Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 225.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

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.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

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.

ok, thanks for the clarification. I think, I am aware of most big projects in the Bitcoin world, but I am really bad with names.

btw. doesn't change a thing about, that Muhammed and jonald where talking about two different technologies.

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

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.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

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.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

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

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

What? Deleting P2P lightweight clients and smartphone wallets? There is NO way the Core developers can do that! You are very mistaken. I already gave a reply above. Quoting:

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:54:00 PM

-snip-
Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering.

FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely.

P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12250669
-snip-

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:54:00 PM

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12250669

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:44:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.

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

BldSwtTrs

legendary

Activity: 861

Merit: 1010

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?

The guys at the top of the hierarchy remove the ladder so they can stay at the top, it's not difficult to comprehend and it could be very dangerous if that human tendancy is left unchecked.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

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 ?
-snip-

Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering.

FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely.

P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12250669

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:44:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 26, 2015, 01:28:48 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions.
i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though...

LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont.

Yes, they scale more easily, they're transactions competing for block space. Now, instead of Blockstream being lazy and deferring the scaling of their system to block size they are actively researching more efficient crypto that will decrease the size of these transactions.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

What? Could we please focus on a subject?
jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions.
i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though...

LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont.

BldSwtTrs

legendary

Activity: 861

Merit: 1010

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.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: turvarya on August 26, 2015, 01:25:02 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 01:09:59 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

You were saying Core developers, who are also Blockstream developers, were stonewalling 1 MB limit for years and are continuing to do so. Which is a FUD/disinformation and is very different from "block size limit debate has been going on for years"! You support XT and assumes core developers are against raising block size limit especially because of Blockstream. Its okay but you are spreading your assumption and/or speculations as a "fact" everywhere. Propaganda? I don't know! You used to be a neutral diplomat and an accurate judge but its fading away!

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 26, 2015, 01:02:49 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:53:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 26, 2015, 12:48:06 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 26, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Shocked

Oh, not you Jonald! Sad

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: tvbcof on August 26, 2015, 12:43:51 PM

Quote from: fryarminer on August 26, 2015, 12:37:04 PM

It would be a mistake to get rid of the alert key. And it is clear that the alert key has not been misused in the past.
Considering the necessity for miner's consensus, and considering how many miners are still using prehistoric versions of QT, we need a way to contact them.

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.

We aren't talking about removing the alert key completely, but removing the one that Gavin has acess to. This is completely different. I agree with tvbcof. Gavin has not been that active in the recent years.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 225. (Read 378999 times)