Thanks again for the responses. I've read as much of the info you all provided as I could before it forced me to take a half hour nap in my chair. I still see most of the issue as being a giant nerd coder drama fest. However, if I had to choose, I would implement a small increase now to test the waters. More of an increase can be performed later if needed. As soon as side chains can be perfected they can always be tried at that time without changing anything else.
The one thing I'm sure of is this constant bickering between the old women wearing the dev hats needs to stop. They're tearing the worlds trust in Bitcoin apart for no reason. Everyone seems to forget that the worlds potential future Bitcoin users see everything that's happening. Why make them feel like the ones in charge of the future direction are bickering imbeciles?
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 200. (Read 378996 times)
There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392
I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.
Join us at bitco.in!
Bitco.in Members Online: 3
That's not enough XTurds for a circlejerk. They'll have to settle for a triangle jerk instead.
That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.
And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.
Satoshi's solution to (or, if you prefer, workaround for) the BGP gets all the attention, but His careful arrangement of incentives is IMO an equally sublime manifestation of transcendent genius.
Sounds about right. Not enough support to be relevant.
For now but it could change. Saying zero support is outright misinformation.
Taking about XT on obscure forums for fractious malcontents does not constitute actual support.
XT has 0.1% of the network. Rounded to the nearest whole number, that equals zero support.
Also, that singular "XT" block was mined with a spoofed version string, not by an actual XT node.
So in reality, XT support is stuck at absolute zero.
Why don't they just take the cap out completely?
Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.
Answer:
"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/
so classy..
Why don't they just take the cap out completely?
Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.
Answer:
"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/
I've stayed out of this debate because I really don't understand it. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. Here's what I see.
Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.
Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?
Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.
Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?
You've got the gist of the debate, which is predicated on a false (empirically denied by the results of the stress tests) sense of urgency.
You've wrong about the defamatory Sidechains=Block$treamCon$piracy nonsense. BTC core devs can name their price in the private sector; they don't need to resort to cartoonish Snidely Whiplash schemes. You should know that by now...
Here's a key bit of info you missed:
Lightning's scaling potential also stacks on top of side and alt chains.
LN can run on top of sidechains which are pegged to LTC, VIA, XCN, XPM, PPC, and perhaps even XMR (probably/eventually).
All of these Layer 2+ and Layer A+ permutations depend on Bitcoin's Layer 1 remaining diverse, diffuse, defensible, and resilient.
That's why I support davout's BIP000 (AKA Bram Cohen's "1MB now, then reassess in 2 years" proposal).
The most important point BIP000 makes is "blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security."
If you don't understand that simple yet profound fact, you don't understand Bitcoin (and probably failed Econ 1).
wtf? like we care about what miners want..
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circonstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circonstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
Well I hope the miners are seeing this. The asset-class #rektum brigade don't care about miners, but still genuinely believe the miners will stick around to be their bitch and validate their occasional transactions when they aren't hodling. Yeah, good luck with that sales pitch.
Again, you could stop overreacting for a second and think about this more carefully. Recognise the fact that (as you claim you understand) the incentives for the miners and the wider network have to align and you need the miners. Recognise the fact that you aren't going to get another chance to compromise if you blow this one. Recognise the fact that a permanent 1mb blocksize is untenable in an open source coin. If you genuinely want a small blocksize, you need to get behind a compromise proposal that others can support.
You can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Choose carefully.
You are the one always overreacting, phagocytizing the (non) debate with you fallacies, and talking about things you dont qualify to grasp..
Im not a 1MB 4eva lulz cheering noob. I'm a timing, data and testing advocate. (which is all what BIP000 is about)
Miners get to mine something valuable because we, the (ACTUAL!) users, gives it its value.
So I sure hope they get to see what im saying because any power grab attempt on their behalf is going to result as a BITCOIN PRICE FALL, the same way it fell when Ghash.io had about 50% of hashrate, rememba?
(And the same way it fell when gavin was at his ATH "governance" BS with his XT fork buddy hearn)
So to get things clear for your twisted little brainwashed socialist mind, maybe try connect the dots here:
CONSENSUS > DECENTRALIZATION > SECURITY >VALUE
now if you dont get it from here, ima just put you on ignore, so you wont cry after me being so mean on you clueless noob.
wtf? like we care about what miners want..
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circonstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circonstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
Well I hope the miners are seeing this. The asset-class #rektum brigade don't care about miners, but still genuinely believe the miners will stick around to be their bitch and validate their occasional transactions when they aren't hodling. Yeah, good luck with that sales pitch.
Again, you could stop overreacting for a second and think about this more carefully. Recognise the fact that (as you claim you understand) the incentives for the miners and the wider network have to align and you need the miners. Recognise the fact that you aren't going to get another chance to compromise if you blow this one. Recognise the fact that a permanent 1mb blocksize is untenable in an open source coin. If you genuinely want a small blocksize, you need to get behind a compromise proposal that others can support.
You can do this the easy way, or the hard way. Choose carefully.
wtf? like we care about what miners (only) want.. consensus hellowww..
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circumstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..
but it wont happen under such circumstances.
so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.
BTW..
XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!
XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!
BTW..
FUD Thread #REKT, brg444 admitted miners want larger blocks.
Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.
BTW..
XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!
XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!
We are fucked with XT and we are fucked with 1MB blocks. Solution: A reasonable blocksize increase with blockstream. Unfortunately it seems you have to choose between decentralization of nodes or low fees for everyone (at the expense of centralizing the nodes).
Everything fine over here...
Let's start a Trolltalk drinking game, where we take a shot every time some moran expresses their false sense of urgency.
Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.
Nah, I made a small alteration, but I feel the message is pretty clear. And if I'm wrong, I'll still have coins on both chains. The only one with something to lose here is you.
Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us
"
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us
"I don't think they are going to lobby for that because we've already established that larger blocks will give them greater income.
This is what happens when you dig your heels in and refuse to discuss compromises. There might still time to change your tone and find some common ground. Better make it quick, though. Again, if you can get behind a smaller increase that would limit future centralisation, I'll support it with you. I'm prepared to stop this belligerence if you are. Otherwise, we'll see where the fork takes us.
As it stands my vote is with BIP000
https://t.co/zElC8D9dPV
Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.
You really don't get it do you?
It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.
Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.
The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.
I get it just fine, thanks. Bitcoin needs the miners to function. You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want. If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust. I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.
Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.
Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us
"lol these people seems not to even grasp how a simple consensus works..
never wonder why miners didnt left for sum cheap ready to be mint altcoin yet?! not even XT?
how about you give us a break you retards. fork aint gonna happen. Bitcoin is set in stone.
you either abide or leave, and im sure miners, like all the rest of you forkers know the way out. but would you? lol no.
Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.
Nah, I made a small alteration, but I feel the message is pretty clear. I definitely don't see why I'd leave out the part where you admitted miners want larger blocks. That's pretty devastating to your case, heh. And if I'm wrong, I'll still have coins on both chains. The only one with something to lose here is you.
Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us"
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us
"I don't think they are going to lobby for that because we've already established that larger blocks will give them greater income.
This is what happens when you dig your heels in and refuse to discuss compromises. There might still time to change your tone and find some common ground. Better make it quick, though. Again, if you can get behind a smaller increase that would limit future centralisation, I'll support it with you. I'm prepared to stop this belligerence if you are. Otherwise, we'll see where the fork takes us.
Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.
You really don't get it do you?
It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.
Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.
The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.
I get it just fine, thanks. Bitcoin needs the miners to function. You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want. If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust. I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.
Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.
Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?
"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us
" Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.
You really don't get it do you?
It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.
Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.
The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.
I get it just fine, thanks. Bitcoin needs the miners to function. You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want. You were literally just now talking about aligned incentives, so I can't see why you're suddenly struggling with the concept. If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust. I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.
Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
You really don't get it do you?
It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin. It's blatantly obvious from past experiences that a good majority of miners don't have a clue what that is.
Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones. Moreover chances are they are likely voting AGAINST XT/BIP101 more than anything else.
Remember also that there are no such things as "the miners" as a collective. Some couldn't bother about bigger blocks since they can barely handle actual load, other larger miners see in bigger blocks an opportunity to consolidate their share of the network by eventually putting smaller ones out of business.
The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.
Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.
What twists and turns? So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles? Some of them clearly want larger blocks. If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish. It's your only option. Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside. If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.
Jump to: