Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 31. (Read 378991 times)
Jeff Garzik: If blocksize stays 1MB, Core devs should sign a collective note stating desire to transition to new economic policy, of "healthy fee market", and strongly urge users to examine their fee policies, wallet software, transaction volumes and other possible user impacting outcomes.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.
Our Front National / Monero Troll is still trying to destroy the reputation of the small blockers with his Avatar and his Hooligan appearence. Which is really not necessary anymore.
Everybody knows that they act criminal.
"In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an ECE
without warning users loudly, months in advance: "Dear users, ECE has
accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to
FFM."
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.
But that was still not enough LULZ for one day! Behold, Justus R has been shadowbanned from /r/bitcoinxt! 
OH LAWD THE SENSOR SHIPS!1!!!111!!!
OH LAWD THE SENSOR SHIPS!1!!!111!!!
When I heard yesterday that btcdrak was made a moderator of /r/btc, my first thoughts were "Maybe /r/Bitcoin finally has a bit of competition" and "I wonder how long that'll last". The answer: probably not very long. As someone (iCEBREAKER?) predicted, these people will just keep forking themselves into oblivion.
Across the verdant plains of La Serenissima, mighty herds of fattened Gavinista LOLCOWS grazed peacefully upon the fodder provided by their XT overlords.
As they patiently waited in line to pass though the various checkpoints (provided for their continued security and comfort), some of the LOLCOWS noticed BTCDrak had been appointed to moderate /r/btc.
Suddenly, the mood of the thick-headed dim-witted creatures shifted to abject fury and helpless rage.
"HOW THE FUCK DOES FUCKING DRAK GET ROGER VERIFIED?" the enraged LOLCOWS demanded to know.
"HE'S A FUCKING THOUGHT CRIMINAL WORKING FOR BLOCKSTREAM!!!11" the enraged LOLCOWS mooed.
And the drama-loving folk of Bitcoinland looked out upon the vituperating bovines, who were now rolling around in pools of their own sweet, delicious LOL-milk, which was being frothed by their thrashing, stomping, and foaming. And it was good.
The wedge is caused by a few developers. If developers really supported larger blocks they would have acted months (or even years) ago to increase block size.
You unnecessarily assume bad faith, that the Developers cannot change their mind with new data, and ignore the fact that developers were simply wanting better proposals and more testing done.
We are developing a rough consensus now:
Jeff Garzik's opinion-
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
Andreas agrees-
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/677201459541315585
Adam Back agrees -
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/677201289449730048
SIPa is fine with a quick bump hard fork if extremely widespread agreement is reached:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011974.html
jl2012 says we need either BIP102 or 2-4-8 by may -
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011975.html
Looks like a comprehensive and conservative scaling solution is going to happen. Only issue is with certain devs like pieter wuille who understandably want extremely wide consensus for all hard forks. I would assume this would mean that a vote for a specific hard fork agreed upon by 95% or miners and most wallets/devs/and merchant processors.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
There is not, this could lead to a split, at least then the market will be able to choose the superior chain, which I believe will be big blocks."developer consensus" is not real Bitcoin consensus and the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize.
This is a false dichotomy. Almost all developers support and have always supported bigger blocks and a majority of the miners support the developers and will go along with their proposals. You are creating a false wedge where none exists.
The wedge is caused by a few developers. If developers really supported larger blocks they would have acted months (or even years) ago to increase block size.
Coinbase Director of Engineering Charlie Lee takes a stand against Bip 101/XT and CEO
Brian Armstrong of coinbase mostly agrees with him -
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.v9g5uu893
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/677170417979625472
I wonder if this post will be updated to reflect all the recent changes in position against BIP101/XT?
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/
Brian Armstrong of coinbase mostly agrees with him -
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.v9g5uu893
https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/677170417979625472
I wonder if this post will be updated to reflect all the recent changes in position against BIP101/XT?
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/
It is not, these are irreconcilable differences that can not be resolved another way, otherwise it would just be tyranny of the majority or minority. "Forcing" a fee market early as opposed to allowing the fee market to develop organically through supply and demand over a longer period of time are incompatible concepts, we can not have it both ways, at least not on the same chain.
I also do not consider "Core" an authority on Bitcoin. The differences in vision have become ideological not technical.
I also do not consider "Core" an authority on Bitcoin. The differences in vision have become ideological not technical.
Not all the developers assume there will be a fee market and believe that their scalability improvements will outpace adoption. You are not respecting a nuanced and diverse set of philosophical differences in our ecosystem and insisting on creating a wedge for political purposes. There is a spectrum of ideas and solutions and our community will come together with a rough consensus where we will all have to make certain sacrifices in solidarity... others like yourself who appear to make no concessions can fork the chain at any time.
You are correct though that your disagreements aren't technical , but ideological . I look forward to your fork and hearing about who will be the maintainer of your repository when Hearn walks away.
I seriously doubt that miners and payment processors are going to alienate 99.5%+ of the developer community for XT/101.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
There is not, this could lead to a split, at least then the market will be able to choose the superior chain, which I believe will be big blocks."developer consensus" is not real Bitcoin consensus and the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize.
I also do not consider "Core" an authority on Bitcoin. The differences in vision have become ideological not technical.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
There is not, this could lead to a split, at least then the market will be able to choose the superior chain, which I believe will be big blocks."developer consensus" is not real Bitcoin consensus and the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize.
This is a false dichotomy. Almost all developers support and have always supported bigger blocks and a majority of the miners support the developers and will go along with their proposals. You are creating a false wedge where none exists.
http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
Disagreements appear rooted more in differing opinions on economics, a specialized field entirely distinct from engineering, programming, and network design.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The block size limit has for the most part not ever been, and should not now be, used to determine the actual size of average blocks under normal network operating conditions. Real average block size ought to emerge from factors of supply and demand for what I will term “transaction-inclusion services.” Beginning to use the protocol block size limit to restrict the provision of transaction-inclusion services would be a radical change to Bitcoin. The burden of proof is therefore on persons advocating using the protocol limit in this novel way.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The idea of using the limit in this new way—not the idea of raising it now by some degree to keep it from beginning to interfere with normal operations—is what constitutes an attempt to change something important about the Bitcoin protocol. And there rests the burden of proof.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
Transaction-fee levels are not in any general need of being artificially pushed upward. A 130-year transition phase was planned into Bitcoin during which the full transition from block reward revenue to transaction-fee revenue was to take place.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
There is not, this could lead to a split, at least then the market will be able to choose the superior chain, which I believe will be big blocks."developer consensus" is not real Bitcoin consensus and the majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
Segwit has 100% consensus among devs already and wide miner approval... everything else is being worked upon.
is there already an agreement regarding this issue? What will be the chosen solution?
You're just talking about other fiat sales. Donuts are still sold primarily with fiat too. If everyone in the US decided to buy their breakfast with Bitcoin it would be crushed. It can't even handle these little spam attacks that single individuals are throwing at it. Bitcoin couldn't handle drug cartel laundering any more than it can replace Visa. It's not simply blocksize that's holding it back. What I was originally talking about is Bitcoin's best destiny, providing individuals with the ability to buy contraband online without using an easily traceable payment method. It doesn't need to be more than that right now.
Agree. I am suggesting that if in 20-40 years time in the extremely unlikely event painted by our detractors if bitcoin is outlawed by every state (thus eliminating white market use) and heavily criminalized with severe penalties (thus outlawing the grey market use) , all bitcoin would need is 5% total blackmarket share to be extremely valuable. Thus one can and should be very bullish towards our future.
Bitcoin is still young , immature , and weak for all practical purposes, which puts into perspective how vulnerable every other alt is.
If anything this is good, you want transactions to be cheap, otherwise there’s no point to using Bitcoin and people will move on to the next best (cheap or free) option.
We can have both. It is simply about acknowledging the technical limitations of the bitcoin blockchain and how we need to scaffold other layers like the LN to provide cheap and plentiful txs.
Yeah, 20-40 years from now Bitcoin can be a powerful economic force. I put 5btc on a paper wallet with instructions in a safety deposit box for each of my kids. I mined them so my cost per coin was virtually nothing. 20-40 years from now I'll be long dead but my kids could be set for the rest of their lives.
That's why making the correct development choices right now is so important. It's laughable that Andresen and others are running around screaming "the sky is falling - we must fix the blocksize right now!" What a load of crap. What must happen is a correct, bug proof, tamper proof solution be found before any change is made regardless of whether that change happens in 2016 or 2020. Fixing it only to have a worse problem arise isn't going to help. Letting certain developers make changes to satisfy their own egos or pocketbooks won't help either. Let Bitcoin continue to be a small boutique value transfer system for the black market or whoever wants to use it until it's ready for prime time. That's not going to make early adopters rich but could lead to a more survivable Bitcoin for the future.
You're just talking about other fiat sales. Donuts are still sold primarily with fiat too. If everyone in the US decided to buy their breakfast with Bitcoin it would be crushed. It can't even handle these little spam attacks that single individuals are throwing at it. Bitcoin couldn't handle drug cartel laundering any more than it can replace Visa. It's not simply blocksize that's holding it back. What I was originally talking about is Bitcoin's best destiny, providing individuals with the ability to buy contraband online without using an easily traceable payment method. It doesn't need to be more than that right now.
Agree. I am suggesting that if in 20-40 years time in the extremely unlikely event painted by our detractors if bitcoin is outlawed by every state (thus eliminating white market use) and heavily criminalized with severe penalties (thus outlawing the grey market use) , all bitcoin would need is 5% total blackmarket share to be extremely valuable. Thus one can and should be very bullish towards our future.
Bitcoin is still young , immature , and weak for all practical purposes, which puts into perspective how vulnerable every other alt is.
If anything this is good, you want transactions to be cheap, otherwise there’s no point to using Bitcoin and people will move on to the next best (cheap or free) option.
We can have both. It is simply about acknowledging the technical limitations of the bitcoin blockchain and how we need to scaffold other layers like the LN to provide cheap and plentiful txs.
Funny, Silk Road was the largest online contraband market in the world and I don't remember $100k coins.
Silk road represented a small and largely unknown marketplace on the deep web. Most drug dealers and traffickers are still money laundering USD and other fiat through existing channels like HSBC. We have to step outside our bubble and realize how big the blackmarket is and how small bitcoin is.
Most guns/drugs are still sold through existing channels and not online.
You're just talking about other fiat sales. Donuts are still sold primarily with fiat too. If everyone in the US decided to buy their breakfast with Bitcoin it would be crushed. It can't even handle these little spam attacks that single individuals are throwing at it. Bitcoin couldn't handle drug cartel laundering any more than it can replace Visa. It's not simply blocksize that's holding it back. What I was originally talking about is Bitcoin's best destiny, providing individuals with the ability to buy contraband online without using an easily traceable payment method. It doesn't need to be more than that right now.
Bitcoin has a purpose that can't be duplicated by any other payment method. The problem is investors and early adopters want it to be used for everything so the price will hike up and they can sell out for fiat and buy a Lamborghini and a new house. Bitcoin is decades or generations away from being capable of replacing Credit Cards. It doesn't need to fill that roll right now. Currently, it only needs to be best at one thing, buying contraband anonymously online. But the PayPal of the underworld won't push the price through the roof.
Quote from: Charlie Lee
I think BIP101 is too dangerous. As shown by the castle analogy, BIP101 is valuing cheap and unlimited over secure and decentralized. (BIP101 has no effect on fast, but as one can see from the Replace-by-fee proposals, fast won’t last long.) BIP 101 increases the block size too quickly. This will destroy any chance of a fee pressure due to supply constraint. So in order to keep high throughput and low fees, security and decentralization will be destroyed eventually.
Quote from: Charlie Lee
P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8, SegWit, LN, and Validation Cost Metric.
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.6byi5dh3g
Quote
“This will destroy any chance of a fee pressure due to supply constraint.”
If anything this is good, you want transactions to be cheap, otherwise there’s no point to using Bitcoin and people will move on to the next best (cheap or free) option.
Bigger blocks, harder to mine, avg block time starts to drop, difficulty goes down, more miners with cheaper hardware can come in, more decentralization.
If anything this is good, you want transactions to be cheap, otherwise there’s no point to using Bitcoin and people will move on to the next best (cheap or free) option.
Bigger blocks, harder to mine, avg block time starts to drop, difficulty goes down, more miners with cheaper hardware can come in, more decentralization.
Quote from: Charlie Lee
I think BIP101 is too dangerous. As shown by the castle analogy, BIP101 is valuing cheap and unlimited over secure and decentralized. (BIP101 has no effect on fast, but as one can see from the Replace-by-fee proposals, fast won’t last long.) BIP 101 increases the block size too quickly. This will destroy any chance of a fee pressure due to supply constraint. So in order to keep high throughput and low fees, security and decentralization will be destroyed eventually.
Quote from: Charlie Lee
P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8, SegWit, LN, and Validation Cost Metric.
https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.6byi5dh3g
Jump to: