Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 59. (Read 378992 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Yes I acussed Core of hypocracy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason why they are presently not increasing the blocksize according to them. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious issue. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.

Opt-in RBF is a twist on Satoshi's original implementation of unconfirmed transaction replacement.

It is not imposed on any individual user and therefore is as much a contentious issue as multi-signature is, which is to say not at all.

Different variations of it have been discussed over the years and the current implementation has been reviewed, vetted & ACKED by a majority of the participants to the Bitcoin open-source repo.

Every single miner is free to opt out from this behaviour hence the outright stupidity of suggesting it requires miner consensus.

Go and do your homeworks will ya?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  
You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.
Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.
I accused Core of hypocrisy because they said they would not implement any contentious changes. This is part of the reason they gave for not presently increasing the blocksize. However now they are releasing RBF which certainly is a contentious change. Without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus, this is hypocritical.
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.
This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it[/b]. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Quote from: jtoomim
Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.
Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  
You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

You can go and get a clue here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3urm8o/optin_rbf_is_misunderstood_ask_questions_about_it/

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.
This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it[/b]. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Quote from: jtoomim
Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.
Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  
You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424

Adam's trade is cryptography mathematics, there is zero wiggle room for half-truths, obfuscation, falsehoods or lies in mathematics.

I am not sure what you are saying? I believe that Roger Ver is taking money for having promoting wallets on his site. Adam was correct. Roger is trying to distract from that by aggressively calling Adam a liar.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424

Adam's trade is cryptography mathematics, there is zero wiggle room for half-truths, obfuscation, falsehoods or lies in mathematics.
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

They are really buttrekt about the RBF thing; they know their ludicrous vision of coffees-on-the-Holy-Ledger is now truly dead and buried.

I haven't seen such wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments at FrappeForum since the original Great Schism.   Cheesy

[email protected] willingly jumps into a deep pit of (obviously satirical) stupidity here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ul6ox/beyond_rbf_blockstream_is_working_on_blocking/

Guess he's never heard of Poe's Law!   Grin

Bonus lulz:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3u8aqh/are_we_trading_one_theymos_for_another/
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/this-vs-forum-bitcoin-com.84/#post-1579
(In which BitcoinJudas doesn't play nicely with other self-appointed Gavinista leadership as they squabble over the few remaining True Believers.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ul23l/all_the_posts_here_about_rbf_and_not_one_peep/cxfr0as
(In which /r/btc mods respond to anti-RBF crapflood with SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/
(In which /r/btc mods are accused of Jorge Stolfi SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

Looks like thermos is in danger of losing his 'Epitome of Authoritarianism' world record!   Cheesy

Quote
Yes, Roger Ver pulled a pretty shitty move when I wrote to him a few weeks ago and asked to support us and to tweet about the new forum to his followers. What he did instead is rush to start a separate forum, hoping to drive traffic to his sponsors and shove wallet services down people's throats and stuffed everything with ads.
Interesting. When Adam Back questioned Roger Ver about prioritising paying wallets, Roger very aggressively called Adam a liar.

Everything that I see indicates Adam was correct and it is Roger who is a liar.

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/662453644567015424
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.
This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Quote from: jtoomim
Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.  

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.

They are really buttrekt about the RBF thing; they know their ludicrous vision of coffees-on-the-Holy-Ledger is now truly dead and buried.

I haven't seen such wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments at FrappeForum since the original Great Schism.   Cheesy

[email protected] willingly jumps into a deep pit of (obviously satirical) stupidity here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ul6ox/beyond_rbf_blockstream_is_working_on_blocking/

Guess he's never heard of Poe's Law!   Grin

Bonus lulz:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3u8aqh/are_we_trading_one_theymos_for_another/
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/this-vs-forum-bitcoin-com.84/#post-1579
(In which BitcoinJudas doesn't play nicely with other self-appointed Gavinista leadership as they squabble over the few remaining True Believers.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ul23l/all_the_posts_here_about_rbf_and_not_one_peep/cxfr0as
(In which /r/btc mods respond to anti-RBF crapflood with SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/
(In which /r/btc mods are accused of Jorge Stolfi SENSOR SHIPS ...and comedy ensues.)

Looks like thermos is in danger of losing his 'Epitome of Authoritarianism' world record!   Cheesy
full member
Activity: 132
Merit: 100
willmathforcrypto.com
...
RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.
This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. ...

RBF isn't a fork at all, hard or soft. It doesn't change which blocks are valid.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
More and more desperation from the XTard drone camp.

Good.

Things are progressing in the right direction.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.
This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Quote from: jtoomim
Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101?
You appear to be conflating unlike things here,  the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.
I do not think that seventy five percent of the hash power is controlled by three people. I think that pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work.

I agree but you just destroyed Gavins 'reasoning' for why only 75% percent hash rate was used. I.e. so a single pool can not block it. But like you yourself said pools are just proxys that represent miners.

I think the real underlying reason 75% is set, is because Gavin instinctively knows that he wont be able to fork with consensus i.e. something like 95%.
I can actually agree with this, I think it will most likely be impossible to reach 95% consensus on any contentious issue, therefore having a lower percentage for such changes does make sense and I wholeheartedly agree with this decision, it further allows for the possibility for the smaller chain to continue to exist if that is what people want, which I would also consider to be a positive effect. I think that if we do require 95% consensus on all issues that this would guarantee to completely freeze all significant developments over the long term since there will be more contentious issues and decisions which will need to be made in the future as well even beyond this blocksize debate.
sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

 RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

sr. member
Activity: 277
Merit: 257
If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101?
You appear to be conflating unlike things here,  the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.
I do not think that seventy five percent of the hash power is controlled by three people. I think that pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work.

I agree but you just destroyed Gavins 'reasoning' for why only 75% percent hash rate was used. I.e. so a single pool can not block it. But like you yourself said pools are just proxys that represent miners.


I think the real underlaying reason 75% is set, is because Gavin instinctively knows that he wont be able to fork with consensus i.e. something like 95%.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

your broken irrelevant rhetoric.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.
it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
A good laugh  Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote
On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.
Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not  the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)
Pages:
Jump to: