Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 215.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3083

Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 03:03:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 30, 2015, 03:32:42 AM

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

Lightning will make money for anyone running a hub. Anyone can run a hub. In a certain way hub can tend toward centralization since they benefit from liquidity but there are technological solutions to this problem.

That sounds like an acceptable structure; open access as with mining, only barrier to entry is the infrastructure and distinguishing yourself from the competitors (could Greg Maxwell's Confidential Transactions concept be implemented as instances of Lightning hubs, for instance?).

I guess the real question is: how much control over the tied up funds can the Lightning hubs exert? From the explanations I've looked at, participants can renege at any time they choose, but I can't help thinking there has to be some way to reprimand abusers of that mechanism, so indirect control could be exercised by the hub operator that way.

Lightning really needs a whole thread (or more) to itself, there's alot to consider. I am undecided as of yet, but it promises alot.

Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 03:03:27 PM

The second part of your comment starts with the premise that we are urgently in need of a scaling solution that should be implement RIGHT NOW so any solution is good enough and we can't possibly wait 3-4 more months to decide on more alternatives.

No it doesn't.

Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 03:03:27 PM

I find myself disagreeing with this urgency.

You're in good company, because that's what I think too.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 30, 2015, 03:32:42 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 02:26:14 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV. The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream.

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger."

A good example of where the anti-Blockstream people have a point IMO.

How will Lightning make money, and for who? How will that be structured? Will settling all Lightning channels on the blockchain provide enough revenue to keep miners incentivised?

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

Lightning will make money for anyone running a hub. Anyone can run a hub. In a certain way hub can tend toward centralization since they benefit from liquidity but there are technological solutions to this problem.

The second part of your comment starts with the premise that we are urgently in need of a scaling solution that should be implement RIGHT NOW so any solution is good enough and we can't possibly wait 3-4 more months to decide on more alternatives. I find myself disagreeing with this urgency.

Westin Landon Cox

full member

Activity: 136

Merit: 100

Get your filthy fiat off me you damn dirty state.

Quote from: brg444 on August 30, 2015, 02:59:30 PM

Nick has been on a roll lately Cheesy

That is brilliant.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Nick has been on a roll lately Cheesy

tl121

sr. member

Activity: 278

Merit: 254

Quote from: chek2fire on August 30, 2015, 06:53:01 AM

the nodes of bitcoinXT thre days now has decline. Now is to 12% and i can see them lower in the next days when the free trials of vps will end.

There has been a DDOS attack on XT nodes. In addition, there may be nodes connecting to XT nodes to exhaust their connection capability so that they won't get counted.

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 30, 2015, 05:28:44 AM

more than 14% of all nodes isnt a failure isnt it? they also push the development and force the devs to make a decision that we need.

good work gavin and mike!

The node number isn't an indicator of how successful XT is given that it can be faked so easily (from both sides).

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

the nodes of bitcoinXT thre days now has decline. Now is to 12% and i can see them lower in the next days when the free trials of vps will end.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

more than 14% of all nodes isnt a failure isnt it? they also push the development and force the devs to make a decision that we need.

good work gavin and mike!

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: marky89 on August 29, 2015, 05:13:42 PM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 27, 2015, 12:05:47 AM

Perhaps if attacks are predominantly coming from Malaysia, we should begin deprioritizing Malaysian IP ranges. There are geo-IP services that we can trust as a third party to compile lists of such suspicious IP ranges, too. Roll Eyes

All that some of us ask is that people stop supporting unnecessary centralized solutions. Just admit that there are better ways to approach DDOS attacks.

Indeed, like simply having nodes deprioritize IPs that are actively attacking them. This is a simple, decentralized solution that requires no third party trust. Why aren't XT supporters at least lobbying Gavin Anderson and Mike Hearn to change this? Rather than arguing that it's "innocent?"

because that is what Hearn wanted to do all along and because it is not simple:

Quote

Please read the roadmap at the top. The next step is to handle multiple connections from single IPs better, and to allow user-configurable priority lists. Then a quick fix would be to drop your little botnet IPs into a file and give it lower priority than Tor. After that, Tor connections would evict the botnet.

Then after that, there needs to be ways for a node to figure out priorities automatically, for instance by defining a utility function that doesn't rate all mobile connections as low utility. This is very hard, especially as the code would be open source, but is obviously the gold standard to aim for.

This is all a lot of work. Contributions of some additional logic to get us further along the path would be appreciated.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6364

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3083

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 02:26:14 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV. The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream.

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger."

A good example of where the anti-Blockstream people have a point IMO.

How will Lightning make money, and for who? How will that be structured? Will settling all Lightning channels on the blockchain provide enough revenue to keep miners incentivised?

