Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 224.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 03:36:28 PM

Quote from: DGulari on August 26, 2015, 03:20:40 PM

Quote from: Lauda on August 26, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 11:43:47 AM

Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.

I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated.

Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it).

He has not abused the key. Just because his opinion doesn't agree with yours you'd like to take the key? That is crazy. We need guys on both sides of an argument to have keys - otherwise Blockstream can just take over the blockchain today.

The next time someone wants to make changes to bitcoin - they will release 'RT' - or whatever. The people will vote. The winner will win. That is how it is supposed to work. You don't want the get rid of Mike and Gavin - they are doing what they are supposed to. Introduce possible things which can improve. Then we vote.

Taking away the keys and kicking him out of the community is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum - and this forum has a lot of very dumb shit.

This is absolutely not an argument of Blockstream vs. others or centralization of developer power.

Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?

XT which is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: DGulari on August 26, 2015, 03:20:40 PM

Quote from: Lauda on August 26, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 11:43:47 AM

Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.

I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated.

Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it).

He has not abused the key. Just because his opinion doesn't agree with yours you'd like to take the key? That is crazy. We need guys on both sides of an argument to have keys - otherwise Blockstream can just take over the blockchain today.

The next time someone wants to make changes to bitcoin - they will release 'RT' - or whatever. The people will vote. The winner will win. That is how it is supposed to work. You don't want the get rid of Mike and Gavin - they are doing what they are supposed to. Introduce possible things which can improve. Then we vote.

Taking away the keys and kicking him out of the community is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum - and this forum has a lot of very dumb shit.

This is absolutely not an argument of Blockstream vs. others or centralization of developer power.

Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?

alani123

legendary

Activity: 2422

Merit: 1451

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: meono on August 26, 2015, 03:22:34 PM

OP, when the room is full of noise. Trying to speak louder only makes you the most idiot of the room.

Another thread for another round of political bullshit.

Anyone who is against freedom of choice is in bad faith.

So opposing XT is noise and supporting it is freedom of choice? Don't you see the contradiction in what you're saying?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

OP, when the room is full of noise. Trying to speak louder only makes you the most idiot of the room.

Another thread for another round of political bullshit.

Anyone who is against freedom of choice is in bad faith.

DGulari

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

KawBet.com - Anonymous Bitcoin Casino & Sportsbook

Quote from: Lauda on August 26, 2015, 11:48:10 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 11:43:47 AM

Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.

I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated.

Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it).

He has not abused the key. Just because his opinion doesn't agree with yours you'd like to take the key? That is crazy. We need guys on both sides of an argument to have keys - otherwise Blockstream can just take over the blockchain today.

The next time someone wants to make changes to bitcoin - they will release 'RT' - or whatever. The people will vote. The winner will win. That is how it is supposed to work. You don't want the get rid of Mike and Gavin - they are doing what they are supposed to. Introduce possible things which can improve. Then we vote.

Taking away the keys and kicking him out of the community is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum - and this forum has a lot of very dumb shit.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Denker on August 26, 2015, 03:09:57 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 02:04:15 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

not sure
Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj.

ofc blockstream can still develop it further.

This is NOT right. Hearn invented Lighthouse.
Not Lightning network. You're mixing things up.

Lightning network --> Joseph Poon, Thaddeus Dryja

Lighthouse --> Mike Hearn

you are right, sorry
btw: here is the lightning paper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 02:04:15 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 02:01:29 PM

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

not sure
Hearn invented LN and implemented it in bitcoinj.

ofc blockstream can still develop it further.

This is NOT right. Hearn invented Lighthouse.
Not Lightning network. You're mixing things up.

