what is the problem of simply forking core to 2mb then 4 mb then 8mb when needed each time we saturate, let's say +90%
i don't a problem of multiple fork spread in a long time frame, you need one click to run a new upgrade of core, not a big deal, i missing something about the real issue of many hard fork?
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 63. (Read 378992 times)
Just like was said before, for this disagreement only the blocksize can be changed, which is only a few lines of code, in the case of BIP101 this has already been coded by Gavin. Which gives people the freedom of choice by simply applying the patch on top of either Core or XT. Changing more then the blocksize also further unnecessarily complicates things when it comes to this disagreement at least. You also forgot to attack BTCD since they are also now supporting an increased blocksize as well.
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
Whatever, I don't see no BIP101 or increased blocksize in that BTCD. It doesn't matter what they talk, the code matters.https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
Of course, if you have the skills, you can apply that patch and build the code yourself, or you can use unmaintained XT software. Beware, at some point the patch won't apply cleanly anymore.
You lost badly. Just admit it.
That's supposed to tell us what exactly? That under the most optimal technical environment "the network" can substain large blocks?
I'm shocked
Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.I'm shocked
Would it be potentially informative to give the relevant testnet's coins some tiny notional value, in order to see what happens in terms of economics (IE Gavincoin Short) in the event of a Great Testnet Schism?
Or would that run afoul of Szabo's warnings about the limits of simulations and lead to a 'small-world fallacy' GIGO situation?
This is big news but xt I'm not sure about it 
Alternative implementations 
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Don't worry, Gavin might take over XT...but he doesn't want to!
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445
In comparison to Core devs that want too much
That says a lot.
That's supposed to tell us what exactly? That under the most optimal technical environment "the network" can substain large blocks?
I'm shocked
Actually, no, they've been having huge problems with it; with nodes crashing all over the place and such. Of course: Bitcoin Core nodes on testnet are unaffected: They're just ignoring the XT chain entirely, banning those peers, and continuing on as if they didn't exist.I'm shocked
Alternative implementations
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Don't worry, Gavin might take over XT...but he doesn't want to!
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/gavin-andresen-i-might-take-over-lead-of-bitcoin-xt-1448486445
Wall St. Veteran: ‘Bitcoin Has Proven That It Cannot Be Controlled or Censored’
https://news.bitcoin.com/tone-vays-reading-bitcoin-charts-educating-masses/
nailed it.
https://news.bitcoin.com/tone-vays-reading-bitcoin-charts-educating-masses/
Quote
“STABILITY IS ALWAYS GOOD AND MAKES BITCOIN A MUCH MORE USEFUL MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE. THE PRICE REALLY REFLECTS THE CONFIDENCE OF THE ECOSYSTEM, AND I BELIEVE THIS CONFIDENCE WILL QUICKLY RISE ONCE THERE ARE MORE ISSUES WITH THE EUROPEAN BANKS.”
Quote
“BITCOIN IS HERE TO STAY, BUT IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE AT LEAST 3 MORE YEARS TO BE TRUSTED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.”
Quote
“BITCOIN HAS NOW BEEN AROUND FOR 7 YEARS, AND IT HAS PROVEN THAT IT CANNOT BE CONTROLLED OR CENSORED.”
Quote
BC: What is your opinion on the block size debate?
- I think fungibility in Bitcoin is a much more important issue. I would rather see small increases in block size when it’s absolutely necessary in order to instantly achieve consensus. I would also not want to see anything else in the code change other than the block size increase. Also, people need to understand that increasing the blocksize is not a solution to the scaling problem. We need some kind of a sidechain in order to handle microtransactions. I do not think it should even be attempted on the chain.
- I think fungibility in Bitcoin is a much more important issue. I would rather see small increases in block size when it’s absolutely necessary in order to instantly achieve consensus. I would also not want to see anything else in the code change other than the block size increase. Also, people need to understand that increasing the blocksize is not a solution to the scaling problem. We need some kind of a sidechain in order to handle microtransactions. I do not think it should even be attempted on the chain.
nailed it.
Alternative implementations
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Incoming:"There is work behind the scenes."; "The lack of free choice is no more"; etc. It was a joke from the begging. You need people with proper technical skills to lead the project.Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd
Quote from: davecgh
We are in favor of a block size increase. Obviously we would prefer the community come to a consensus about the mechanism to enable it, but failing that we will most likely provide a flag to enable all parties involved to make a choice about which rule set they want to use. Clearly such a flag, once enabled, would mean changing back to a different incompatible rule set would require redownloading the chain against the active rule set.
We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy. Naturally, when there are technical issues at play, developers are generally better positioned to discuss the technical aspects of such changes so it generally makes sense to carefully consider their input as they will typically have a greater insight into the issues at play versus an average random user, however, when it comes down to it, all stakeholders will have to make the choice that is right for them.
Perhaps of note, we've been in favor of bigger blocks for quite some time. We even wrote a simulation test tool back in Oct of 2014 to stress the limits and even back then, before many of the recent performance enhancements, the results clearly showed it is capable of handling larger blocks.
We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy. Naturally, when there are technical issues at play, developers are generally better positioned to discuss the technical aspects of such changes so it generally makes sense to carefully consider their input as they will typically have a greater insight into the issues at play versus an average random user, however, when it comes down to it, all stakeholders will have to make the choice that is right for them.
Perhaps of note, we've been in favor of bigger blocks for quite some time. We even wrote a simulation test tool back in Oct of 2014 to stress the limits and even back then, before many of the recent performance enhancements, the results clearly showed it is capable of handling larger blocks.
Alternative implementations
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Incoming:"There is work behind the scenes."; "The lack of free choice is no more"; etc. It was a joke from the begging. You need people with proper technical skills to lead the project. Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Alternative implementations
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
Bitcoin XT - last commit 23rd Oct - https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commits/master
Bitcoin UL - last commit 11th Sept - https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/commits/master - only changed name from XT to UL
This is clearly a bad joke.
I don't even understand what the XT shills are defending now. Their software is dead. Their leader is gone working for the big banks. The rented hashpower is almost finished.
At least work on the damn thing and resume shouting afterwards
From the 'The food there is terrible, and the portions are too small' department:
/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/
aminok
hellobitcoinworld
sensor ships
/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/
aminok
hellobitcoinworld
sensor ships
+ 157 at the moment.
How young and stupid does someone have to be to ban @hellobitcoinworld?
And here we see the entirely predictable result of Gavinista splinter groups cannibalizing each others rump forums 'Because Theymos' but failing to achieve anything beyond Lolcow domesticity.
From the 'The food there is terrible, and the portions are too small' department:
/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/
aminok
hellobitcoinworld
sensor ships
/r/btc's top two posts are both Meta 'it's not fair' tantrums about bans from /r/bitcoin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u2zqy/i_was_just_banned_on_rbitcoin_subreddit_for/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3u3zvb/ive_been_permanently_banned_from_rbitcoin_for_this/
aminok
hellobitcoinworld
sensor ships
is there a TL;DR?
I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"
thanks
I have not kept up with the overly long debate of "Dah Blohk Seyez"
thanks
Big Blockers : Artificial block size limit relies on a central authority decision on limit vs market dynamics. Undermines the proposition of being able to transact on chain, contrary to philosophy of "being able to send payments without going through a financial institution". Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.
Small Blockers : Increasing block size makes it i) harder to run a node, ii) favours big miners, both of which increase centralisation. Anyone that disagrees is a moron set to destroy bitcoin.
Here is a new one...
Neutral Blockers - got pop corn and gonna wait for the fireworks to ensue without wasting time with the back and forth of a time and resource wasting debate.
The representatives of the ad hominem threads are the last ones who represent Bitcoin. You are just a tiny, irrelevant fraction.
Well, if we're the tiny irrelevant faction, who's the large influential group? Are you a member?
I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choice whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
The over-earnest sincerity is so staggeringly disingenuous, you're clearly a dangerous person to know in the flesh.
You're not being insulted: your arguments are deliberately subversive and dishonest, and you are constantly getting called out for it. I can understand how it could be irritating that your dishonest tactics don't work on Bitcoiners, but doubling down is only making it worse.
The representatives of the ad hominem threads are the last ones who represent Bitcoin. You are just a tiny, irrelevant fraction.
Good night.
So one guy with an industrial mining rig has set up a couple of nodes under his GB/s connection and is transmitting larger blocks back and forth on testnet...
That's supposed to tell us what exactly? That under the most optimal technical environment "the network" can substain large blocks?
I'm shocked
I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choice whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
The over-earnest sincerity is so staggeringly disingenuous, you're clearly a dangerous person to know in the flesh.
You're not being insulted: your arguments are deliberately subversive and dishonest, and you are constantly getting called out for it. I can understand how it could be irritating that your dishonest tactics don't work on Bitcoiners, but doubling down is only making it worse.
You simply cannot successfully make "black is white" arguments to people who can grok something as sophisticated as the Bitcoin network. So, to reciprocate: all the best to you also, nice knowing you
Jump to: