Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 221. (Read 378999 times)

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

At least with BIP100 something could potentially happen sooner (though we are still going to have the whole issue about getting a majority to run it). I'd be happy to pin my colors to a BIP100 based solution if it meant that block size increases could happen sooner rather than later - even though I think that block size as a function of miner voting is totally unnecessary and overly complex.

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

The spam attack won't attract any noobies and that's not the goal. It's to highlight how pathetic the system currently is.

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. 

The question is: Why change at all when it works?

The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet

You know, it's pretty tough to have a fruitful discussion with so much ad hominem being thrown around. Some of you really need to grow up. You're not rooting for your home team here. There are a lot of stakeholders to consider regarding BIP 100, BIP 101, BIP 102 and...... XT. Those who want to have constructive discussions about the future of decentralized, transferable money are simply becoming disgusted watching some of you make so much noise with nothing but insults.

Sobett, brg444 is a disciple of the Wences Casares school of "Bitcoin-as-a-ponzi-scheme', where he will get rich because - 5 Billion People, right?  There is little or no argument you can make to people like that, They feel that if enough fools can be induced into buying bitcoin simply as a store of value, that the early adopters all get fabulously wealthy. They have no plan for bitcoin as a token of exchange or as a viable economic infrastructure. They are the stupid, greedy minority, who feel the world owes them a living for doing nothing.

He has no interest in bitcoin ever being used as a peer-to-peer cash system as Satoshi set out to create, and that those on both sides of the blocksize debate are trying to create.  To him it is a ponzi scheme that will make him rich.

Why do so many people paint this situation as "XT vs the status quo?" That's part of the problem. There are other solutions than BIP 101 (let alone XT), so what's with this perpetual misinformed characterization?

BIP 100 came before BIP 101, ya know....

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"

Just read some Tesla news. I feel that this XT branch is very similar to electric cars, although they are the future, but people have a large inertia to stay at current status, and gas is getting cheaper and cheaper, so unless the government force the gasoline engine to quit market (they must use global warming as an excuse), it just can not go mainstream due to its terrible charging time (time is the most valuable resource for anyone)

Bitcoin: Oligarchy 2.0

 

Sorry I have fed enough trolls for today. Ignored.

Well obviously you can try to spin Adam's word to support your own agenda here but what he says is clearly : let's increase block size so that we have room before Lightning is ready.

So essentially he supports block size increase... I'm sorry your point was?

1. The very fact that practically no one is actually moving towards that solution should tell you all you need to know about the morality and quality of it. A very bad solution is not much better than no solution at all. Especially as it creates dissent and enormous loss of productive time within the developer community.

2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

Are you seriously trying to beat turtlehuricane for his champion position?

You're doing a good job so far. Except you missed one key part: while you're repeating like a parrot, you need to keep reflect any counter points by telling them to look in the code. Its hundreds thousands lines of code. Pretend like you're actually a kickass coder and you read the code yourself.

Seriously, you will make all these "shills" so focusing in on what line of codes they're supposed to look at, while the noobs would just take your statement as facts.

Thats the only way you can go for 2x pages until everyone agrees you're just a waste of bandwidth.

Thank you good sir for highlighting what bitcoin is supposed to meant at its core.

There are days that Adam on twitter is saying that if blocks need to be bigger it needs to be done as slow as possible to give space to the develop of the lightning network technology (so paying his salary)  

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633157354515664896

A dictator does not rule through a 75% consensus, and because we have the ability to fork away from any developers now and into the future, we do not ever need to worry about there being a dictator of Bitcoin, this is literally impossible. It should not matter what kind of people the developers are, it does not even matter what their motivations are. All that matters is what is in the open source code and we will never be forced to use a client that we do not want to. So to compare the developers of Bitcoin XT to a dictator is actually very inaccurate, and is really just bad rhetoric and hyperbole.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12267335

Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money.

It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds.

#1.  I disagree.  What I see is demand building for bigger blocks, Gavin and Mike providing a solution, and people moving towards that solution.  This is the free market at work.  If we had several more competing implementations this "consensus process" would be more efficient.  

#2.  The only talking point the small block side has left is "big blocks = centralization" (which I disagree with but can't prove it).  What I find ironic is that they simultaneously fight hard to keep centralization in the most heavily centralized aspect of Bitcoin: development!

If we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized then we've already lost.  

Let's increase the block size and decrease centralization by showing our support for a wider variety of Bitcoin implementations!