Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 37. (Read 378991 times)

In other words, you are saying that you lack experience/knowledge in the field. This does not make the proposal that complex. There are simpler solutions, however this one is not as complex as people are saying that it is.

Good to know that a BIP is in the works, though obviously I disagree with your assertion that we are not presently approaching network capacity, it is becoming quite clear that we are nearing that point now.

As you can see from this chart the growth in transaction volume is consistent, almost even exponential.



While the mempool also continues to fill up: https://blockchain.info/en/unconfirmed-transactions

Good to point out here that the last 7 blocks at the time of writing this where also completely full and we still have more then 7000 unconfirmed transactions in the mempool waiting to be confirmed.

A BIP is currently in the works and I would imagined soon to be released.

As for the implementation the general consensus seems to be that a soft work would be much quicker and easier to implement than any other hard-fork proposals.

In short term Bitcoin suffers from no throughput concerns. We've yet to fill up blocks on average. Moreover the timeline for SW seems pretty reasonable and would allow for even faster deployment of large scale Lightning Network implementations.



http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011969.html

Thanks RoadTrain and brg444, you have actually answered some questions about SW that I was still wondering about. Specifically that full nodes will still maintain a full copy of all the signatures.

I do like SW though it will take a long time to fully implement and I also do not think it is a viable solution to significantly increasing the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain by itself, which will be necessary over the short term. I would also prefer to see SW implemented through a hard fork instead of a soft fork which is how it is presently being implemented. I would also prefer to see the proposal formalized into a BIP so that it can be more thoroughly discussed and analyzed over a longer period of time. Instead of the Core developers just deciding among themselves that this will be implemented into Bitcoin ad hoc.

Signatures are not cut out of the blockchain, as they are linked to the block via merkle tree, in esentially the same way transactions are linked currently. Signatures remain a consensus rule. You can an will verify them.

I also enjoy the opinions of people at Qntra (or #b-a/trilema) but in this particular case I'm pretty certain they have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm not suggesting they don't understand the proposition but it seems that their response is more or less a knee-jerk reaction.

Under SW full nodes will still verify and store every signature pertaining to their respective transactions.

straight forward in cutting out the cryptographic signatures out of the blockchain... to allow more spam.

thank you but no thank you.

forkers should create their own altcoin already.

I've been quite surprised by your reaction to this proposal.

It's as if you're being intentionally obtuse because clearly you are making no effort at understanding SW and overexagerate its complexity.

Whether or not you agree with its motivations and underlying ideology SW is pretty straight forward.

I can give you a 10 pages proposal written in ancient chinese + arabic, and tell you this one can solve all the problems for bitcoin, would you accept my proposal? You need to first go into some university for 10 years before you understand what I'm talking about, or you simply ignore it?

Same thing here, if a proposal is too complex for average people to understand, it will just be ignored. In fact, BIP101's problem is just because it introduced a very radical scheme of block size increase that people don't fully understand the consequence of that change. Suppose that it promoted a 2MB block size increase, it should have much larger support than today

But at least you understand that BIP101 will increase the risk of centralization. However for SW proposal, I totally don't understand anything at all: By changing the bitcoin architecture, Pieter essentially change it to something else, an alt-coin. So all the talks about SW should go into alt-coin section, not here. And all this large degree of deviation from Satoshi's original design for what? A mere one time increase for capacity of light nodes, not even helping full nodes?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: "Solutions need to be at least as simple as the problem they solve. Anything else brings multiplicative unintended side effects."

I have been doing most of my writing on a different thread recently. I invite everyone to join me there, even my ideological opponents.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-162#post-5549

I have found that the discussion on this thread is far more civil and constructive.

That is a very dark joke theymos, I might even go as far as to say that it is distasteful.

dead cat bounce.

Humor theymos? Did you sell your account? lol

With Hearn gone on to feather his nest elsewhere, Andresen's support flopping around and XT dead I'm surprised this thread still has any momentum at all.

Just because you don't understand something properly that does not make it strange. Typical average humans. BIP101 would result in self-destruction within the first 2 increases.

You are right about that though. They are posting nonsense wherever they can. Watch out though; incoming ad hominem and straw man fallacy.

IIRC that's not planned until 0.14.

Good to hear this, and thanks for sharing the video from Vinay Gupta. I suddenly understand lots of thing in the latest HongKong consensus conference. Why Gavin was not there, why Pieter was rush to push in a strange soft fork proposal and why Jeff said you should not be afraid of hard fork. It seems there are still very strong political struggle inside

Although I do not run XT due to my personal perference (I'm the conservative type that prefer change nothing unless definitely necessary), but it is good to hear different voice since bitcoin should be politically neutral, not presenting any single faction's interest

However, any decision will make you either tilt to one side or the other, you can not really be 100% neutral. And because participants all have different interest, it is very difficult to reach agreement in a decentralized community

Typically in a open source project, people with the most knowledge get to decide what code should go in, what should not, this kind of governance structure has been existing since GIT was born. So from a political point of view, the governance structure is very centralized and hierachical. Then if we have two lead designer do not agree with each other, we have this XT branch, similar to a civil war in a centrally organized country

I think eventually there is a need for some kind of code like ten commandments in Bible, although you don't need government in anarchist community, but you still need some kind of basic principles to guide everyone. But so far I have only seen Nick Szabo mentioned a little about 4 priorities, and that also need completion/debate

I know you are. When I'm confused I check my assumptions ...

I don't think you've met your new overlords, you're just blindly supporting their employees.

I'm so confused by your Ideology it is in support of the founding principals that are unlocked by Bitcoin, yet you fail to see how it's being governed.

I thought about it but recent developments suggests the f0rkers still have some tricks up their sleeves so for the sake of noobs this thread is beneficial.

Consider it as some sort of public service announcement against these scammers.