Lightning network --> Joseph Poon, Thaddeus Dryja

Lighthouse --> Mike Hearn

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

I'm not sure if this qualifies for the Bitcoin Obituaries or not.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: madjules007 on August 26, 2015, 02:58:59 PM

Can someone do me a favor and summarize the differences between the XT implementation and BIP 101? I think most are aware by now that nodes can run https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks but since much of the discussion is about XT and not BIP 101, I think this would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

Here you can see the patches:
https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

If you chose to run "only-bigblocks", your node will only have this patch:

Quote

Bigger blocks, by Gavin Andresen. This set of patches performs some small code refactorings, and implements support for switching to 8 megabyte blocks after January 2016 once 75%+ of mined blocks are voting for the change by setting flags in the block version field. Once supermajority has been reached, there is a grace period of two weeks before the rule change takes effect. After the switch the max block size limit smoothly increases, doubling every two years. The soft limit is set equal to the hard limit to avoid the need for miners to constantly reconfigure things.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: madjules007 on August 26, 2015, 02:58:59 PM

Can someone do me a favor and summarize the differences between the XT implementation and BIP 101? I think most are aware by now that nodes can run https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks but since much of the discussion is about XT and not BIP 101, I think this would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

Besides BIP101 BitcoinXT has also this features implemented:
https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

madjules007

sr. member

Activity: 400

Merit: 250

Can someone do me a favor and summarize the differences between the XT implementation and BIP 101? I think most are aware by now that nodes can run https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks but since much of the discussion is about XT and not BIP 101, I think this would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

Beefcake

full member

Activity: 279

Merit: 132

Beefcake!!!

Ok, so xt is not going to happen? CUT!!!

OK now lets get a block size increase with no fud, no political shenanigans, and no blockstream nonsense.

ACTION!

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Most people would not have supported XT in this manner, if the censorship thing did not happen in /r/Bitcoin Reddit. The censorship thing would not have happened if the XT

people did not decide to hijack the sub-reddit with their XT propaganda. Most people on both sides wanted bigger block sizes, without all the counter privacy BS.

This would have been a straight forward "patch" if both side just reached consensus on the block size debate. Put the ego's aside and we have consensus. Roll Eyes

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: HostFat on August 26, 2015, 02:13:38 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 02:10:23 PM

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101.

This doesn't.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

It is only BIP101.

Thanks! But I saw it earlier.

I prefer to support BIP 100 and not BIP 101.

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 02:14:37 PM

-snip-
Are you aware, that I asked you a question to exactly that topic in another thread?
Maybe you could answer it, instead of repeating the same statements over and over again.

Done and I did not think I repeated statements again and again unless absolutely necessary. Did I?

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

@brg444
So, you are another one that loves authority and hate the people can have a freedom of choice.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on August 26, 2015, 01:58:42 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 01:50:48 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on August 26, 2015, 01:27:56 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 01:20:16 PM

Quote from: maokoto on August 26, 2015, 01:01:32 PM

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.

All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

What about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream?

And who decide who is unqualified? You? Adam Back? Blockstream shareholders?

their code. in general understand that 99% of the people who want to fix or improve Bitcoin are unable to and probably will break it.

see Matt Corralo's recent game theory speech to understand that Bitcoin is an absolutely fragile system and that it is reasonable to be extremely conservative in our motivation to change it.

it is not always about "do we want it?" but more often "can we afford it?"?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 02:10:23 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 02:07:15 PM

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 26, 2015, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on August 26, 2015, 11:28:05 AM

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

Are you aware, that I asked you a question to exactly that topic in another thread?
Maybe you could answer it, instead of repeating the same statements over and over again.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 02:10:23 PM

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101.

This doesn't.
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

It is only BIP101.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 02:10:23 PM

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 02:07:15 PM

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 26, 2015, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on August 26, 2015, 11:28:05 AM

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

as i said: go and use another client which ONLY uses BIP101. guess what: it is compatible with XT... because consensus rules and client code are two different things (and yes: such a fork does exist. just forgot the link as i dont think it is necessary at all).

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 02:07:15 PM

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 26, 2015, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on August 26, 2015, 11:28:05 AM

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.

Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much.

consensus rules vs client code vs private keys
three complete different things

if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else.

imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do.

No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 224. (Read 378999 times)