Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) (Read 378991 times)

full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
I still wonder what is wrong with the people who 'respect' Hearn for his work and involvement. How could one respect someone who's development was mostly very bad & a person who has just backstabbed the whole community because he was unable to acquire Bitcoin and become its dictator? He should be put on a Bitcoin black list (list of shame) for all eternity (we need to make one & I just might feel tempted to do so). Let's just hope that the damage to the price doesn't extend further and is just temporary.

We only have to cross the fingers and wait, those type of people will never stop until the end of the days, anyway i think that the idea of the black list is too exagerate maybe is better that once every month we remember that people tried to harm bitcoin but failed... Anyway about the price drop i think that the damage will not be so big because maybe the price will only get to 375$ or remain higher then 400$ because i don't think he have the resources to make a big damage
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
I still wonder what is wrong with the people who 'respect' Hearn for his work and involvement.

Gavinistas are the 'dumb money' that bought BTC at the top, at $500+.

They are bitter and need to blame somebody else for BTC's failure to reach new highs.

They are grasping at straws and susceptible to people offering easy/dramatic answers, like Hearn's Gavinblocks.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Hahahahaha.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
huckster hearn shilling on the banks' dime by stabbing bitcoin in the back in his ragequit moment .... no surprises there really, the guy was surely a class A prick and just demonstrated it for all to see.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
I still wonder what is wrong with the people who 'respect' Hearn for his work and involvement. How could one respect someone who's development was mostly very bad & a person who has just backstabbed the whole community because he was unable to acquire Bitcoin and become its dictator? He should be put on a Bitcoin black list (list of shame) for all eternity (we need to make one & I just might feel tempted to do so). Let's just hope that the damage to the price doesn't extend further and is just temporary.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


That's Thermos and Blockstream's fault.

I know it's true because I read it on /r/R3CEV (formerly known as /r/BTC).   Tongue
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


Will keep the thread open for awhile so everyone can partake in dancing on the grave as we celebrate Mike's memory.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Seeing as Mike cared enough to have his obituaries penned up by the New York Time it's only right to include a posthumous mention in this very thread.

With no further ado here is the very best rendition of today's events with commentary from Qntra.

Quote
The focus of Popper's piece is on the Blocksize distraction Hearn was involved in. Little was made by Popper of Hearn's previous Bitcoin software development. Let's go over a shorter but more comprehensive history of Mike's "contributions":

BitcoinJ, a software library in Java created for and still featured in some Bitcoin SPV clients.
Contributions to "Bitcoin" v0.82 where two changes pushed by Hearn were introduced:
Blockchain handling databased changed to LevelDB, leading to the Fork of March 2013.
Bloom Filters, which lead to several means to remotely crash bitcoin nodes serving them, and presented a perennial annoyance to nodes not serving them until recently.

Clients descended from the v0.8 series will likely have to keep addressing bugs introduced by Hearn's changes for years.
Numerous network changes introducing new commands for nodes in order to better serve SPV clients while greatly increasing the resources necessary to keep a Bitcoin node online. When these proposed changes were soundly rejected he made the first BitcoinXT patch set.
He in concert with Gavin Andressen released an XT client for the Bitcoin network which under certain circumstances would fork off into an altcoin, opening the only chapter of Mike Hearn's Bitcoin involvement Popper cared to mention in anything resembling detail.

The entire corpus of Mike Hearn's body of work directed at Bitcoin aimed to transform Bitcoin from itself into something else readily centralized and controlled by the extant fiat order. Mike Hearn's work was dominated by measures which ever so slightly increase the ease3 of using SPV clients at substantial expense to the operators of the Bitcoin full nodes making the network possible. He even openly advocated a future for Bitcoin where nodes had to exist on Google's scale and in a number that could be counted with the fingers of one hand.

Mike Hearn was not the first and will definitely not be the last agent of sabotage directed towards Bitcoin projects. In Mike's place other agents continue the work he started, with their every new attempt against Bitcoin more desperate than their last.

For reference here is the market's reaction to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn's one two punch. Always good for squeezing freeloading weak hands.



Don't forget to buy the dip and have a thought for Mike! Another one bites the dust but don't expect honeybadger to care.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
This, gentlemen is the curtain call.

After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated)

It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases)

Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem.

The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet.

As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies.

In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature.

Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.

Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch.

To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin.

May your souls rest in peace.

Long live Bitcoin!
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
I thought this article was interesting in regards to the discussion we where having earlier.

http://webonanza.com/2015/10/02/did-satoshi-predict-pooled-mining-big-farms-and-asics/
You make a lot of references to Satoshi.
Like a religious nut job you speak of "Satoshi's vision".

Let me guess. He told you in a dream that he wanted XT and BU everything else you advocate?

Satoshi hasn't commented on the current blocksize debate so it's pointless to bring him into the debate.
The debate is in part about increasing the blocksize limit. Satoshi did comment extensively about the blocksize limit and he did predict the development of pools and asics, which makes it relevant to the discussion. Having an extensive vision for Bitcoin is important when considering these questions.
hero member
Activity: 687
Merit: 500
I thought this article was interesting in regards to the discussion we where having earlier.

http://webonanza.com/2015/10/02/did-satoshi-predict-pooled-mining-big-farms-and-asics/

You make a lot of references to Satoshi.
Like a religious nut job you speak of "Satoshi's vision".

Let me guess. He told you in a dream that he wanted XT and BU everything else you advocate?

Satoshi hasn't commented on the current blocksize debate so it's pointless to bring him into the debate.
legendary
Activity: 2212
Merit: 1038
More of a statist shill IMO.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this.
Whoah. Back up the bus.

The sad reality is the XT contains a lot more than what it says on the tin. XT was sold as 'Core with a larger maxblocksize'. The reality is that XT also contains (amongst other things) the foundation of a counter-fungibility blacklisting system.

I assume this may be what tvbcof is referring to as 'same problems of the fiat system', though I may be wrong. Though I'd like to know what tvbcof is lumping in with 'and its ilk'.

I'd have been running XT for some time now, had it not been for these rotten easter eggs. Perhaps that sulfurous odor is these rotten eggs buried in the bowels of XT, rather than what you perceive as 'absolute bullshit'.
I am sorry for my strong reaction, this has been a common misconception which I thought not a lot of people still prescribed to. I think that you might be mistaken about this, which I would not blame you for since a lot of people including some of the Bitcoin media did repeat this as if it was truth, however if I am wrong please correct me in what I am saying here.

All of the extra features within XT except for the blocksize are optional, since they are not consensus critical. Furthermore the "blacklisting" feature you are referring to is not a blacklisting feature at all but a DDOS prevention measure. I had explained this in more depth when it was first released, instead of looking for one of my old quotes or explaining this in more depth again I did actually stumble upon somebody else explaining it in LTB earlier today, I thought that cryptonaut explained it well.

Quote from: cryptonaut
The anti-DDOS code is not a TOR blacklist, and there is nothing being "disguised" (you know all this stuff is open source right?). The patch you are talking about simply *de-prioritizes* TOR connections *only when all connections are full and a new non-TOR connection is being attempted*. So basically, if the node has run out of connections (which is a typical sign of a DOS attack, which most commonly happens via TOR for obvious reasons), it will kick off TOR users one by one to make room for other connections. It does not add them to some sort of "blacklist" and refusing to connect to them ever again, as you are implying... go ahead and read the code for yourself. Also if you are just regularly using bitcoin over TOR, your going to be connected to several nodes anyways, so being temporarily kicked off one of those connections has absolutely no effect. This patch was added because XT nodes were actually being attacked, and this is an actual solution that helped mitigate it.
Before anyone calls me an XT shill, I am presently actively supporting BU. I did always say that I would most likely support a third alternative. Even though I might still get caught up defending XT, my interest is in defending the truth. This blacklisting accusation is not accurate regardless of what anyone might think of BIP101 or XT.

The great thing is that we do have a third alternative now, one that can even be considered a compromise in terms of the blocksize schedule. We could all agree on a two megabyte limit for example under BU, give us time to better understand its effects, and we would not need to predict technological growth. This same process could then be used to raise the limit again in a decentralized and emergent fashion. I can imagine how many critics of BIP101 should be happy with such a solution, I certainly am myself as a critic of Core. In many ways I think that Bitcoin Unlimited is transcending this debate, while providing a synthesis to many of our discussions.
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
Of course the cost, reliability and user experience do not affect adoption.

legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this.

Whoah. Back up the bus.

The sad reality is the XT contains a lot more than what it says on the tin. XT was sold as 'Core with a larger maxblocksize'. The reality is that XT also contains (amongst other things) the foundation of a counter-fungibility blacklisting system.

I assume this may be what tvbcof is referring to as 'same problems of the fiat system', though I may be wrong. Though I'd like to know what tvbcof is lumping in with 'and its ilk'.

I'd have been running XT for some time now, had it not been for these rotten easter eggs. Perhaps that sulfurous odor is these rotten eggs buried in the bowels of XT, rather than what you perceive as 'absolute bullshit'.
legendary
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1688
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
Of course, if he has issued a further statement, I'd be happy to read it.

Incidentally: appeal to authority?
Your post is wrong. People in this discussion have become very deluded throwing fallacies around like they're candy. Naming the source of something means that I'm appealing to authority?  Roll Eyes

Ex. 1: <> said x, y, and z about foo. The implications of x, y, and z include a, b, and c. As you can see from this, foo has problems.

Ex. 2 <> said foo has problems.

One of the above is an appeal to authority, the other is not. Your post was in this form of Ex. 2.

I see that you are trying to build in the mind the reader the impression that Gavin has declared that the BU codebase has resulted in a faulty executable program. Unless Gavin has issued further input to the BU review, you are mischaracterizing his statement. Nothing i have read in his comments would support that position.
You can easily see what Gavin wrote a few posts back in this thread.

Exactly. He said nothing about any flaws he might have or might have not detected in the executable program.
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 254
Bitfury's paper here:

http://bitfury.com/content/4-white-papers-research/block-size-1.1.1.pdf

"The table contains an estimate of how many full nodes would no longer function without hard-ware upgrades as average block size is increased. These estimates are based on the assumption that many users run full nodes on consumer-grade hardware, whether on personal computers or in the
cloud. Characteristics of node hardware are based on a survey performed by Steam [19]; we assume PC gamers and Bitcoin enthusiasts have a similar amount of resources dedicated to their hardware.

The exception is RAM: we assume that a typical computer supporting a node has no less than 3 GB RAM as a node requires at least 2GB RAM to run with margin[15]. For example,if block size increases to 2 MB, a node would need to dedicate 8 GB RAM to the Bitcoin client, while more than a half of PCs
in the survey have less RAM."

Based on his estimation, raise the block size to 4MB will drop 75% of nodes from the network



The 8 GB RAM module for the computer that runs my Bitcoin Unlimited node has 8 GB of RAM.  I paid $67 for this memory module 13 months ago.  I note that Amazon is selling the same module today for $35 USD.  It is unreasonable to cripple bitcoin to support users running obsolete hardware.


Let's compare the cost for 4MB blocks:

1. You spend several hundred dollars on hardware and make a new node dedicated to bitcoin (many gaming machines do not support 16GB memory, thus you need to upgrade pretty much the whole machine), in hope of maintaining the $0.05 fee for bitcoin transactions (and it requires thousands of other nodes also do the same as you)

2. You use those several hundred dollars to pay the transaction fee (should be enough for at least one hundred transactions even the fee rose 100x to $5 per transaction)

Notice that setting up a full node does not benefit the node operator in anyway, and raise the block size will require thousands of such voluntarily setup nodes to upgrade. So I guess any rational human would refuse the node upgrade and pay the fee instead. I guess even the fee has risen to a prohibitive level, average user would still pay fee instead of setting up full nodes using dedicated hardware



I am running a node because doing so is the only way to see how bitcoin actually works. I am not running it to help the network in any way, nor somehow magically keep the fees low so I will pay less.  It could be argued as a consequence of my low upstream bandwidth I am actually "hurting" the network by virtue of downloading more that I upload ("leaching").  I do get the benefit of greater security and privacy from running the node.  Also, the same machine is running other servers, and I would probably be running it 24/7 even if I stopped running a bitcoin node.  I have some older machines that I could use for servers, but they consume enough electricity running 24/7 that the newer machine has already paid for itself.

Were I to pay exorbitant transaction fees I would be doing nothing to help the growth of bitcoin.  It would be a foolish decision, because the value of the bitcoins I hold would certainly go down.  Of course, if I were astute, I might pay one large transaction fee and dump all of my bitcoins, shut down my node, and stop wasting my time replying to trolls and sock puppets.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
...

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability
To me, Bitcoin is a very specialized and high-powered asset.  It is actually even more cumbersome to use that precious metals in some respects, but this is mostly and artifact of the security precautions I choose to take.  And again, I choose to do so because of the high value I place on this asset.
I think there is balance to be had in this perspective, I use cold storage, which is cumbersome and somewhat complex, though I also use mobile wallets for everyday spending and ease of use. Bitcoin also gains much of its value through its utility, it is exactly this utility which I think makes it a better store of value then gold. After all I can not sprinkle gold dust down the phone line and send it across the world quickly and cheaply without relying on third parties.

The various lags, costs, and inconvenience of using the system in a autonomous ways which are native to the system are, to me, part of the deal and have never bothered me excessively.  The real problems I've had are on conversion to and from the fiat system, and these are almost exclusively caused by roadblocks which are a specific feature of the fiat solutions.  XT and it's ilk are dead-set on importing these same problems into the Bitcoin system itself. No thanks.
XT is dead set on importing the same problems of the fiat system into Bitcoin itself? That is absolute bullshit, I am sorry, I thought we where past this. The only consensus critical change that is made within XT is the increase of the blocksize. We also now have Bitcoin Unlimited through which we could all just agree on a two megabyte blocksize limit for instance without relying on either Core or XT.

Only a fraction of the world's souls are inclined to treat Bitcoin as I do personally.  That is fine in my mind because there are 7,000,000,000 or so of us.  If 0.1% of us are in my category, that is still a very large pool, and one which is tipped toward the economically more 'critical' so to speak.  Importantly, anyone can use the amazing power of Bitcoin to build sub-systems which provide the 'PayPal experience' to their less rigorous brethren, but in a way which is much safer than what PayPal/VISA/etc can/does achieve.
I would want the worlds seven billion to use Bitcoin directly and become empowered through its benefits, not just the 0.1% as you say, I also do not consider this 0.1% more critical in importance for the use of Bitcoin when compared to the rest of the worlds population, I believe the opposite is true actually, we are already empowered through cryptocurrency, the rest of the world needs this more then we do. Mass adoption is also what would bring about the most profound change in our society and civilization as well.

Furthermore I would also not be satisfied with pushing these remaining seven billion onto sub-systems of Bitcoin which would provide a PayPal or Visa like experience, that is exactly my concern and it completely defeats most of the purpose behind Bitcoin in the first place.
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
...

Similar to people not complaining when banks are closed during weekends, they will always find a way when bitcoin's blockchain transaction capacity is not enough, but they won't give up on bitcoin, just like they won't give up on gold even it has terrible transaction capability

To me, Bitcoin is a very specialized and high-powered asset.  It is actually even more cumbersome to use that precious metals in some respects, but this is mostly and artifact of the security precautions I choose to take.  And again, I choose to do so because of the high value I place on this asset.

The various lags, costs, and inconvenience of using the system in a autonomous ways which are native to the system are, to me, part of the deal and have never bothered me excessively.  The real problems I've had are on conversion to and from the fiat system, and these are almost exclusively caused by roadblocks which are a specific feature of the fiat solutions.  XT and it's ilk are dead-set on importing these same problems into the Bitcoin system itself.  No thanks.

Only a fraction of the world's souls are inclined to treat Bitcoin as I do personally.  That is fine in my mind because there are 7,000,000,000 or so of us.  If 0.1% of us are in my category, that is still a very large pool, and one which is tipped toward the economically more 'critical' so to speak.  Importantly, anyone can use the amazing power of Bitcoin to build sub-systems which provide the 'PayPal experience' to their less rigorous brethren, but in a way which is much safer than what PayPal/VISA/etc can/does achieve.

Pages:
Jump to: