Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 220. (Read 378999 times)

We?

It seems to me team Blockstream is leading the debate as we speak! Who do you represent? The 8MBers? Ewww.

So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!

You continue to be a source of comedy gold.  You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight.

The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be.

Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.

Yes, XT has already lost:

BIP100 is still vaporware and the industry (market makers and payment processors) are still firmly supporting BIP101 which have a functioning code already. The race isn't over at all.

I'm interested in how the anti-XT crowd feel about a BIP100 implementation that could very well facilitate 8MB blocks even sooner?

Its pure speculation I know - I'm used to the other board in this respect - but I suspect a lot of people went XT on the 8MB blocks issue (its the only reason I switched). If in fact XT is being 'rekt' are people overlooking the fact that there is still large support for 8MB blocks amongst those 'rekkers'.

With regards short term block size increase, it may be that the only difference between BIP100 and BIP101 is that the latter requires 75% on XT (or xt-compatible) whereas the former requires 80% of miner votes to be 8MB.

I wonder if the anti-XT crowd may end up being the ones that get the block size increase implemented even sooner! That would be ironic

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

It is over.

A majority of the mining network is now backing BIP100 and a certain significant portion are outright against 8MB increase.

It's not fully over yet. The big spam attack still has to happen in september, it may cause panic again and get some random newbies that are clueless supporting XT or BIP101. Only after the spam attacks are over we will be able to say the hijacking attempt is over and buried, until then lets keep our eyes open.

Have you tried to make a transactions during that stress test? Mines got back logged 1-2h before getting a confirmation with standard fee. Increasing the fees doesn't adds up capacity btw. 

There is now a recurring theme of cripplecoiners just reusing arguments levelled against them. What you wrote is pretty much exactly what has been said about those who would block development in the area of block size increase (the dictators) and those on the forums who tirelessly post anti XT rhetoric to try and convince everyone that Mike and Gavin are the enemy.

Then hilariously you suggest they should be allowed release code that stands on its own. Which is exactly what has been said about lightning.

Cut and paste designed to muddy the waters. You are a relentless poster, unnaturally so IMHO. So tell me is this propaganda?

"XT has already lost"

"We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov

Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity.

Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed.

Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity.

Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed.

If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"?

Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event.  There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it.  If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people.

I've never supported Gavin and made that clear for years. Oh, not for intellectual or philosophical reasons but because he looks like one of those kids I used to beat up in high school. lol

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
[...]
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency?

[source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)]

The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code.
The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date.

You know, it's pretty tough to have a fruitful discussion with so much ad hominem being thrown around.

The Jan date can just be changed, it is just code.
The BIP101 can be added to the Core with just a different date.

It's hard coded that way in XT, not BIP101 itself. BIP101 could be implemented in Core overnight. Or am I mistaken?

The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.