Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Peter R]

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

That's not a bad idea. I don't like the control the two competing teams of devs are exerting over what path Bitcoin takes. The more choices of implementations there are, the more choice he miners have over the path Bitcoin takes. If the miners chose to go with a new set of devs it could end this mess we are in.

I agree!  It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up.  I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran. 

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations.  When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular.  The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

[1714258319]

1714258319

[1714258319]

1714258319

[hdbuck]

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

That's not a bad idea. I don't like the control the two competing teams of devs are exerting over what path Bitcoin takes. The more choices of implementations there are, the more choice he miners have over the path Bitcoin takes. If the miners chose to go with a new set of devs it could end this mess we are in.

I agree!  It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up.  I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran.  

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations.  When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular.  The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

[brg444]

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

I'm just going to quote myself since you didn't seem to bother replying in the other thread.

2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[BlackSpidy]

Your Bitcoin died

Bitcoin is perpetually resurrecting, so I see no problem.
http://bitcoinobituaries.com/

[hdbuck]

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

That's not a bad idea. I don't like the control the two competing teams of devs are exerting over what path Bitcoin takes. The more choices of implementations there are, the more choice he miners have over the path Bitcoin takes. If the miners chose to go with a new set of devs it could end this mess we are in.

I agree!  It's funny that I never really thought about it until this bigger-block controversy came up.  I just took it for granted that there was this one piece of fairly centralized software that all nodes ran.  

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations.  When a decision is needed (e.g., the block size limit), each group can implement a proposed solution and the node operators and user base will migrate to the one that is most popular.  The other implementations will then make compatible adjustments to their code so that they (a) retain their user base, and (b) follow the longest chain.

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

YOU BUNCH OF RETARDS THAT JUST CANT STAND MORE THAN 3 MINS WITHOUT MISSING THE LEASH

[becoin]

Now it seems obvious that we should have several groups of developers working on competing implementations. 

I agree. Let us have 100 groups of developers working on competing implementations? But you know, from time to time developers need to eat! Who will finance them? Bitcoin is not an amateur game anymore. Bitcoin needs dedicated professionals working full time on any serious implementation.

We should be grateful for what Blockstream is dong for Core devs. This was a job originally planned for the Bitcoin Foundation but they are nearly bankrupt following Mike's and Gavin's advice to lobby and educate government. What they've got at the end for all the efforts and money they've spent is... Bitlicense.

[Peter R]

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

This is false.  For example, the last sentence of the white paper reads:

   "Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."

suggesting that new rules can be added by choice, provided there is sufficient support for the new rule.  This, in fact, was how the 1MB anti-spam limit was added.  

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

False, Bitcoin has changed in many ways already: P2SH (modern multisig) for example.

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.  

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

I would say it's more a meritocracy, or an influence-weighted democracy.  

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS KEEN ON FOLLOWING SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

You're not you when you're hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

[ChartBuddy]

Coin
Explanation

[stereotype]

......
You're not you when your hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

An acid-tongued Joan Collins, if ever i saw one

[coinpr0n]

How about?...

Firefox, Chrome, Opera ... those are implementations. Then there are the standards (read: consensus) that is provided (like it or not) through the W3C.

Anyone can of course go ahead and make their own standards.

[Auxi]

with bitfury and f2pool backing bip100, XT is basically dead.

time to move on.

Good news for cypto community

[Fatman3001]

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

YOU BUNCH OF RETARDS THAT JUST CANT STAND MORE THAN 3 MINS WITHOUT MISSING THE LEASH

I understand that you worry about your investment, but this is not healthy. Either get out of Bitcoin or show some dignity.

Edit:

You're not you when you're hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

Yeah, and that.

[adamstgBit]

There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.

Exactly.  What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

what is LTC? if not a competing implementation.

what we really need is to somehow continue to improve bitcoin in the best possible way.

if we stand still a competing implementation WILL FOR SURE eventually becoming bigger and better then bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

bitcoin is bigger than the sum of its parts.
buy Buy BUY!!!!!!!!!!

[brg444]

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.  

You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.  

You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.

who gives a shit ?

bitcoin simply IS

we are at the bottom.

buy buy buy!!!!!!

[xyzzy099]

The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.  

You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.

It's my understanding that neither of these assertions is true in Bitcoin XT.  XT changes the consensus mechanism significantly:

Another less cited new feature of the XT client is a change to chain selection/consensus rules. XT clients don't follow the longest chain, they follow the chain with the highest XT checkpoint embedded into it.

[adamstgBit]

you guys dont friggin get it.

THERE IS NO CHOICE

THIS IS BITCOIN, YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR QUIT IT

THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE WHICH DEGENERATED BITCOIN TURD YOU LIKE

GOD DAMN YOU BLIND SHEEPS ALWAYS CRAVING TO FOLLOW SOME EGOMANIAC DEVELOPER/COMPANY OVER REDDIT

YOU BUNCH OF RETARDS THAT JUST CANT STAND MORE THAN 3 MINS WITHOUT MISSING THE LEASH

I understand that you worry about your investment, but this is not healthy. Either get out of Bitcoin or show some dignity.

Edit:

You're not you when you're hungry.  Maybe you need a Snickers?

Yeah, and that.

[salex8216]

Next week Bitcoin 180-190$

[Fakhoury]