Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 164. (Read 379003 times)

Oh wow, that's some Grade A hand-waving.  We expect no less from sgbett!   

Face it, The XTanic hit an Ice'n'Berg and got proper fukkin' #rekt.

Please stop trying to comfort yourself with rationalizations and myths like "durr-hurr necessary to get serious discussion" and "had to break a few eggs, derp."

Those conceits are not congruent with the actual history and facts of the matter.

"Serious discussion" (as opposed to Reddit rabble raising) has been ongoing (in the proper lserv/IRC/BIP channels) for a number of years.  Sidechains, extension blocks, and Lightning all predate XT's failed putsch.

And to the contrary, XT disrupted significant amounts of "serious discussion" by creating a summer-long spectacle of inveterate Gavinista assclownery.  (Cite: Adam Back "I would say absent a big part of the bitcoin development industry being massively distracted by the block-size debate we might have been closer to having more compact CT. I certainly would have spent several months working on it.")

The 1MB limit is still here, and stronger than ever.  So, exactly which "eggs" did XT "break?"  And what "omelette" does it have to show for that supposed effort?  Unless XT's goal was to cement opposition to larger blocks...XT failed in every sense of the word.   

Nothing demonstrates that fact more effectively than the contradictory narratives being spun by its zero-percenter apologists.  Some of them tell us


while AT THE SAME TIME you tell us XT came, saw, and conquered.

Which is it?  Has XT already done its job by forcing #ScalingBitcoin workshops to exist, or, is it still waiting in the wings for a moment of future triumph?

Even the Redditards are laughing at you.


It's obvious you expected XT to win, and now have some furious backpedaling to do.  Jorge Stolfi, renowned computer scientist, also thought XT would win.  How is that working out for him?   

Yeah, i agree on that. But i think that then we need to remember there is even a BTCTX currency that exist way before this discussion started

i think it should spit into BTC and BTCXT - 2 currencies

Haha!

XTanic hit an iCE'brg and got sunk!  

Look at it this way.
You are holding a key(1) from the treasure(2), would you give it away for a candy(3)?

(1) key - limit on block size
(2) treasure - permissionless access to blockchain
(3) candy - promise of future profits

This thread won't die whilst ever the comedy duo of Ice'n'Brg are around to keep pimping it. They desperately need it at the top of bitcoin discussion so they can feed there ego.

The thing is these two clowns aren't even really arguing for anything that can be defined, they are just arguing about how they are right, AND SMRTER TAHN U.

It's like tuning in and watching re-runs of your least favourite shitty party political broadcast.

Its all propoganda, nothing else to see.

As for BIP101, that will die once core reaches consensus about the way forward with the now inevitable block size increase. Along with the other block size related BIPs.

XT didn't get rekt, it did exactly what was necessary to get serious discussion. (Remember the the cold war and subsequent disarmament? Remember the last time you made an omelette and had to break a few eggs? You two are like a couple of kurd rebels waving your pistols at a Tank convoy.)

Only thing #REKT round here is the super naive Ice'n'Berg.

Funny thing would be now if XT took off. I doubt it, but can you imagine the drama!

There must be a mechanism (an incentive even) in the economic system that preserves the costs of validating the rules from ballooning into outer space. The limit on block size is that mechanism, but only if enough Bitcoin users weight in on it with their mass (it's in their best interests and the forum's logo at the top-right corner suggests that we should).

If the costs rise at first, then stagnate for a while, then rise again, it means that they are cumulatively still rising in the long run. Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that the costs of validating the blockchain can actually shrink and decline over time if this idea is going to sustain itself for decades. The only measure that can achieve this result is a static limit on block size being active and effective for a certain period of time. We are only approaching this part of the cycle.

The quote by Satoshi in your signature also hints in the same direction.
Leveraging and balancing is what we need to master if we are to succeed in this game.

Oh that's not over. Don't worry.  

You'll learn what economic incentives for larger blocks means 

Mike Hearn wass in Romania.
http://goanadupabitcoin.ro/stiri-bitcoin/interviu-exclusiv-mike-hearn-despre-bitcoinxt-varianta-fericita-si-varianta-nefericita-pentru-viitorul-bitcoin.html

0.3% folks, that deserves a badge.

Yah, that already happened.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-95-adam-back-why-bitcoin-needs-a-measured-approach-to-scaling

http://freedomsfloodgates.com/2015/09/12/lets-talk-bitcoin-246-smart-contracts-with-nick-szabo/


tl;dr  XT's "civil war" approach is wrong, Galvin is an asshat, Bitcoin's creators are disappoint

This is not a drill!

The economic pressure is coming... We need reinforcements in the outer shell...
Those 1MB full nodes at home may suffer... I repeat, they may get pushed out!

Buckle up, gentlemen(d), you're in the game!

Fork it, we brake for nobody!

Keep firing, assholes!  

Hope and fear is the foundation of all good drama.

you are always acting like an adolescent. Memes, pictures, childish jargon.
But children are welcome at bitcoin.

im adjusting to your logic.

Your jargon is of an adolescent.

Thanks!

One of the most important characteristics of decentralized systems is their evolutionary dynamics and the tendencies they develop over time. As the current situation shows there is no distinct leader who can take responsibility and adjust the system in one way or another. One may ask "who runs a star?" and the answer would seem to be "the star runs itself". That's why every decision that the collective agrees upon needs to be tested very carefully against various long-term properties of the system before any change can take effect.

In the situation with the block size limit, the cost to entry into the system is one of those long-term characteristics that needs to be dealt with in a responsible way. As the current limit hasn't been effective most of the time during network's operation for the last several years, the costs of running a node have risen to the point that we are now beginning to saturate average household connections. When the limit becomes active as more and more transactions enter the system, the costs of running a node should stabilize and begin declining with advancements in technology. This part of the cycle is absolutely necessary in order for the costs to stay within a certain range. The range can be considered acceptable if the entry into the network remains permissionless in a broad sense of this word.

What makes this particular characteristic so sensitive and fragile is the fact that the only demographic who's interests it represents is Bitcoin users. All other active profit-driven players (like miners and businesses) would most likely benefit from increasing the limit in a more aggressive way. Permissionless entry into the network is what made Bitcoin attractive in the first place and it remains one of its core value propositions till present day. If that part is lost then the current economic pressure may be released, but the new one never comes as the system would no longer be of interest to people who otherwise use fiat. That's why Bitcoin can only safely grow within its original framework or risk losing both its current user base and those potential newcomers. Understanding of system's properties and coherency in people's actions will become the key for Bitcoin's future success.

I can actually agree with your criticism of BIP101, my position is that I support BIP101 until a better alternative is implemented. I would actually agree with your 8MB proposal as a compromise between these different positions, however I do think that it should be implemented before January 2016 even if just for political reasons.

I do not necessarily think that the situation would be as bad as you predict if the blocks became to large, to a certain extend it would be a symptom of Bitcoins success. However you do make good points and the blocks could increase in size faster then our technology can handle, which would lead to more centralization in full nodes. I do not think it would be as dire as you predict under the BIP101 schedule. However it is true that we can not predict whether eight gigabyte blocks in twenty years from now would be viable, I think it most likely would be if technology progresses at the same rate it has in the last twenty years. However we can not have certainty in this regard and this is certainly a valid criticism. Which is why I would prefer a more conservative version of BIP101, or BIP100 without the thirty two megabyte limit, there are also other good proposals. I do prefer more long term solutions compared to your eight megabyte proposal, my concern however is that increasing the blocksize would most likely be even more difficult in the future then it is today, this could potentially lead to a split when the blocksize needs to be increased again.

I only consider a proposal real until after it is implemented, this is how consensus should be reached. I look forward to seeing the coalitionfor8mb implementation and I am curious to see how the market will react to that. I do not agree with all of the things that you have said but you have some very interesting ideas, I have definitely enjoyed reading some of your posts.

I entertained that idea for a while and I partly agree that over time running a full node might become a fairly specialized kind of business that would require some skills and dedication and may even turn into a full time job for some, but at the same time I always felt a necessity for Bitcoin to have a static limit on block size in place in order to keep the costs of running a node manageable. The moment I noticed that BIP101 lacked this property I realized it was not the correct solution, as it featured an "escape trajectory" instead.

If the costs of running a node become too high over time, they will effectively restrict the access to blockchain for majority of the participants in the economy and the enforcement of consensus rules would become a privilege of select few. Keeping the entry-level for the network reasonably low is what allows it to accumulate enough mass of validators and as a result preserve the rules from being forged. Therefore the cost of running a node must oscillate around a particular constant value over long periods of time, otherwise the tendency for it to grow will result in the scenario I described above.

Now, because of the technological progress, the current static limit of 1MB will make the costs of running a node lower and lower over the years to come and therefore would need to be adjusted accordingly at some point in the future in order to keep the costs of transacting in the network competitive. These transitions need to be rare and discreet, otherwise the idea of the limit may begin to dissolve. Keeping in mind the current theoretical bandwidth targets of the competition, the 8MB figure seems appropriate for the next limit, however the exact timing for the transition depends on the competitive landscape and the state of technology.

In order for the new limit to be any good and serve its purpose, the current one needs to prove itself in action and hold long enough to create a precedent for further adjustments. Bitcoin can leverage its first mover advantage, the gravity of the original invention and the network effect that comes with it in order to play it safe with regards to the limit, while working out a solid plan for scalability issue with many aspects of the system tested against the new proposal. With the status that it holds in the ecosystem and the weight of its market cap, Bitcoin only needs to move when it absolutely has to.

Bitcoin crashed because speculators realised bitcoin is going nowhere. Surprise surprise

Personally I can support running a full node with much bigger blocks from my home. Though it does obviously depend on where you live and the quality of your connection, so from my perspective running XT is not voting myself out of Bitcoin. Running a full node is also not a requirement for most people to use Bitcoin. I also do think that if people can not run a full node from their home, they can just run a full node from a data center instead, since some people that do not have good connections in their homes are already doing this presently. I hope that you can agree with me that every user running a full node is not feasible and should not be a design goal for Bitcoin especially since that is not even the case today. After all Satoshi Nakamoto himself did say that "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale".