Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 123. (Read 378996 times)

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Looks like poor ol Mike didn't get his way in his attempt to stonewall CLTV  Cheesy

If Mike was a man instead of a petulant little child, he'd just carry on with his fork and further break compatibility. He'd do as he said he would and do it with checkpoints and miner minority, or even changing the PoW. But then he'd have to do actual work in his fork and Gavin isn't doing much at all either. They'd fall so far behind it would be a lot of fun.

But he's all bluster, and his word is worth fuck-all.

There you have him being himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

Blah blah blah. Coward.
More ad hominem from the usual suspects.

Watch the entire interview and you will see clearly what he is saying in context, he was discussing a worse case scenario where there is a split between east and west. His actions speak louder then his words, just look at the code. Bitcoin XT will only fork if a seventy five percent consensus is reached, saying anything contrary to this and talking about checkpoints and ignoring the longest chain in regards to Bitcoin XT is really just pure FUD.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
The definition of an "alt coin" that I like is the one based off Satoshi's description on page 3 of the Bitcoin white paper:



I summarize this as: "Bitcoin is the longest chain composed (exclusively) of valid transactions."  

With that definition, a coin is "not Bitcoin" if:

(a) it's based on a blockchain that doesn't begin from the Satoshi genesis block,

(b) the blockchain does begin from the Satoshi genesis block but is not the longest chain composed of valid transactions.

With that definition, there have been times in the past when Bitcoin was "not Bitcoin". Wink

How so?  Are you referring to times when a shorter chain eventually becomes longer than another chain?  Indeed, this happened with the LevelDB bug fork in 2013 (and sort of happens almost daily if you count orphans).  Perhaps it is better to say that the "longest persistent chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin."

How would you best define Bitcoin?  And how would you best define an alt-coin, Holliday?

You answered your own question. Perhaps it is better to add "persistent", although that means we get to argue the length of persistent.

I would argue the "valid transactions" part, because valid transactions are determined by the software itself. It's almost like using a word in it's own definition. I guess it's in there to throw node operators a bone, since without it, miners themselves would decide what is "Bitcoin"!

I don't have a suitable definition for Bitcoin or alt-coin, although I'm happy to make observations on what other people think.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Feathercoin is a clone of Litecoin, you are discrediting your self by making this comparison. Copying the code and cloning or "forking" in order to create a new cryptocurrency is not the same as a blockchain fork. After all the Feathercoin blockchain does not contain the original genesis block, neither does it maintain the original distribution of bitcoin and it certainly does not require a majority consensus from the Bitcoin protocol in order for it to be borne into existence. Bitcoin XT is a part of Bitcoin whether you like it or not, you might have even received data from Bitcoin XT nodes helping your own nodes to sync faster, which is ironic considering your position.

Feathercoin forked the Litecoin code AND blockchain without consensus and tried taking over the brand and the economic majority.

Read up on it.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Incorrect since Bitcoin XT is compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain today. After the fork Bitcoin XT will still be compatible with the Bitcoin protocol. If Bitcoin XT does not reach consensus for a fork it will also remain compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain. Meaning that Bitcoin XT is not a altcoin but an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.
It's just you and the skeleton crew of XT loyalists making that distinction. The code to fork the chain is there, just like it was there in Feathercoin before it activated.
Feathercoin is a clone of Litecoin, you are discrediting your self by making this comparison. Copying the code and cloning or "forking" in order to create a new cryptocurrency is not the same as a blockchain fork. After all the Feathercoin blockchain does not contain the original genesis block, neither does it maintain the original distribution of bitcoin and it certainly does not require a majority consensus from the Bitcoin protocol in order for it to be borne into existence. Bitcoin XT is a part of Bitcoin whether you like it or not, you might have even received data from Bitcoin XT nodes helping your own nodes to sync faster, which is ironic considering your position.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Looks like poor ol Mike didn't get his way in his attempt to stonewall CLTV  Cheesy

If Mike was a man instead of a petulant little child, he'd just carry on with his fork and further break compatibility. He'd do as he said he would and do it with checkpoints and miner minority, or even changing the PoW. But then he'd have to do actual work in his fork and Gavin isn't doing much at all either. They'd fall so far behind it would be a lot of fun.

But he's all bluster, and his word is worth fuck-all.

There you have him being himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

Blah blah blah. Coward.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Looks like poor ol Mike didn't get his way in his attempt to stonewall CLTV  Cheesy
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Incorrect since Bitcoin XT is compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain today. After the fork Bitcoin XT will still be compatible with the Bitcoin protocol. If Bitcoin XT does not reach consensus for a fork it will also remain compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain. Meaning that Bitcoin XT is not a altcoin but an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.

It's just you and the skeleton crew of XT loyalists making that distinction. The code to fork the chain is there, just like it was there in Feathercoin before it activated.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
The definition of an "alt coin" that I like is the one based off Satoshi's description on page 3 of the Bitcoin white paper:



I summarize this as: "Bitcoin is the longest chain composed (exclusively) of valid transactions."  

With that definition, a coin is "not Bitcoin" if:

(a) it's based on a blockchain that doesn't begin from the Satoshi genesis block,

(b) the blockchain does begin from the Satoshi genesis block but is not the longest chain composed of valid transactions.

With that definition, there have been times in the past when Bitcoin was "not Bitcoin". Wink

How so?  Are you referring to times when a shorter chain eventually becomes longer than another chain?  Indeed, this happened with the LevelDB bug fork in 2013 (and sort of happens almost daily if you count orphans).  Perhaps it is better to say that the "longest persistent chain composed of valid transactions is Bitcoin."

How would you best define Bitcoin?  And how would you best define an alt-coin, Holliday?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
If most bitcoiners accept XT, then XT becomes Bitcoin main protocol, the old Core becomes altcoin.

Also covered in the wiki. Big IF that implies overwhelming economic consensus to break away from the dev consensus, as it has never happened before.

Currently the altcoin is XT, and it looks like it will stay an altcoin.
Incorrect since Bitcoin XT is compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain today. After the fork Bitcoin XT will still be compatible with the Bitcoin protocol. If Bitcoin XT does not reach consensus for a fork it will also remain compatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain. Meaning that Bitcoin XT is not a altcoin but an alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
If most bitcoiners accept XT, then XT becomes Bitcoin main protocol, the old Core becomes altcoin.

Also covered in the wiki. Big IF that implies overwhelming economic consensus to break away from the dev consensus, as it has never happened before.

Currently the altcoin is XT, and it looks like it will stay an altcoin.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
Saying that XT is an altcoin is factually incorrect, this is also a false narrative. Bitcoin XT is compatible with the Bitcoin blockchain. The fork will only be triggered once a majority of mining power supports it, which means that post fork Bitcoin XT will also be compatible with the largest surviving Bitcoin blockchain. There is a fundamental difference between a blockchain fork and an altcoin. It would be wrong to equate these two separate phenomena.

That entirely depends on what the actual definition of altcoin is, this is an evolving space and definitions are being settled.

If Feathercoin is an altcoin then so would be XT.

If most bitcoiners accept XT, then XT becomes Bitcoin main protocol, the old Core becomes altcoin.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
With that definition, there have been times in the past when Bitcoin was "not Bitcoin". Wink

Not to mention that he just picked a few words from Satoshi and pretended he called that an altcoin despite the absolute absence of that term.

The charlatan Peter R Rizun doing what he does best.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
Small recap.

As the "official wiki" says, it's technically an altcoin.  Smiley

https://archive.is/rjhmO


Quote
Since it is incompatible with the Bitcoin protocol, it is technically an altcoin, but due to an unusually large economic acceptance it may potentially become a "new Bitcoin" some day.

Quote
If insufficient mining hash power runs XT to reach supermajority then nothing will happen. If enough does, XT users will follow a new blockchain and cease to be using and trading bitcoins.


https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_XT

Warning: you will be banned if you try to vandalise the wiki.


Week after week more desktop full node users are left behind than new ones can join. As long as this is the case the blocks are too big, not too small. No ifs or buts.

-----





In the context of this discussion this image might be helpful



It is interesting to consider that more or less half of the rural US population don't have access to upload speed of 6 mbps or more.
legendary
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
Saying that XT is an altcoin is factually incorrect, this is also a false narrative. Bitcoin XT is compatible with the Bitcoin blockchain. The fork will only be triggered once a majority of mining power supports it, which means that post fork Bitcoin XT will also be compatible with the largest surviving Bitcoin blockchain. There is a fundamental difference between a blockchain fork and an altcoin. It would be wrong to equate these two separate phenomena.

That entirely depends on what the actual definition of altcoin is, this is an evolving space and definitions are being settled.

If Feathercoin is an altcoin then so would be XT.
If we define an altcoin as being a blockchain that is incompatible with the main Bitcoin blockchain then according to this definition Bitcoin XT is not a altcoin.

The definition of an "alt coin" that I like is the one based off Satoshi's description on page 3 of the Bitcoin white paper:



I summarize this as: "Bitcoin is the longest chain composed (exclusively) of valid transactions."  

With that definition, a coin is "not Bitcoin" if:

(a) it's based on a blockchain that doesn't begin from the Satoshi genesis block,

(b) the blockchain does begin from the Satoshi genesis block but is not the longest chain composed of valid transactions.

With that definition, there have been times in the past when Bitcoin was "not Bitcoin". Wink
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
The definition of a word can be whatever you want it to be, as long as we can agree on what this definition is, for the purpose of a specific discussion. You are correct that these definitions are subjective, this subjective definition however should be determined by the free thinking individual. Not the authority or the majority since otherwise language and meaning can be perverted.

The concept of thinking for our self and not accepting the position of the authority or the majority lies at the heart of philosophy and enlightenment thinking. Which brought about the scientific and political revolutions of the modern world, it is the foundation of rationalism and humanism. I mention history because there are many examples where the authority or the majority where wrong, in retrospect the minority is often on the right side of history.

