Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 18.

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 01:30:43 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on December 27, 2015, 01:20:58 PM

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

gladoscc used to be TradeFortress iirc.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on December 27, 2015, 01:29:07 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on December 27, 2015, 01:20:58 PM

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit: I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

Since when do you care about Bitcoin lambie?

You should take some meds to deal with that tic, forker Cheesy

Westin Landon Cox

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on December 27, 2015, 01:20:58 PM

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.

If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on December 27, 2015, 01:20:58 PM

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit: I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

Since when do you care about Bitcoin lambie?

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:28:46 PM

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.

edit: I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin.

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on December 27, 2015, 01:05:44 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their position.

You really can't keep Satoshi's name out of your mouth heh.

Too late, it has been removed: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/commit/7d1cdd94651461ff13ad4ed10b05b2374690fac2

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their position.

You really can't keep Satoshi's name out of your mouth heh.

MbccompanyX

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: Westin Landon Cox on December 27, 2015, 12:54:39 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their own position.

Coinbase can go fuck itself. Look at the "freedom" they allow their customers. They're an example of the bullshit bitcoin was designed to get away from. This is best expressed in a quote from me:

Quote from: CryptoCox

Coinbase can go fuck itself.

The XT dead enders want to take away my freedom of choice to keep using Bitcoin by killing the real chain. Oh, but only if 75% of miners agree, I know. I've had enough of losing fucking elections. I signed up for bitcoin to get away from that shit.

Look: you have the freedom of choice to use XT or BU or whatever, but you can't demand to be listed on someone else's website. If you really want 101 to activate, you're even free to change the activation criteria by adding a checkpoint or switching to Scrypt. But the XT dead enders want more than that. They insist on killing the real chain.

Well, spoiler alert: they won't. Even if they think they're about to, some of us will make sure they don't.

It's not a debate anymore. The debate is over.

1. I agree that coinbase is litteraly doing things without giving a real warning to the users (Like the XT change, i didn't got any kind of email about that and let's add even the fact that my btc address on coinbase is changing once a week or even twice so is a big problem for me and because of that i have to download the core wallet on my computer because clients trust isn't on their priority)

2. The main problem of XT and BIP101 is that they refuse to made the damm fork because otherwise they would be dead on arrival

3. Who can tell if the debate is really over or not? At the end the XT/BIP101 supporters will always find a way to continue this "debate" until the end of the world

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Lauda on December 27, 2015, 11:19:26 AM

Quote from: Lauda

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

Can you cite an example? Or is this statement on a par with your Unicorn dictum... Grin

Westin Landon Cox

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their own position.

Coinbase can go fuck itself. Look at the "freedom" they allow their customers. They're an example of the bullshit bitcoin was designed to get away from. This is best expressed in a quote from me:

Quote from: CryptoCox

Coinbase can go fuck itself.

The XT dead enders want to take away my freedom of choice to keep using Bitcoin by killing the real chain. Oh, but only if 75% of miners agree, I know. I've had enough of losing fucking elections. I signed up for bitcoin to get away from that shit.

Look: you have the freedom of choice to use XT or BU or whatever, but you can't demand to be listed on someone else's website. If you really want 101 to activate, you're even free to change the activation criteria by adding a checkpoint or switching to Scrypt. But the XT dead enders want more than that. They insist on killing the real chain.

Well, spoiler alert: they won't. Even if they think they're about to, some of us will make sure they don't.

It's not a debate anymore. The debate is over.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:42:02 PM

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

So according to you Bitcoin.org = Bitcoin Core? Makes sense.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:21:59 PM

I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

There is nothing to counter, you are telling me that the rules are yet going to be decided and then you tell me that it is already decided? Make up your mind. I'm asking a simple question, exactly what mechanism decides the block size and how.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178

I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their position.

Master of Puppets

newbie

Activity: 9

Merit: 0

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 26, 2015, 08:46:40 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on December 26, 2015, 07:55:35 PM

Quote from: HostFat on December 26, 2015, 07:33:11 PM

https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/680902843784544256

Quote

Coinbase is now running BitcoinXT (BIP101) in production as an experiment, blog post w more details coming soon

Good.

There have indeed been some very positive developments recently. Bitcoin Unlimited has also been officially released.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software

I prefer Bitcoin Plus, Bitcoin Scrypt and Bitcoin2 ...

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

About "game-theoretical blocksize limit" I only need to quote Peter R:

Quote from: Peter R on December 25, 2015, 02:48:47 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on December 25, 2015, 05:53:11 AM

Quote from: johnyj on December 24, 2015, 11:58:19 PM

And the fee market regulated by orphan rate is worth debating.

And it has been debated, and the theory promoted by Peter R didn't hold well. Spherical cows stuff. I didn't check if he revised his paper since then, though.

I've shown that the fee market exists if:

1. Bitcoin's inflation rate is nonzero

2. More than one miner or mining pool exists

3. Large blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks.

I believe I will be able to remove #1 based on the current research I'm doing. #2 will always exists (Bitcoin is always susceptible to 51% attack). There is empirical evidence for #3:

- Stone, G. A. “An Examination of Bitcoin Network Throughput Via Analysis of Single Transaction Blocks.” No Publisher (2015) http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn

- “Bitcoin Network Capacity Analysis – Part 6: Data Propagation.” Tradeblock Blog (23 June 2015) https://tradeblock.com/blog/bitcoin-network-capacity-analysis-part-6-data-propagation

- Decker C. and Wattenhofer R. “Information Propagation in the Bitcoin Network.” 13th IEEE International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing, Trento, Italy, September 2013

These three assumptions did not change since the last time I read his paper. The third one is, in my opinion, the most controversial, and I'm pretty sure it will be put to rest soon.

Westin Landon Cox

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.

Breaking News from https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

Coinbase got Officially #REKT today.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: Trent Russell on December 27, 2015, 11:35:09 AM

Quote from: Lauda on December 27, 2015, 11:19:26 AM

Quote from: Lauda

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

Maybe it becomes true if you repeat the quote in enough distinct posts. That's how truth works, right?

I've found it funny, because the most prominent 'quote-repeater' here is VeritasSapere. Wink

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on December 27, 2015, 12:12:54 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

You're trying to tell me that you are promoting a software alternative with undecided features? This makes sense. I don't have time to read so much in another forum. Summary or tl;dr is needed.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

So if I write a paper that makes what I say true? I thought you knew better.

I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederation

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

You're trying to tell me that you are promoting a software alternative with undecided features? This makes sense. I don't have time to read so much in another forum. Summary or tl;dr is needed.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

So if I write a paper that makes what I say true? I thought you knew better.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on December 27, 2015, 11:19:26 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 27, 2015, 10:27:46 AM

Bitcoin unlimited does have a blocksize limit in practice. It just changes how this limit is decided upon. Instead of the blocksize limit being decided upon by a centralized development team, which is akin to centralized economic planning and obviously flawed, the blocksize limit is determined by the market, miners and users collectively. I believe this does solve the dilemma of governance related to the blocksize issue and possibly other issues in the future as well.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: Peter R

There exists a natural game-theoretic block size limit.

Quote from: Lauda

There exists a natural place where unicorns live.

I've said it. Does that mean it is true? Should I write a paper to confirm it? His words were obliterated by others long ago.

This is being discussed extensively in this thread:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-200

You are welcome to join us in there and we would love to hear your constructive criticisms, through this process we can all improve our understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. To start you off I would specifically recommend you to read these two papers which empirically attempt to prove that this game-theoretic block size limit does exist.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

It should be obvious that the theories underpinning Bitcoin Unlimited are not just based on hearsay, there has been extensive and quality discussion on this subject for some time now and scientific research is being carried out. Please try and have some more respect for your ideological opponents, engage in constructive criticism instead of baseless accusations, insults and ad hominem. It is only through rational discussion that we can move forward from this impasse.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Trent Russell on December 27, 2015, 11:35:09 AM

Maybe it becomes true if you repeat the quote in enough distinct posts. That's how truth works, right?

That is how it work for the average Joe and apparently also for the XT folks.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 18. (Read 378991 times)