Coinbase is overstepping the bounds we should give it regarding Bitcoin XT

[iCEBREAKER]

we're getting kind of fucked here if all of the large companies are going to start running code for Bitcoin XT and trying to move us all away from Bitcoin Core.

We're fine.  Bitcoin was built to withstand such attacks by endowing its defenders with overwhelming advantages.

Let Coinbase and Circle try to bite our ankles.  They will break their teeth.

[MbitSport]

A post was made on the Linux Foundation site using a Satoshi Nakamoto account.   His original message here.  The author is close to declaring bitcoin a "failed project".  There was no signature key to verify the authors identity.

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork. The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour. They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism. If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

http://www.debtcrash.report/entry/satoshi-nakamoto-comes-out-of-hiding-to-denounces-the-direction-of-bitcoin

I don t actually think at all that Satoshi himself wrote this but interesting none the less.

(oligopolies if its already been quoted a million & 1)

[TheMage]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

[iCEBREAKER]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

Haters hate because they're jealous.  EG, this Brit envious of his cousins that stood up for themselves and are no longer the property of a (the) Royal Family.



This lady owns CIYAM and his wife just as an American owns their Buick and their dog.

[TheMage]

Hashrate will follow where the money is. I am not worried about that.

You don't seem to understand - China is where the money is (am guessing you must be American as only Americans would make such stupid statements).

Whats with the Anti-American sentiment? I've seen this from a few people in this thread and honestly it's alarming that people are stooping down to this type of level.

Haters hate because they're jealous.  EG, this Brit envious of his cousins that stood up for themselves and are no longer the property of a (the) Royal Family.

https://i.imgur.com/Wk5GtQO.jpg

This lady owns CIYAM and his wife just as an American owns their Buick and their dog.

My statement goes both ways 

[Carlton Banks]

There is only one thing that it seems that all Bitcoin users are forced to: use the Bitcoin Core client

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

[HostFat]

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

[Miracal]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

P.S:  The name itself looks terrible BitcoinXT , what a joke.

[HostFat]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

[Miracal]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

You are right no one is forcing us to install XT node, whatever they do let them not change the name of Bitcoin. Forum is under constant DDOS attack, Theymos should do something about it like installing a cloudfare.

[HostFat]

The name of the client was Bitcoin, than Bitcoin-Qt, and now Bitcoin Core.
Even if the client will have name Bitcoin XXX, the name doesn't matter.

[cjmoles]

I have a doubt, how does XT become a threat to Bitcoin, i would like to know?

Are they going to replace Bitcoin with XT and soon there will be no longer Bitcoin but BitcoinXT if that is the case it is ridiculous. We want Bitcoin the original predecessor to stay.

Yes, XT agents will come to your home and will force you to install an XT node 

Hah!  Let them come!  I have second amendment rights under the US Constitution and I have three trained Rottweilers.  I'm not letting Coinbase or anybody else play with my nodes without my consent!  Period!  Bring it!

Seriously though....this whole argument is becoming very worrisome.  The entire debate makes me wonder if the arguments will have consequences that are more detrimental to the project than any negative effects associated with the proposed changes.

[Lauda]

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

BIP100 in addition to dynamically changing blocks. There's no need to give miners any power and thus the main arguments of the XT propaganda group fall down the drain. Well god knows what Hearn promised Coinbase. It is problematic because of many thing, one being this: Mike Hearn will be the benevolent dictator of XT. In other words, he will implement whatever bad companies need/want regardless of what the users think. So much freedom of choice.  

Forum is under constant DDOS attack, Theymos should do something about it like installing a cloudfare.

No, it is not; and cloudfare is bad. This is off-topic though.

[Stringer Bell]

I've withdrawn all remaining holdings at Coinbase, and won't be using their services again.

[Stringer Bell]

Users "knight22" and "meono" , your shilling is obvious and pathetic. Anybody who thinks for themselves can see the truth.

It's sad you can't think of any other way to generate income for yourself but supporting those who are attempting to destroy something positive in this world. Do you not posses any other skills? Is this all you can offer this world? You can do better. What do you tell your family? Surely not that you spread lies for the highest bidder. What else do you spread for the highest bidder.

May you examine your conscience and way of life and think about what you're doing.

[doublemore]

Do coinbase really have that much power? wouldn't an exchange like bitfinex or all the china ones combined have more power?

[jubalix]

I don't completely grok the whole argument blocksize arguments, however XT seem to be a bridge to far due to the steepness of the exponent. We likely need larger blocks, but not in the XT way. Its too much too soon. I *think* BP100 seemed reasonable if that quote below is true forget that. I have not run the maths on it though nor have the time to right now.

To my mind a slower increase or the ability to increase based on demand seems reasonable. However the latter may be spamable, the former what is the right rate is the killer question.

I *think* satoshi envisaged larger block in the first instance (was it 33mb?).

[DiamondCardz]

Which part of "consensus-driven ledger" do you not understand?

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

Oh come on. If you have that much of a problem with us who dislike what is happening with Coinbase and BIP101 and want to pump it so much then go off to a different forum because currently there is not consensus for BIP101. Face it. Coinbase is having too much of an influence.

This thread is not supposed to be a debate of BIP100 vs BIP101 vs BIP102 vs BIP103 vs BIP103++, or Core vs XT vs other alternatives. This thread is about protecting the decentralised nature of decision-making in Bitcoin as much as possible.

Edit: Something worth reading: http://swag.pw/2015/11/08/bitcoin-decentralisation-bip101-coinbase-and-hypocrisy/

[HostFat]

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

BIP103 is to low.

Wuille proposes to increase the block size limit with 4.4% by January 2017 and automatically repeat this process every 97 days, more or less. This allows for a yearly block size growth rate of 17.7%. According to Wuille, this is consistent with the average growth rate of bandwidth over the past years. The increases of the block size limit will then continue up until July 2063. At that rate, the maximum block size will reach 2MB by 2021, 8 MB by 2030, and eventually end up at slightly less than 2GB in 2063.

BIP100

The maximum block size could double every 2.7 months, leading to growth at rates of 16x + every year.
The only ceiling on this would be the message size limit of 32MB. This is far faster than allowed by BIP101 and has the potential to truly put running a full client out of reach of all but professionals.

https://www.bridge21inc.com/blog/seven-reasons-a-vote-for-bip100-may-be-complicated/

Moreover, it add impracticability.
None will start business on a network that can have a size a day and a different size two months after and another one the next months (up and down)

It's pure logic, nothing hidden.

[jonald_fyookball]

Never had a problem with coinbase. 

The fact they support bigger blocks is good!