My point being is that these principles do still apply in the way that I was using them. It is always wrong to think that something is true just because that is what the majority or the authority believes. We should think for ourselfs and allow the collective consensus to rise from this foundation instead of just falling victim to group think.

I think you need to look up on how the meaning of words is established.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
So now you are defining an altcoin as any rule changes that cause bifurcations. Though under this definition if Core hypothetically decreased the blocksize causing a split, under this definition Core would then be an altcoin. Even if Core increases the blocksize in the far future this would also then make Bitcoin Core an altcoin. Surely this example proves that your definition is lacking. Unless you are now taking what I think is the correct position that XT is not an altcoin and you can define it as an "altfork" instead, since I can agree with that definition.
I'm not defining it, read the wiki.

I am shocked by you saying this, do you really believe that we should determine what is truth by applying these logical fallacies? I have studied philosophy and politics for most of my life and I can tell you that this is a terrible way to judge truth from falsehood. I urge to study some history and to think for your self.
This is because you don't seem to understand what a fallacy even is. These are unsound arguments for an underlying reality, not something that applies to a subjective definition which is in the process of being settled.

The "wiki" is wrong as I have already demonstrated.

The definition of a word can be whatever you want it to be, as long as we can agree on what this definition is, for the purpose of a specific discussion. You are correct that these definitions are subjective, this subjective definition however should be determined by the free thinking individual. Not the authority or the majority since otherwise language and meaning can be perverted.

The concept of thinking for our self and not accepting the position of the authority or the majority lies at the heart of philosophy and enlightenment thinking. Which brought about the scientific and political revolutions of the modern world, it is the foundation of rationalism and humanism. I mention history because there are many examples where the authority or the majority where wrong, in retrospect the minority is often on the right side of history.

My point being is that these principles do still apply in the way that I was using them. It is always wrong to think that something is true just because that is what the majority or the authority believes. We should think for ourselfs and allow the collective consensus to rise from this foundation instead of just falling victim to group think.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
I am shocked by you saying this, do you really believe that we should determine what is truth by applying these logical fallacies? I have studied philosophy and politics for most of my life and I can tell you that this is a terrible way to judge truth from falsehood. I urge to study some history and to think for your self.

This is because you don't seem to understand what a fallacy even is. These are unsound arguments for an underlying reality, not something that applies to a subjective definition which is in the process of being settled.


Its pointless to argue with this politician/philosopher wannabe.

Besides, he knows nothing about economics and cryptography.

Just spewing words in the wind.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
So now you are defining an altcoin as any rule changes that cause bifurcations. Though under this definition if Core hypothetically decreased the blocksize causing a split, under this definition Core would then be an altcoin. Even if Core increases the blocksize in the far future this would also then make Bitcoin Core an altcoin. Surely this example proves that your definition is lacking. Unless you are now taking what I think is the correct position that XT is not an altcoin and you can define it as an "altfork" instead, since I can agree with that definition.

I'm not defining it, read the wiki.


I am shocked by you saying this, do you really believe that we should determine what is truth by applying these logical fallacies? I have studied philosophy and politics for most of my life and I can tell you that this is a terrible way to judge truth from falsehood. I urge to study some history and to think for your self.

This is because you don't seem to understand what a fallacy even is. These are unsound arguments for an underlying reality, not something that applies to a subjective definition which is in the process of being settled.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
So you are refusing to define a word that you are using to smear Bitcoin XT.

No, it's not a consideration for me since the term altcoin for me in reality is more respectable than XT by far.

I'd say the definition of altcoin covers it because it covers all rule changes that incurred bifurcations in the past as well, this undoubtedly should carry weight when considering the definition of this word. But if I were to choose, I'd pick another word like "altfork" or something like that. Altcoin flatters XT in my opinion.
So now you are defining an altcoin as any rule change that cause bifurcations. Though under this definition if Core hypothetically decreased the blocksize causing a split, under this definition Core would then be an altcoin. Even if Core increases the blocksize in the far future this would also then make Bitcoin Core an altcoin. Surely this example proves that your definition is lacking. Unless you are now taking what I think is the correct position that XT is not an altcoin and you can define it as an "altfork" instead, since I can agree with that definition.

I suppose if you refuse to define the word that you are using it is impossible to prove you wrong. Keep in mind however that if you make an argument that can not be disproved that such an argument is most definitely not based on reason or any type of sound argumentation whatsoever.

As for the rest of your argument it actually just comes down to an appeal to authority and an appeal to the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Words work exactly like that, they are defined by authority and popularity, not because some enlightened or self-important person settled the matter. At least not in the general case.
I am shocked by you saying this, do you really believe that we should determine what is truth by applying these logical fallacies? I have studied philosophy and politics for most of my life and I can tell you that this is a terrible way to judge truth from falsehood. I urge you to study some history and to think for your self.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
With that definition, a coin is "not Bitcoin" if:

(a) it's based on a blockchain that doesn't begin from the Satoshi genesis block,

(b) the blockchain does begin from the Satoshi genesis block but is not the longest chain composed of valid transactions.
I do agree with your definition of an altcoin Peter R, well done. Smiley
Jump to: