Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 2. (Read 378991 times)

You are linking a censored thread where all opposing opinion is being censored, you should keep that in mind. Even quotes from Satoshi are being censored in that thread, I do not believe that such a place is productive for constructive discussion, this type of censorship is dangerous since people can become very disconnected with reality, arguments become one sided since they are not exposed to critical thinking, truth requires freedom to rise.

You are obviously coming from an engineers mindset, you are failing to see the human element in all of this. I think that most people would disagree with the statement that you made which I highlighted. I think that your basic understanding of economics is wrong. It also good to keep in mind that Bitcoin should be destined for world adoption and as such the concerns and sentiments of everyday and normal people are important, not just idealistic libertarians and engineers. Whom might have concerns that most people would certainly not prioritize. I would argue that most people would care more about being able to transact easily, cheaply and quickly using an SPV wallet on their smartphone as opposed to the ram usage of full nodes in datacentres for example.

I think that Bitcoin is intended for global adoption, which might be in conflict with the vision of some cyberpunks, idealistic engineers and libertarians. It does not help that many of these people are also Bitcoin maximalists, since then this radically different vision for Bitcoin would not need to be pushed so hard onto Bitcoin, it would make more sense for such people to turn to smaller altcoins which can go the route of security through obscurity and anonymity. As opposed to Bitcoin which I think should gain increased security through mass adoption, which also means keeping it and making it more appealing for the masses. Which most definitely does include cost, reliability and user experience.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

A lot of things need to be improved upon before we can go with much bigger blocks (e.g. the new library in 0.12 will speed up things a lot). However I do not agree with the Core developers with keeping the 1 MB limit ATM. A bump to 2 MB is definitely something that is desired.

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

Of course the cost, reliability and user experience do not affect adoption. Many people come to bitcoin just to contribute resource, not asking for service, because this is a trustworthy monetary system. Being service minded are typically cheap mindset from entrepreneurs

The fact is that people in bitcoin community (mostly libertarian type) will never listen to someone else unless they see it with their own eyes. And even if they face a problem, they will tends to use their own solution instead of others, there are many ways to solve a problem without touch the bitcoin protocol

Here is another thread showing that this kind of discussion is just fruitless
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yyvmp/they_think_satoshi_was_wrong/

I suppose you are falsely attempting to equate XT with black lists and censorship here? Even though increasing the blocksize does not have any effect on mining centralization whatsoever, which therefore means it also does not have any effect on censorship resistance. It only takes one small pool operating out of any jurisdiction anywhere in the world to completely render any attempts at censoring transactions futile.

If some of the pools did start blacklisting I would simply move my mining power over to a pool that did not do this. Considering there are many independent miners like myself I do not think that this would ever become a real problem. The best thing for mining decentralization right now would actually be increased adoption, leading to an increased price. Since the real pressures on mining centralization are more related to centralization of manufacturing and economies of scale, an increased price would lead to increased competition and more people moving into the mining industry thereby further distributing the hashpower, which also increases security. Not increasing the blocksize would hurt adoption, this is in part why I think that increasing the blocksize is what is best for decentralization and financial freedom over the long run compared to the alternatives.

Moving transactions off chain is not a solution to scaling the main Bitcoin blockchain, if anything I actually think it is counterproductive over the long run. I have nothing against the lighting network and people should be free to use it if they want. However consciously applying economic policy in a top down fashion in order to arbitrarily "force" higher fees so that the only way to effectively transact in Bitcoin cheaply and quickly is through these type of third parties and off chain solutions is in my opinion wrong and antithetical to the original vision of Bitcoin.

If you think that the cost, reliability and the user experience does not influence adoption, then I think that you are fundamentally wrong. Bitcoin can be out competed, if we do not increase the blocksize that is exactly what I think would happen.

If the way of discussion is always trying to disagree and against, then consensus is not possible. But the good thing with bitcoin is that if you don't have consensus, you are not going anywhere

If fee/transaction indeed become a problem (which I highly doubt it will, since statistics showing that majority of users are not fee/transaction sensitive), then the corresponding consensus is going to rise, but currently there is none

The world is not lacking of cheap and fast transaction method, but it lacks one monetary system with honest money creation, that is the major advantage of bitcoin

XT makes a great deal of sense...if the goal is to ensure that ultimately the last vestiges of infrastructure distribution among the masses are eliminated.

Hearn said semi-famously that 'there is no difference between confiscating someone BTC and keeping them from spending it for 20 years.'  The numbers were just to be an illustration of a principle.  The reason for he '20 years' rather than 'forever' is that some segment of the infrastructure might still be independent of a central blacklisting authority.  Even now it is theoretically possible for a CPU miner to beat the datacenters full of ASIC in finding a block...it would just be really lucky and an exceedingly rare occurrence.

There is no BU pool yet, there is no contradiction in my position. I disagree with your theory on Bitcoin governance, consensus in the literal sense of the word is a terrible way to resolve conflicts, it does not work, especially among larger groups of people. The consensus mechanism of Bitcoin is what we call the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, it would be a mistake however to equate this with the literal meaning of the word.

I would define the governance mechanism of Bitcoin in short form like this:

Does anybody really not believe even if he denies it,that Gavin is still in discussion with Satoshi and this must be his idea as well

So you are mining on a non-BU pool and promoting BU, and constantly quote Satoshi's words while at the same time say to let market decide for itself ...

As explained many times, the decision making mechanism in bitcoin community is not democracy, it is consensus. Only the super majority consensus get passed, other attempts to fork will always fade away. When no consensus can be reached, the system keeps going on at its current status

Anybody point me to a link in helping me build a Bitcoin node,as this is off topic will remove it in a couple of hours

XT is a temporary solution, at best. Everyone understands that. Segregated witness is a better solution in the short run, and in the long run we'll have something else (lightning network?)
So XT does not make much sense, don't think they'll be able to pull it through

There's a difference between coding skillz and vision. Code can be reviewed and improved by committee at any stage. Vision is something you either have or you haven't.

Take hashcash for example - A great coder could invent hashcash and turn it into a failed email anti spam tool. However, Satoshi could use his vision to use it as a bedrock in a project that goes on to have a $6.5 billion market cap that we are still talking about 6 years later.

But I agree, cult of personality is stupid, But you still have to assign credit where credit is due.

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 are falsely smearing Bitcoin Unlimited. The statement you where referring to was talking about the formatting and lazy blocking. Pretty standard for a code review. The lead developer of Bitcoin Unlimited even responded to Gavin in the same thread explaining the reasoning behind this formatting, this had nothing to with there being a faulty executable.

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? 

You can easily see what Gavin wrote a few posts back in this thread.

Better start digging... I'm sure there's some nefarious motive here.

Very hard to believe the guy with major in humanities is a miner of bitcoin and has a say for
bigger blocks.. seems like there is a hidden agenda with this user.. whoever it is.. he or she is a small minory left to support this altcoin