Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

SC's are clearly altcoins.  

brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.

[Erdogan]

I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,

But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)

During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.

Way out of the mess: Core adds a largeblock patch, different from gavins but who cares. Othere XT patches are delayed to make them look important.

If not, they go the way of the Xfree86 developers - into the fog.

Next fight is over the name. I suggest renaming XT to core by april depending on 75% supermajority as expressed by just doing it.

It would have to follow a BIP. But isnt this scenario what MH and GA wanted all along?  The failure to get this resulted in XT.

Exactly. It is the way out, no fork, everybody is happy (some just a tad butthurt).

i'm not sure about that.  no one, esp me, wants to live under a Blockstream totalitarian regime that only will act when they have a gun pointed at their heads.  look at some of the kludges they've slipped into the code w/o anyone knowing according to Hearn's forking article.

Yes, I will continue with XT also, but if they open up for longer blocks, they might keep their team. Some would not bother to switch, and the "officialness" rings with some.

[tvbcof]

SC's are clearly altcoins.

Different class.  'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin.  Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does.  'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors.  'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core.

Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system.  Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible.  Disaster!

It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees.  It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor.  This is the way most internet services work these days.

A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this.  Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.
 

brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.

The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)

[rocks]

You know it is bad when the top post on /r/bitcoin is a Tyrion Lannister quote on free speech.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h6exq/request_let_users_decide_what_content_they_want/

It's even worse when the highest upvoted post (that even made it to /r/all) is an active call to remove /r/theymos with over 90% in favor.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h5f90/these_mods_need_to_be_changed_upvote_if_you_agree/

[rocks]

still ramping:

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

[sickpig]

The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.

I have joined btc way too late to have a clear picture of MP's "arsenal" consistency, but it's not the first time that I heard a respectable member of the community to refer to his disruptive potential in a serious manner. To make a long story short, is he really so powerful?

[kenbytes]

i only watch the price of bitcoin !! )

[sickpig]

still ramping:

https://i.imgur.com/VWNQE8m.png

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

[rocks]

still ramping:

https://i.imgur.com/VWNQE8m.png

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

Up until now they have been communicating this as BIP100. We need to track BIP101 adoption.

[cypherdoc]

The only possible attack here is that over the next several months MP will explicitly reject blocks from nodes advertising they are 70010 protocol. For this to have any material effect though, he would need >50% of the current network hashing power to also explicitly reject those blocks, so that people running XT are disincentivised to continue doing so.

I have joined btc way too late to have a clear picture of MP's "arsenal" consistency, but it's not the first time that I heard a respectable member of the community to refer to his disruptive potential in a serious manner. To make a long story short, is he really so powerful?

absolutely not. 

i've never heard of him influencing anything except for the bunch of Cripplecoiner's around here who seem to idolize him.  or maybe he's a father figure.

there'e probably plenty of Bitcoiner's who have more coin than him, if that is even a measure at all of power, which i doubt.

[tvbcof]

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

I can pretty much guarantee that large miners will support whatever-the-fuck those who they rely on will tell them to.  If not, 'poof'.  The notable services such operators rely on are networking provided by global providers (if they are big enough to arrange their own peering, and if not, their more consumer grade ISP) and governments within who's jurisdiction they operate.

Both the corporate network providers and government regulatory and judicial systems are also quite linked to one another, and increasingly with global trade agreements it really does not matter what sovereign governmental structures want anyway and in so does away with pesky democracy and outdated constructs like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.

edit: fix quotes...again.

[klee]

When cypherdocs capitulate, there will be future again for Bitcoin.

Sorry pal, you have to get rekt.

[smoothie]

still ramping:

Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't.

What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views.

Logical fallacy: if 100% of nodes are running xt then the miners are also running xt.

[smoothie]

Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks  larger than 1MB

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656

I can pretty much guarantee that large miners will support whatever-the-fuck those who they rely on will tell them to.  If not, 'poof'.  The notable services such operators rely on are networking provided by global providers (if they are big enough to arrange their own peering, and if not, their more consumer grade ISP) and governments within who's jurisdiction they operate.

Both the corporate network providers and government regulatory and judicial systems are also quite linked to one another, and increasingly with global trade agreements it really does not matter what sovereign governmental structures want anyway and in so does away with pesky democracy and outdated constructs like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc.

edit: fix quotes...again.

Proof of your claim?

Everyone makes their own choices.

[cypherdoc]

SC's are clearly altcoins.

Different class.  'Sidecoins' are most accurately described as a proxy for Bitcoin.  Use of sidecoins impacts the macro-economics of Bitcoin in pretty much exactly the way that use of Bitcoin itself does.  'Alts' are completely stand-alone and as such are competitors.  'sidechains' are more like colored-coins and in some ways it might be argued that this is what they are at their core.

i see sidecoins as inflationary.  the author can choose any issuance or inflation schedule he pleases to be backed by scBTC.  when viewed this way, the entire fiat money system could be viewed as a sidechain with USD as the sidecoin with gold backing at least before 1971.

Sidechains are a disaster for people hoping to do analytics on the blockchain down to an individual level because they need to tap into every sidecoin's system.  Since some sidechains will be specifically designed to make that a challenge the task becomes impossible.  Disaster!

