Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 213. (Read 378997 times)

Not what they said. They said it damages confidence, not that it's intrinsically wrong. Those two things are separate concepts, you would do well not to confuse them.

Careful, second time you have misrepresented someone's views that I have noticed, and it's on the same thread (and the same page).


From the BitFury report which you claim to have read:


So, three times in one page, Veritas? Are these all mistakes on your part?

I respectfully disagree with the good people at Bitfury. I am surprised to see that they think that it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team. There are very good reasons for why this is not the case, which we have already discussed on this thread. This white paper does not prove anything in terms of this question. Furthermore them just saying this, I do not find convincing, an argument for why this is the case would be better. Or if you really believe this brg444 then why don’t you rebuttal my arguments instead of just posting the opinion of Bitfury. If Core does not implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, I am sure that Bitfury would change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/1-bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase/bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase.pdf

This is the mark of true industry leaders.

Nothing the clowns at Circle, BitPay, Bitgo, Blockchain.info could hope to deliver.



#REKT

Maybe I did misunderstand, but the emboldened part of the text is why I thought that is what he meant.

No substance post have no substance.

Gavin and his BIP101 meets the  rest of the devs:

It is a power grab in a sense that it gives them the power to reduce the block size by allowing them to collude and removing the need for better bandwidth. It removes a technical aspect where they should compete with each others removing the opportunity for new mining pools to emerge by offering better bandwidth to the network.

Check your rhetoric, marky clearly meant "supporting XT != the only way of supporting bigger blocks." By that logic, I support BIP101, which we all know I do not.

I do actually agree with you on this point for a change. That is that neither one of these proposals represents a power grab because it is done through consensus.

I disagree with this however. Supporting XT does equal supporting bigger blocks.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

An immature power grab, really? So mining pools voting in favor of an alternative proposal is a power grab, yet Gavin Anderson and Mike Hearn releasing a hard fork is not? People just sound butt hurt because XT and BIP 101 haven't a chance of moving forward. I don't think BIP 100 is anything to write home about, but at least it ended this nonsense that "supporting XT = supporting bigger blocks."

But I think the point here is that many people believe (and interpret the whitepaper as stating) that a plethora of different implementations with regular post-fork swarming to a new consensus is actually the natural state of Bitcoin.

The idea that consensus means pre-fork agreement is wrong (as pre-fork agreement is impossible in a trustless decentralized system).

I believe the recent XT events should be the norm; new implementations being released, and standing or falling on their merits in the community, with regularity.

I think that while a lot of the "team XT" stuff was nonsense and dangerous, I think that the deliberate slowing of the blocksizes by those people with an apparent anti-competitive commercial incentive to do so, is FAR more dangerous and insidious.

If Bitpay came out and said; "we've created BIP111 and are suggesting people who like adoption run it, as we need it to process zero confirmation transactions to reduce fraud and increase adoption, so we can make money and grow" than at least that's honesty. What's going on at Blockstream is much more subtle, and much more disingenuous.

The only way that we can break this cycle of BS is for multiple parties to be developing (as they are) and the community to be accepting and rejecting CODE not PEOPLE.

One correction here is that this is true for the pools, not necessary the miners, since the miners are not effected by an increased block size, Miners and pool operators are today mostly separate entities. However you are correct that BIP101 might increase the blocksize limit beyond projected trends in terms of network resources, from the perspective of the pools and other full node operators. Which would indeed decrease node count and therefore would be bad for decentralization.

More users does lead to more full nodes, however in order to support more users we need to increase the block size which does make it more difficult to run full nodes and would therefore decrease node count. This does need to be a balancing act, and your criticisms of BIP101 are valid that it might not achieve the best balance between these opposing pressures.

I agree, and I am also confident that we will have a wider range of options available to us in the near future as well.

They are not reasonable, it is an immature power grab that can cripple competition in the mining space.

Not Just China, and also not all of China.

Bitfury, KNCMiner, 21 Inc, CKPool and BitClub are all currently mining blocks in support of BIP100. I don't think any of those are based in China.

As of the Chinese pools
BW and Antpool are mining blocks in support of 8Mb

F2Pool and BTCChina mine BIP100

I would welcome that outcome.


Unfortunately, that's what the BIP101 schedule confers, and so you are advocating (indirectly) for outgrowing network resources. Only industrial scale miners can cope with above trend changes, hence the centralising effect.


I find your statements here very encouraging.

It does make some sense to support solutions that actually exist, and also to consider BIP101 the lesser of two evils when contrasted with 1MB 4EVER. I don't see it that way, but it's not so egregious.

But what you're saying to qualify that is well formed too. A choice between two bad options isn't much of a choice at all. I am confident we will have a far wider range of options on the table to choose from.

And who would be interested in running nodes for a handful of billionaires?

This node runner for one would disappear from the network. (As nodes are non profit so would probably most others)

looks like chinese pools joined team BiP100. at least they're reasonable, a bit surprising. good luck with your XT altcoin Gavin

ok cool, that be litecoin 

so much less drama 

plz forkers just get it done with already. go to whatever forked chain suits you.

Before you say that I was using a straw man argument, I was not. I did not say that you think we should not increase the block size. I know that you support a dynamic limit, and as soon as it is implemented and a mechanism for a fork has been put in place I would most likely support that as well instead of BIP101. At that point we will most likely be on the same side of the fork again.

Again I did not claim that you said this, I just wanted to point out that solo miners need to be miners at an industrial scale in order to feasibly solo mine.

To be clear, compared to several years ago mining is far more centralised today, however compared to a several months ago, mining has actually become more decentralised. There has been somewhat of a trend reversal so to speak.

I never said that we should increase the blocksize limit beyond projected trends in terms of network resources.

I suppose that I am often arguing from the perspective of being against not increasing the block size because I see that as being the biggest threat to Bitcoin. I am sorry if I sometimes come across like I presume that is your position, that is not my intention and I know that is not what you believe. It seems like we are in agreement that the block size should be increased. I only support BIP101 because it is the only real alternative that exists now that I can adopt now, it is also a catalyst for change, you can call me a political realist if you want, I even consider it a choice between the lesser of two evils. As soon as a third alternative comes along that you would most likely support as well if i where to guess, I will be right there with you supporting the cause and helping to keep Bitcoin free and decentralized, which is in part why I became a miner in the first place.