone’s daily coffee purchase, to everyone’s house purchase, to how Google cars should be paid for their services.  On the other hand, you have those who believe Bitcoin’s core value is the fact that it is a hedge against fiat currencies, and by extension, governments (in the case they decide to infringe upon your liberties).  Bitcoin CANNOT be both. It’s just not possible.

The above is the real argument, everything else is FUD and just craziness.

Exactly.  That's the ONLY argument ever presented by anti-big blocks folk.  (These are the same folks who claim Bitcoin mining is getting more centralized, which reality also contradicts.)  They extrapolate that big blocks increases centralization because it makes it more prohibitive to mine.  And thus if Bitcoin scales to the point where it can handle all the world's transactions, it will be too centralized.

Unfortunately for them, there's no fucking evidence to support that.  Bitcoin can easily be both.  It's like these people just straight up ignore Moore's Law and the history of technological growth.  It's quite baffling.

The rest of the arguments they make are economic ones which look good on paper but are starkly and obviously contradicted by reality and data.  But the math seems to work on paper and they're so blindly sure they've accounted for all the variables (which reality tells us they haven't) that they just don't see what's right in front of them.

I'm honestly disappointed with how fucking stupid so many smart people can be.  It's like they forgot basic economics 101:  if nobody can use the currently, then nobody will use it; and if nobody uses it, merchants won't use it; and if users and merchants don't use it, miner's can't sell it, which means the tokens they mine aren't worth anything which means they stop mining, which breaks the whole system.  They're actually helping *destroy* Bitcoin in the name of saving it, and they're all too stupid to see it.  It's frustrating as fuck.

Not only CAN bitcoin be both a secure store of value and a transactions system for everybody, it MUST BE BOTH in order for it to be one or the other.

The only reason metals are a store of value is because we expect others to believe they are too.  Their physical scarcity partly implies that.  But with Bitcoin, when anybody can just go make an altcoin, that scarcity only comes from the network effect of USAGE, which incentivizes miners to protect the blockchain.

Bitcoin MUST be a transactional medium in order to be a store of value safe from government meddling.  It CANNOT be one without the other.

How the fuck is that not patently fucking obvious?

[Kazimir]

No signatures = fake

How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.

[AGD]

No signatures = fake

How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.

The Author himself seemed to care about making his statement look important by writing it in the name and email of Satoshi Nakamoto. If the content was such a good point, why he needs to do that? Wouldn't the content speak for itself?

[Dire]

Everybody likes Star Wars.

The whole generation grows up in fighting culture 

That's why we had XT in the first place: We have been heavily influenced by the war 70 years ago and we accept that war is a way to reach a solution. In fact, vote is another form of war, achieving the same result: Winner rules the loser. The Gavin designed that voting mechanism in his XT code, this indicated that he have this "war mindset"

Besides war, is there any other way that we can reach solution without fighting? I believe, if people are enough informative and be aware of the destructive nature of the war, they will avoid it at all costs

If there are two countries each having enough nuclear weapon to wipe out the earth several times, they will never start a war, simply because they understand that every action that trigger a war is just suicide

XT's voting is similar to such suicide, in the case of a fork without over 90% consensus, each side has enough coins to dump and wipe out the value of the other chain

I think there's a lot to be said for the inherent weakness in us binary humans and our thought processes and emotions. No accident our computer systems so far are binary which mirror our leanings and view of reality. Too much win/lose yes/no black/white. I think there will be a paradigm shift in consciousness when quantum computing comes into force.

Polarization has been the order of the day. I'm pretty sure we like the drama.

[slaveforanunnak1]

It's like Szabo doesn't have any clue on how XT is being implemented. Which I think is very weird.

I'm not sure if you actually read the whole thing.

The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.

I mean come on.

tl;dr Szabo is afraid of the free market having a choice. Well guess what, it happens now and will happen countless of time in the future.

Looks like the theory that Szabo is satoshi is no longer holding water then, Satoshi seemed much more for market having its choice.

Don't read tl;dr. Read the actual article. You will make a more informed decision

[Sentinelrv]

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.

By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.

This won't be the case forever. As many Peercoiners know, checkpoints are similar to training wheels. They are an added protection when the network is young. Once minting participation increases and the network strengthens, centralized checkpoints will be removed by Sunny King and Peercoin will be able to exist without them.

The Nu Network, which is one of our Peercoin forks has already removed centralized checkpoints due to its higher participation of minting by shareholders. The participation is higher because of the requirement of shareholders to place votes when minting, which are needed in order to successfully run the network and change the supply of NuBits. Nu has run without checkpointing for almost a year now with no problems and Peercoin will eventually reach this state. It's just a matter of time.

[coinableS]

No signatures = fake

How about focusing on the content, rather than the author? (Just like with Bitcoin itself)

Regardless if it was actually Satoshi or someone else who wrote this, I'd say (s)he makes a very good point.

I think too many people get stuck into the mentality that XT = bigger blocks and bigger blocks = institutional investor adoption and intitutational investor adoption = moon.  XT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO INCREASE THE BLOCKSIZE! It can be done with core, with consensus if it were needed, but it's not needed right now. Yes it would still require a fork, but why Gavin wants to rush to push through a hostile fork, I do not know.

[jubalix]

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.

By, by design, requring the blockchain to be periodically signed by a trusted authority... you have a weird notion of resistance to state attacks.

This as pointed out by others Is due to the cold minting development that is going on and again a product of the boundary conditions of peercoin, which include a relatively much longer wind up period then other coins because its pointed directly at backbone and large value itself.

As pointed out by others NuBits has removed this and its ok. With PeerCoin it is done to protect it until features such as cold minting are in place.

Bitcoin has of course similar features to cost to include so called spam, but the boundary conditions are not nearly so prohibitive on spam behavior as Peercoin nor as encourageing to transfer large amounts nor to allow people to join in without large set up costs so resists centralization.

Much like the boundary conditions in the Navier Stokes Equation can see quite different outcomes, so to do the boundary conditions in a Coin. This coupled with the POS, SK and others as Devs, the length of time PeerCoin has been going, its interesting now to see BTC essentailly having to face up to the fact its needs to be able to be a backbone currency first to be largely relevant.

The problem is most BTC'rs cannot see this.

All they can see is "Muh Amazon", Ebay etc etc, and the reality is the money nor value simply is not in retail, its a minor part of the economy and value transfer proposition.

So BTC is wedged between wanting TPS and needing Backbone and the discussion by those who understand such as yourself, interestingly identify that it is the Backbone component that grounds relevance, which is a class of argument that PeerCoin has be propounding since day 1 and by design.

I think the Checkpointing argument is orthogonal to what I am saying in this matter.

[Sentinelrv]

Just in case anyone is not clear on what Jubalix is saying here, Sunny King coined the term "backbone currency" in an interview on October 24th, 2013 where he laid out his vision for Peercoin and explained why he designed it the way he did. Here is the main quote...

https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2218.0

"Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin's future.

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM's inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that's only from architect's point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.

PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn't be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."

Therefore, Peercoin is designed first and foremost as a secure store of value which prioritizes decentralization over speed and transaction volume. This is the definition of a backbone currency. Further, Sunny said in the quote that large volume and high-speed microtransactions can be achieved by using off-chain networks, which could range anywhere from centralized solutions to semi-decentralized to trustless. This allows Peercoin to remain a highly decentralized network and store of value while the majority of transactions take place off-chain. Peercoin just turned 3 years old and its blockchain is only around 400 MB. This is a result of Sunny King's very specific design. The Peercoin community has been promoting these ideas for a long time now. It seems that certain people are only now starting to realize the importance of them.

[iCEBREAKER]

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

[knight22]

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

[iCEBREAKER]

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

My pants are fine, and XT is going nowhere fast.

XT has done nothing but expose hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov as incompetent charlatans who can't even successfully carry out a social engineering attack on a tiny FOSS project (despite the advantage of much-vaunted Chief Scientist/Main Dev credentials handed down from Satoshi Himself).

Now, please tell us more about how "Szabo is afraid of the free market."   

[knight22]

Szabo is afraid of the free market

^^^ Pure.  Comedy.  Gold. ^^^

When the XT fad is completely over (which is very soon), I'll miss you Gavinista assclowns and your surreal sense of absurdist humor.

No matter the outcome, Xt opened a pandora's box. It is just the beginning, get used to that.
You should also stop shitting your pants. Bitcoin will do just fine nonetheless.

My pants are fine, and XT is going nowhere fast.

XT has done nothing but expose hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov as incompetent charlatans who can't even successfully carry out a social engineering attack on a tiny FOSS project (despite the advantage of much-vaunted Chief Scientist/Main Dev credentials handed down from Satoshi Himself).

Now, please tell us more about how "Szabo is afraid of the free market."  

He's obviously afraid of free choice, just like you. Otherwise both of you won't be losing your time debating this. Not that you are really debating, it's much more like screaming and throwing poo everywhere.