It cannot really be argued that sidechains are going to steal Bitcoin's thunder by robbing it of transaction fees since everyone on the bloatist side is dead set against meaningful fees.  It's pretty clear to me as someone who has been in the business that to the extent that revenue is anticipated by Bitcoin infrastructure operators, it is to come from harvest of intelligence data and either processing it themselves or selling it to a processor.  This is the way most internet services work these days.

total misunderstanding of this argument.  you're talking about individual tx fees which can stay cheap w/o a block limit.  what will grow is the total aggregate amount of tx fees to pay miners as the reward dissipates and as the userbase grows unconstrained.  these meaningful fees will allow Bitcoin to keep secure by growing mining security.

A nicety for some is that the highest value for intelligence comes from 'full capture' so there is an economic incentive to achieve this.  Near-monopolization of operating infrastructure would also would make coin white/black-listing relatively workable just as Mr. Hearn has predicted for years.
 

as the userbase spreads out, so will full node and mining distribution.  this will be good as we need to move away from the areas of highest concentration today, that being N. America and Europe.

brg444 and Adam spent months teaching us how any type of coin ala Truthcoin can hitch themselves to a SC in addition to the migrated scBTC.  in fact, have you EVER heard Blockstream place any type of restriction on what kind of speculative asset can be supported on a SC?  answer: no.  they are a form of dilution, hence inflation, to Bitcoin and will turn Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform.

The economics of 'speculation' in a full-peg environment are no different than people simply using native Bitcoin heavily.  People are perfectly free to speculate in native Bitcoin, and to date that is what has happened in the economy mostly I think.

You bloatcoiners may have plans to implement control measures in XT which preclude speculation as far as I know.  With the infrastructure needed for tainting, control of speculation would, in fact, be tenable.

edit: slight (between ngix gateway errors.)

no, SC's encourage speculative money to chase sidecoins, scBTC, and/or any other speculative asset they choose to sell on the SC like Truthcoins.  given that these SC's are bound to be less secure, they will have much greater failure rates than if they just bought BTC itself or invested in businesses that deal in BTC directly.  what we want instead is for speculators to invest in BTC itself to drive the market price much higher.  which is actually needed to allow large $million tx's to occur on MC w/o causing volatility.  that, or invest in merchants/businesses that can service the userbase growth that a no block limit will encourage.

[pa]

Nick Szabo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

"A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource: https://t.co/RRapcLSm6j"

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Nick Szabo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

"A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource: https://t.co/RRapcLSm6j"

This follows from the idea that, strictly speaking, there is no need for a hard block limit at all. There is enough information in the network ( difficulty, recent block sizes, number tx's, fee level, etc.) o be able to calculate an 'on the fly' block limit  that responds to changing needs in a manner not dissimilar to block difficulty.

Rising costs of creating a block ( increased difficulty) can be matched with revenue (fees, subsidy) while allowing for growth to support a greater tx throughput.

But for now, we are having enough difficulty trying to get some people to accept that we need a bigger block at all, so first steps first.

[pa]

Nick Szabo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

"A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource: https://t.co/RRapcLSm6j"

Also: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633015499316551680

"A rapid block size increase is a huge security risk: a reckless act to be performing on a $4 billion system." -- Nick Szabo

[solex]

But I don't agree that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus.

I predict that miners won't (vote to) change unless there is network consensus.

one down UP:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3h6lk8/toomim_bros_supports_democracy_and_bitcoin_xt/

Got to correct you there cypher.

--------------------

This whole debate hinges on what is acceptable main-chain scaling. Core Dev (especially BS) are gloomy about Satoshi's original VISA-scale main-chain volume projections. To an extent they have a point because it is only subsequent dev work which has made Satoshi's original code 100x more robust and more efficient, and it would have failed under today's volumes without all that improvement.

So they are focussed on 2nd-level solutions, and maybe the chance for profit has shifted that focus too far. There is no good reason why main-chain scaling cannot keep up with improvements in technology, which is what Gavin has effectively put a ceiling on with BIP 101. I suspect that another BIP will get adopted by both Core and XT which is more like Jeff's BIP 100 and works within the constraint of BIP 101. Gavin has said that he likes the idea of a belt-and-braces block size limit, i.e. a high, but steadily increasing hard-limit, and a lower dynamic limit. That dynamic limit could reflect incentives to reduce UTXOs.

When Gavin raised BIP 101 he made the promise not to commit it to Core using his own access without consensus. IMHO this constitutes a pact. It means that Core cannot commit a different BIP (like Pieter's) which has minimal main-chain scaling i.e. just 1.17MB by Jan 1st 2018. So Core are duty bound to only commit a BIP that has Gavin's approval as well as Jeff's.

So, as Core's node count diminishes, and miners shift UP, I expect a sensible dynamic BIP proposal from Core which works within BIP 101 and both BIPs get committed to Core and XT. The risk for Core is that the longer they delay with a sensible BIP allowing main-chain scaling the more likely that BIP 101 will stand alone and that it will get 90+% of the ecosystem, nodes and miners.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Nick Szabo on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

"A much more reasonable block size proposal, following historical growth rates in a "limiting nutrient" resource: https://t.co/RRapcLSm6j"

Also: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633015499316551680

"A rapid block size increase is a huge security risk: a reckless act to be performing on a $4 billion system." -- Nick Szabo

Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about.

Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this?