Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 184. (Read 378996 times)

Where did you get the idea that Bitcoin needed to be adopted by mainstream to be successful in the first place?

You are totally off the track. "Competing versions of the Bitcoin protocol" = altcoins. There are multiple implementations of these as we speak supported by different teams of developers. You are welcome to look their way if you are not satisfied with current Bitcoin protocol.

The answer is already here. Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will. This is not the same as an altcoin, embrace the freedom of choice. If enough people want the block size to be increased then it will be increased, even if that means we need to fork away from the Core development team.

Man, I really don't know what you are doing here, since you are so unsatisfied with Bitcoin the way it is (currently zero issues with blocksize for non-spam transactions despite Hearndresen-FUD the system would break). Personally, I came to Bitcoin because it is a one-of-a-kind decentralized and secure store of wealth and transaction system without counterparty risk. Otherwise I would have been satisfied with Paypal.

It seems to me that you want "scaling" at any cost, even if there is no current demand and this means giving up decentralization. Also, you want to scale the dumb way by implementing extremist block size increases only, instead of using much more efficient second layer solutions. Therefore I don't think it's Bitcoin you want (as indicated by the message in the genesis block) - you want a Paypal 2.0.

There's a promised altcoin* out there that promises to satisfy this need: It's named Hearndresencoin / GavinCoin (short: HDC / GVC). Although it seems to be failing to get sufficient support to achieve its mere existence, competent altcoin adopters like you will surely push it for success... so I suggest you should join the altcoin boards full time and don't waste your time in a Bitcoin forum any longer.

*) Why promised altcoin? Because Hearndresencoin doesn't even have its own blockchain (it tries to live on Bitcoin's resources) it is not yet able to execute its core altcoin functionality (other "features" like IP filtering already work though). Therefore HDC is a promised or double-virtual altcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

Look for Scaling Bitcoin workshop, it is meant to address scalability at least mid-term.

The danger of centralisation of power and tyrrany of development would be to great of a cost to pay for not diverting resources. Since decentralisation implies the diversion of resources. Having multiple implementations would make the protocol more robust over the long term.

We can apply some of the same principles to it since Bitcoin is also a open-source project.

You should not and can not enforce network consensus in the case of a split.

You are advocating tyranny of the protocol, I disagree. Bitcoin is and should be voluntary.

If you think that we should all rely on the internal decision making process of Core. Then we will run into some of the same problems that large corporations and states run into, since if we wanted the Core development to reflect the will of the economic majority or possible another measure of consensus. Then we would need to attempt to construct a type of centralized governance structure on top of Bitcoin in the form of Core development, this in my opinion would be in conflict to the principles of freedom and decentralization that Bitcoin was founded upon.

That's nice and all , however I suppose that BitcoinXT was the only project planning to increase the Blocksize of bitcoin (altcoin) .. now without what are we supposed to do with bigger blocks ? are Bitcoin Core developpers planning to do anything , if not there is no reason to continue using Bitcoin I suppose .. no mainstream = no future . 

Quite the contrary, actually. More implementations, as they are diverting resources, mean lower quality of peer-review. This has already been demonstrated in case of btcd, where it could've forked because of a sublte bug in opcode handling. Jeez, even Core, despite extensive peer-review, has forked in the past because of code bugs!

Bitcoin is consensus-critical, so you can't apply the same principles to it as you would to other open-source projects.

As for "having competing versions of the Bitcoin protocol" --  this won't work. How do you enforce network consensus then?

Bitcoin is not about the tyranny of the majority. It's about tyranny of the protocol. Rules have to be enforced for the network to function.

Still, development decentralization is orthogonal to network decentralization. I believe (my sig) that generally decentralization is best measured by cost of creating a new instance of something, not by an amount of existing instances. In this case, creating a new instance of Bitcoin implementation is low (nearly free if it's a fork of existing code). This way, development is already decentralized. The hardest part is convincing the community that what you propose is good. XT failed at that, and rightfully so.

Having multiple 'competing' implementations is indeed wasteful. So is sending every transaction to every full node on the network. The point is that decentralization is wasteful and very inefficient. However the cost of decentralization is worth paying because of the benefits it brings. Bitcoin would become more robust and stable once such competition and decentralization exists within development. Having multiple 'competing' clients would most likely eventually lead to having competing versions of the Bitcoin protocol, this might be unavoidable. I do hope that this block size debate will not cause a split but future issues might justify this however. Increasing the supply of Bitcoin for instance in the future might cause a split, I would not support such a change. However for people that strongly believe in inflationary economics as opposed to the deflationary model of Bitcoin this might make sense for them. One of the beautiful things about Bitcoin at least is that there would be no tyranny of the majority since people can choose what side of the fork they wish to support for themselves.

Should? So what? How do you enforce it? We already have several implementations, and where are they?

Development skills are a scarce resource, and having multiple 'competing' implementations is actually wasteful. In a sense, Bitcoin Core is a kind of natural monopoly, because only this way it can attract sufficient expertise, and thus be robust and stable.

Maintaining a fork of Core code is actually much easier than maintaining different implementations, and XT, when it appeared, was OK -- it did implement some client-side BIPs that didn't make it into Core. It only became controversial when it started pushing changes to the protocol.

If you mean many competing versions of Bitcoin protocol, that's a completely different domain.

FTFY. that's actually what I thought you said when I first read it but that would be too sensible for you to say apparently.

If you are XT, the trend is not your friend.   



Looks like most of the free VPS trials expired.  Too bad XT has no support beyond Reddit's mob of easily agitated ADHD basement dwellers.

MPfags are breeding like rabbits....

Stop It!!  Its All Over!!  Bigger blocks by next year is GUARANTEED.   

Give up and go back to your circle jerk forum, where you solve the worlds economic problems using big words like rekt and n00b.

Your continued participation in this thread will just prolong your agony as MAHHOOSIVE blocks streak across the network. 

Mike and Gavin are on vacation.  They are looking forward to spending more time with their families.

Great to see Gavincoin doing the dive.

Now what about Gavin Hearn? I think if the community could make a point about the insignificance of Gavin Hearn and how these people will not have an audience in the future that'd help bitcoins' price probably.

The community needs to officially emancipate from Gavinhearn to help bring back investors confidence. As it is now the damage is still there in the PR departement.

Gavin already left bitcointalk (not writing here anymore since months). We need to find a way to make it clear he's a nobody same as Hearn so people can come back in with their dollars.