Gavineries

[siameze]

And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two.

You probably forgot about Bitcoin Unlimited. This is attempt number three.

Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin.

(this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent)

[Zarathustra]

Ka Boooom !!

And now Jeff Garzik jumps on the Bitcoin Classic Train:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/687062040133955584

[Lauda]

Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin.

(this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent)

XT is definitely dead and has failed. Even its creator has abandoned. Unlimited it not even worth discussing and can be harmed by bad actors. Core's approach should be okay for 2016. SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell). Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase.
Update:

Have you seen the segwit changeset? And what about the changes to wallets, exchanges, block explorers, etc. etc?

I'm talking about changes to the Core project on Github as opposed to changes on Github for XT (changes to services are irrelevant in this comparison).

[Zarathustra]

Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin.

(this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent)

Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase.

Hope is a strategy for fools.

[hdbuck]

Neither XT nor Unlimited have failed. They are here if they are needed. If the growth in transactions slows down and Core's approach is early successfull, they will not be needed. But as soon as the highway is full, mempool growths continuosly and core's approaches fail you'll be thankfull for every alternative client that saves bitcoin.

(this said, classic may have chosen the wrong timing to come out. Otherwise they can now built a community and develop an own roadmap to be prepared when / if the need for some alternative to core will be urgent)

Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase.

Hope is a strategy for fools.

Indeed.

[QuestionAuthority]

Meh, I was against Andresen before it was cool. Actually, I started many years ago and it was met by a lynch mob of Gavin homosexual fanboys. I still have the rope burns on my neck. You may as well leave Napoleon Bitaparte alone now. He's outed himself time and time again. I don't think anyone is missing who he really is at this point.

There was a time where I used to "trust" (might not be the right word) his opinions. Even back when he suggested 20 MB blocks; this was probably because I misunderstood everything related to the block size debate just as many do today. Over time one could easily see that he can't be trusted as he used to. 20 MB would have definitely harmed the system that we are using right now.

That's not even part of it for me. I've been closely watching the little dictator react since the BIP 16/17 debates and he's been on the edge of reality for years. I've accused him, in posts here multiple times, of being a self serving power hungry manipulator. I haven't seen anything lately that changes my opinion.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell).

What in the name of F*ck are you talking about?  Have you seen the segwit changeset? And what about the changes to wallets, exchanges, block explorers, etc. etc?

btw - where is maxwell?  what have you done with him?  Any word on the NSAJuniper back doors?

[keepdoing]

Core's approach should be okay for 2016. SegWit actually needs less code than XT needed for the increase (according to Maxwell). Let's just hope that it gets tested and implemented quickly. After SegWit there are certainly interesting things on the roadmap for Core; hopefully later there will be a standard block size increase.

Oh Look!  How cute!  The little kitty is in denial

LOL - close your eyes and tap your heels three times and say, "nothing has changed!"

.... and then open your eyes, and ......

KaaBOOOM!
www.BitcoinClassic.com In Your Burger Eating Face Lil Kitty!

[ATguy]

And the last to date: yet another Bitcoin fork branded as "Bitcoin Classic"..

Note one of his new "partner in crime":





Spice it up with Cryptsy's unsurprising EXIT SCAM:

http://www.imediaconnection.com/profiles/iMedia_PC_Bio.aspx?ID=66373



http://insidebitcoins.com/chicago/2015/speakers

There is no reason to list Marshall Long as the 1st minner on the list, this I agree. But recent censoring in Bitcoin showed how this kind of censorship is bad. After Marshall Long become convicted, then it makes sence to de-list him from miner supporter of Bitcoin Classic. Before this happen, he should be considered inocent until proven guilty, unless your just tyran with strong and quick opinion to everyone.

[hdbuck]

oops

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

[notbatman]

oops

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

[brg444]

I like this thread. Lemme add to it by way of the Mircea vault

http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/

Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically.

It's quite plain to anyone with a clue that 2FA/GA/whatever is roughly speaking the equivalent of the Windows antivirus, or more classically of the "spray some holy water on it". Originally it was devised to patch a fundamentally broken security systemii and it works about as well as you'd expect a patch to a fundamentally broken security system to work. It doesn't do anything for security, but it does a lot for security theater, and so it's incredibly popular among the fetishistic mass, which feels a lot safer if it has something to physically clutch. Win-win, right ?

Under the guise of this nonsense, which offers no value, no utility and no benefit, Gavin artfully inserts the proposal of utterly breaking Bitcoin. Having a server allow your transactions is simply taking Bitcoin and turning it back into PayPal. Does your government want a way to block Bitcoin transactions, Gavin ?

[Cconvert2G36]

The sheer intellectual candlepower being demonstrated in this thread is nearly blinding.

To continue in the vein of the previous poster, lemme add to it by way of the Mircea vault

[Lauda]

oops

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

I'll also just leave this jewel here:

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

[johnyj]

I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up

[Cconvert2G36]

I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up

A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper.

[iCEBREAKER]

I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up

A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper.

You don't know how Bitcoin variance works.

Much less than an actual 75% of mining power may will inevitably get lucky and prematurely trigger a fork.

But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks.

Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars:

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success!   

Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class.  You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind.   

[Cconvert2G36]

I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up

A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper.

You don't know how Bitcoin variance works.

Much less than an actual 75% of mining power may will inevitably get lucky and prematurely trigger a fork.

But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks.

Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars:

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success!   

Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class.  You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind.   

So... 750/1000 may be us just getting lucky...

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I think people should have a clear understanding that a fork without major consensus will double the money supply thus break the fundamental promise of limited total money supply of bitcoin, it is just self destruction. Everyone should make sure to kill it immediately when it shows up

A fork that requires 75% of the last 1000 blocks will be over pretty quickly. The <25% jump ship to the main fork or are stuck mining worthless coins at a huge difficulty for a long time before adjustment. If they survive that... they are at a constant risk of being attacked by the greater power of the 75% hashers. This is how Bitcoin works... it's there in the whitepaper.

You don't know how Bitcoin variance works.

Much less than an actual 75% of mining power may will inevitably get lucky and prematurely trigger a fork.

But as that variance is smoothed out over time by reversion to normal distribution, the >25% remaining miners will inevitably orphan the attacking Gavinista blockchain by solving several consecutive 1MB blocks.

Here is your next remedial lesson on Bitcoin Civil Wars:

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success!   

Please hurry and catch up to the rest of the class.  You are (at minimum) 4.5 months behind.   

If classic reaches 51 percent, the rest will follow soon. The process is absolutely transparent.

[iCEBREAKER]

If classic reaches 51 percent, the rest will follow soon. The process is absolutely transparent.

That is incorrect.

Due to the presence of spoofed Not_Classic and Pseudo_Classic nodes, the process is absolutely opaque.

Uncertainty about the authenticity/provenance/intent of Gavinblocks creates a moment of maximized risk, at the exact time (potential) defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority most need reassurance they will not lose coins when the attacking chain is orphaned.

Are you going to read OrganOfCorti's definitive study on the subject, or am I going to have to re-explain this every 6 months when the latest trendy Gavinista vanity fork fad comes along?

It's like Groundhog Day, but with Gavin's Reddit Army replacing Chris Elliot  Which is fine, because you goofy lolcows are almost as hilariously daft.