The answers aren't complete because the system isn't finished. Where my agreement with people like knight22 ends is with their conclusion: because side chains framework and Lightning are currently incomplete, therefore the only other scaling "solution" is what everyone should choose, regardless of the flaws in that idea. Being the only game in town is frequently cited as a good reason to support 101 lol

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 02:58:18 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 02:26:14 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV. The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream. Who cares if they use laptops or big servers?

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution. That no one can't really use anyway because it is either A. Too costly or B. Transactions get never confirmed.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger." Irrelevant to the question.

Competitive fees have never failed to get their transactions confirmed. If they did fail, then Bitcoin isn't working the way it's supposed to. But that's never happened.

Servers cost more than laptops. Requiring an expensive server/pipe to operate a full contributing node would violate Bitcoin's core principle of giving ~everyone the option to act as their own financial institution, and damage the network's diversity/diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency.

BTC fees are still orders of magnitude lower than trivial, especially given the exceedingly valuable magical/revolutionary technology those sub-trivial fees grant access to. As fees rise, they simply exclude marginal cases like gambling/spam/tips/coffee/paywalls.

That's a good thing. And there's plenty of room for them off-chain or on alt/side chains.

Bitcon's survivability is never "irrelevant to the question." Bitcon's survivability is central to the answer of every question.

That you feel survivability is "irrelevant" demonstrates you simply don't understand Bitcoin, and would perhaps be happier with an Android app for Paypal, Visa, or Square.

Quote

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy. -David Chaum 1996

Quote

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

Quote

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

Quote

Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Quote

The raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 02:26:14 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV. The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream. Who cares if they use laptops or big servers?

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution. That no one can't really use anyway because it is either A. Too costly or B. Transactions get never confirmed.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger." Irrelevant to the question.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:24:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

Financial institutions may run their own nodes, hire a specialist, or use SPV. The point, for the sake of the network remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient, is to maintain the option of "really" (IE trustlessly) using Bitcoin for anyone with a $300 laptop and 1Mb upstream.

The broader point is that Bitcoin grants anyone with such a laptop and pipe the (revolutionary) option of being their own (disruptive) financial institution.

Absent a crackdown or other type of crisis, most people will simply "benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

But if there were a crackdown or other crisis, we must ensure that ~everyone is economically and technologically able to "write into the holy ledger."

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:19:48 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:04:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:03:05 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 11:59:37 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 11:55:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

It doesn't address my questions at ALL.

Yes it does. You simply lack the intelligence and experience required to appreciate the answers.

Again: If only big institutions can use the blockchain, so what's the point of keeping it decentralized that much? Who will be running a node for a bunch of banks? It does not make any sense.

Again: Please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Basically you can't reply to the simple question of "who is going to run a node for these financial institutions?". Gotcha.

And you keep talking about keeping the blockchain decentralized? What a joke you are.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: knight22 on August 30, 2015, 12:04:30 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:03:05 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 11:59:37 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 11:55:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

It doesn't address my questions at ALL.

Yes it does. You simply lack the intelligence and experience required to appreciate the answers.

Again: If only big institutions can use the blockchain, so what's the point of keeping it decentralized that much? Who will be running a node for a bunch of banks? It does not make any sense.

Again: Please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Again: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 30, 2015, 12:03:05 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 11:59:37 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 11:55:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

It doesn't address my questions at ALL.

Yes it does. You simply lack the intelligence and experience required to appreciate the answers.

Again: If only big institutions can use the blockchain, so what's the point of keeping it decentralized that much? Who will be running a node for a bunch of banks? It does not make any sense.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 11:59:37 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 11:55:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

It doesn't address my questions at ALL.

Yes it does. You simply lack the intelligence and experience required to appreciate the answers.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 11:55:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

It doesn't address my questions at ALL. If only big institutions can use the blockchain, so what's the point of keeping it decentralized that much? Who will be running a node for a bunch of banks? It does not make any sense.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

This is a political problem and not a technical one.

Great insight on this point by Peter Todd:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634808169978462208

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Here is your answer; please note your questions indulge in the fallacy of petitio principii.

Quote

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:51 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 10:31:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 28, 2015, 05:19:59 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 28, 2015, 01:52:52 PM

Quote from: sgbett on August 28, 2015, 07:57:33 AM

The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one

Quote from: sgbett on August 28, 2015, 07:57:33 AM

Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

Quote from: sgbett on August 28, 2015, 07:57:33 AM

And what is the point of keeping the blockchain so decentralized it is not even useful for no one? Who will run a node of a useless blockchain? If most transactions are driven off chain, will transaction fees will be enough to ensure strong enough security? I seriously doubt it.

Exactly, you are absolutely correct. That is why I have linked this article because it explains this as well in more detail:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

Or if you prefer in the form of a podcast:

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-241-the-big-blockist-perspective

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 215. (Read 378999 times)