Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion

[iCEBREAKER]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately. 

Sure, go ahead and "challenge gatekeepers" with your TOR blacklists and awesome ~0% of network mining power.   

To the proposal of "XT?" the community overwhelmingly responded "NACK" (cite: xtnodes.com).  So regardless of your fact-free preference-tailored extreme minority opinion, the debate is over, and was won on inherency take-outs + presumption (not to mention solvency and the a priori 'FUCK HEARN AND THE CORE DEV HE RODE IN ON' deontological imperative).

"Shackles of the BIP?"

Oh right, the 1MB cap is exactly like slavery days.  Got it.  That's not offensive at all.  And neither are your first world armchair claims of resistance against censorship.  You and your exorbitantly privileged critique of theymos' moderation wouldn't last a day in China, where real censorship exists.

Could you possibly be anymore self-righteous and self-regarding, while simultaneously self-pitying?   

For very good reasons, XT got #REKT, and all the pretentious undergraduate Marxist pomo jargon in the universe won't help it be anything but a colossal failure.

You're funny . . . and wholly non-responsive. 

That being said, I wrote all that to be sorta funny - thought I was making a slick inside joke to a fellow policy debater (a type of debate I was involved with for a long time a long time ago) by using certain words and making certain arguments that would have been responsive way back when I was in college. Backfired, I guess.   

Yah, I got all that.  Your post is a good send-up of the Gavinista's goalpost-moving and hand-waving so I responded in-kind.  IOW, I was exquisitely responsive.   

Let's write a paper for the new Ledger journal about the Grand Schism from the perspective of critical theory.

Working title, "Satoshi and the Spectacle of the Scaffold."   

[Lucko]

XT got censored our of existence on forums like that but far from dead on free ones. Also nodes are under DDOS attacked all the time but we are getting better DDOS protection. Even Slush was DDOS until they stopped producing BIP101 so if you think it is dead or dead in a water you are just on wrong forums. It will be back when it is time for that. There is no rush. There is time. But when time will came it will be much batter because of all innovation we are forced to make then QT.

And that is pretty much all I' ready to write(or it might even be the last think I will be able to write) on this centrally controlled forum. Have fun with you masters playing there game...

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

[LiteCoinGuy]

10,3 % of all nodes is not very "dead" isnt it  ?

[uxgpf]

This:

<theymos> You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /r/Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)

<theymos> Not in Bitcoin itself, but I do have power over certain centralized websites, which I've decided to use for the benefit of Bitcoin as a whole (as best I can).

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

I have completely opposite view of what is beneficial to Bitcoin (Hint: open discussion and inclusiveness). After reading above I think it's better for me to move elsewhere, where it's possible to discuss openly without a big brother actively warping discussion to his own ends. (Which theymos proudly admits here)

Have fun in your little North Korea.

[kalooki]

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

And barring a stock market collapse I don't think we're going to see blocks full on average then. 

"Full blocks on average" is impossible unless every block is full.

[Mr Felt]

Now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is pretty much dead in the water I wanted to get opinions from the community on why exactly it died.

The main reasons I think it died was

1. The roaring egos of the devs
2. The increased ability to control the coin through centralization

XT failed because in a policy debate presumption is negative and the burden of proof belongs to the affirmative.

There was no problem for XT to solve, only a false sense of urgency and an attempted governance coup's social engineering attack.

"Because Zomg Full Blocks" and "Because BlockstreamTheymos 2 Minutes Hate" were nowhere near good enough reasons for the socioeconomic majority to give a fuck about the Gavinistas' stupid XT Manifesto, much less bother running the software.

TL:DR -  See parts in bold

I don't think the debate is over and it won't be won on inherency take-outs and presumption, not when there has been little substantive response to the analysis provided by G and M (and Peter__R, more recently). More importantly, there is a related and systemic disadvantage to the status quo ("squo") that makes XT advocacy advantageous over the status quo and the other alternatives (and notwithstanding the outcome on blocksize): the exercising of disciplinary  and biopower by certain entities and individuals to prevent the free flow of information and discourse in important public market places and spaces. Constant and relentless criticism of such exclusionary tactics, and creating inclusive discursive space, is apriori to determining a specific blocksize bip.

Consider this: recently, we have seen folks trying to participate in knowledge production about Bitcoin and the Blockchain only to have their access to the sites of said production attacked, suspended and blocked.  We have seen the rhetorical artifacts (online postings) representing important knowledge, ideas and histories eradicated simply for existing and/or being different than the status quo (kinda reminds me of what's happening Palmyra). We have seen propaganda techniques embraced whereby XT is labeled as an altcoin, its proponents mocked and compared to drunken fools. We have seen cyber attacks against XT infrastructure to physically shut-down pro-XT miners. Such an environment is repressive, violent, paranoid, anti-free market and can't possibly produce long-term solutions to the types of problems Bitcoin is ultimately trying to solve. The tactics used to censor discourse about XT exemplify dangerous disciplinary power (control of systems of knowledge) and biopower (attempts to control and manage the bitcoin population via technologies of power like forum bans (and fear of), infrastructure attacks (and fear of)) (nevermind the fact that the squo can't solve the fidelity advantage a block size increase brings in the short-term (Garzik '15), quicker action being uniquely important here given perceived competition in the space).  At best, the squo's is a world of exclusionary policing of knowledge for the purpose of preserving power relations.  At worst, its utterly corrupt and manipulating like the current global financial order.  This point has been conceded via silence and is evidenced, in part, by the recent IRC transcripts showing a calculated attempt at censorship to maintain a certain order.

All of the above reminds me of a book I read a long time ago by William Spanos called the End of Education - short synopsis here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+End+of+Education%3A+Toward+Posthumanism.-a015267978 (compare Spanos' analysis about how defining and influencing the composition of the "Core" curriculum at influential universities during the 1960s and 1970s was an act of politics with the blocksize debate climate and tactics used to influence knowledge production therein).

Consequently, XT is important because its historical record and continued existence, in any capacity, is [performative] resistance to the repression and discursive violence of the status quo. XT confronts, and thereby exposes, a dangerous form of disciplinary power and biopower. Such confrontation is and has been valuable notwithstanding whatever action is ultimately taken RE: blocksize.  Confrontation is likely not over, it is likely just beginning (contentious ideas are inevitable in any group-like situation where collaborative decision-making is involve, XT will be a blueprint for others).  Given the stakes involved, the framework for this debate was not, is not and cannot be one of technological polices related to blocksize (and certainly not when some arguments are too taboo or contentious to be had).  Instead, the framework must be one that best preserves a free market and keeps bitcoin open source.  Every act of criticism or XT advocacy helps open space and represents what Bitcoin is supposed to be about, challenging gatekeepers. Discussing XT, running and XT node, etc. - even if one is agnostic about blocksize from a tech perspective - is an act of resistance. To be clear, XT is the only alternative in the debate that can shed the shackles of the BIP and consensus decision making, which are in efficient and possibly saddled with too much bias to operate adequately.  

Sure, go ahead and "challenge gatekeepers" with your TOR blacklists and awesome ~0% of network mining power.  

To the proposal of "XT?" the community overwhelmingly responded "NACK" (cite: xtnodes.com).  So regardless of your fact-free preference-tailored extreme minority opinion, the debate is over, and was won on inherency take-outs + presumption (not to mention solvency and the a priori 'FUCK HEARN AND THE CORE DEV HE RODE IN ON' deontological imperative).

"Shackles of the BIP?"

Oh right, the 1MB cap is exactly like slavery days.  Got it.  That's not offensive at all.  And neither are your first world armchair claims of resistance against censorship.  You and your exorbitantly privileged critique of theymos' moderation wouldn't last a day in China, where real censorship exists.

Could you possibly be anymore self-righteous and self-regarding, while simultaneously self-pitying?  

For very good reasons, XT got #REKT, and all the pretentious undergraduate Marxist pomo jargon in the universe won't help it be anything but a colossal failure.

You're funny . . . and wholly non-responsive.  

That being said, I wrote all that to be sorta funny - thought I was making a slick inside joke to a fellow policy debater (a type of debate I was involved with for a long time a long time ago) by using certain words and making certain arguments that would have been responsive way back when I was in college. Backfired, I guess.  

Yah, I got all that.  Your post is a good send-up of the Gavinista's goalpost-moving and hand-waving so I responded in-kind.  IOW, I was exquisitely responsive.  

Let's write a paper for the new Ledger journal about the Grand Schism from the perspective of critical theory.

Working title, "Satoshi and the Spectacle of the Scaffold."  

Ledger might be a good vehicle for debates a la Federalist Papers.  Reminds me of a quote from John Adams:

"Tis impossible to judge with much Prcision of the true Motives and Qualities of human Actions, or of the Propriety of Rules contrived to govern them, without considering with like Attention, all the Passions, Appetites, Affections in Nature from which they flow. An intimate Knowledge therefore of the intellectual and moral World is the sole foundation on which a stable structure of Knowledge can be erected."  – Ltr to J. Sewall, 1759

btw, what does IOW mean (serious question, I don't know a lot of the message board abbreviations and whatnot)?

[knight22]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106  silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said?

Not being proactive and not allowing growth predictability is the greatest way to kill investment in the space.

sell sell sell

[VirosaGITS]

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was  - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability  - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head  -  sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically  quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106  silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said?

Not being proactive and not allowing growth predictability is the greatest way to kill investment in the space.

sell sell sell

That's a sad reality then, because only when people start "losing money" that they will band together and be motivated to make a change to resume "making money". Proactive is not something that can be applied to any form of "big" society or group.

I think realizing the Potential of BTC require a different mindset than the standard "trader option" mind, because lets face it, the only common ground between stock and BTC is the perspective both come from a human's mind. The inner working of BTC is not comparable.

[iCEBREAKER]

The dead-ender Gavinistas over at https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3le3dg/discussion_on_forum_stating_that_xt_is_a_failure/ are pouting because this thread exists.   

They've now achieved a complete break from consensus reality, and believe XT  "won already."   

Nevermind the fact XT may have achieved the opposite of its goal, by cementing 1MB into place for all time.

This XT move created a lot of division. So if XT was secretly designed to cause so much division that the block size could never be changed (i.e. nothing resembling consensus could ever be formed), then XT might be a success.

#R3KT

[hmmkay]

All this debate has shown, is the censorship of information.
One person having way too much to say on reddit and here. Decentralization much?
The same person who, after many years and funds, still hasn't managed to make a new forum.

Not very re-assuring, and embarrassing.

[maokoto]

I thought for a while it was officially dead. But I see that it just did not have the response they expected. There has been a lot of debate however, and I think that is good.

[wxa7115]

That's a sad reality then, because only when people start "losing money" that they will band together and be motivated to make a change to resume "making money". Proactive is not something that can be applied to any form of "big" society or group.

I think realizing the Potential of BTC require a different mindset than the standard "trader option" mind, because lets face it, the only common ground between stock and BTC is the perspective both come from a human's mind. The inner working of BTC is not comparable.

True, but that’s the way humans work, if I tell someone that a tsunami is coming with 100% certainty , let’s say in 20 years, do you think that person will do something about it? Most likely no, but if in the news there’s a headline that for some reason there’s going to be a shortage of toilet paper by tomorrow, what do you think it will happen? There’ll very long lines in order to get toilet paper.

[Q7]

At least it proves one thing that it needs to consensus of the majority to implement a change. But thinking of it, could it be true because if a miner by a single person who controls most of the hash power, then that is only one vote compared to the majority of people who holds less.

[VirosaGITS]

At least it proves one thing that it needs to consensus of the majority to implement a change. But thinking of it, could it be true because if a miner by a single person who controls most of the hash power, then that is only one vote compared to the majority of people who holds less.

That's prohibited by the electricity/hardware cost, but sure if some super genius made a sure quantum, sub-space computer in his basement that would run SHA256d he would not only be able to overtake the majority but just the fact that existing would destroy bitcoin in itself.

If that person was wise as well as genius, then he would just keep his super machine at progressively more hashrate until it reach about 20%~ of the network. Then hopefully would not dump everything

[Meuh6879]

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

[VirosaGITS]

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

That is just not true. The one person that control the hash is the pool operator. For instance the owner of Bitmain own Antpool. 18%
The owner of F2Pool, another 18%. Slush 8%, etc.

The "one person" thing is subjective, its whoever person that ultimately has ownership or control over the hashrate.

If for instance Antpool merged with F2P, they would have plenty of hash power to successfully attack or deny blocks. So i would strongly disagree with "Hash rate is properly decentralized".

[hund]

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

[adamstgBit]

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

That is just not true. The one person that control the hash is the pool operator. For instance the owner of Bitmain own Antpool. 18%
The owner of F2Pool, another 18%. Slush 8%, etc.

The "one person" thing is subjective, its whoever person that ultimately has ownership or control over the hashrate.

If for instance Antpool merged with F2P, they would have plenty of hash power to successfully attack or deny blocks. So i would strongly disagree with "Hash rate is properly decentralized".

lol come on what do you think would happen to all the users of Antpool and F2P?
they'd loss all the miners and likely never come back. Antpool and F2P would lose their business and reputation in order to 51% attack the network for a grand total of 5 mins?

[siameze]

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

Rather succint, I'd say. The XT redditard army being the loudest voices and their inability to act like adults clearly altered some people's perceptions of it.

[knight22]

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

Rather succint, I'd say. The XT redditard army being the loudest voices and their inability to act like adults clearly altered some people's perceptions of it.

Adults don't use censorship