Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 67. (Read 378992 times)

did he just said 'competition'?!

Allow me to introduce you to a well-used, stove heated kettle 

Says a fulltime spamming user who spams the forums with up to 100 spams a day.

That's his modus operandi.

Develop talking points and repeatedly spam them everywhere until he gets censored moderated and then proceed to go cry about it and incite uproar amongst his little circle jerk.

That deranged man posted the exact same thing to /r/bitcoin didn't he? 

I don't follow how it would be in any way sensible to throw all caution to the window because you consider the network "is reliable and decentralised enough" now, ignoring that what we're trying to prevent is for this aspect to slip away from us in the future.

I'm curious to know if you've read this article and if so what did you think of it? http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/


We have factual evidence that propagation issues have lead a certain portion of Chinese miners to coordinate their transaction validation by way of SPV mining, a clear centralization threat. On the other hand I'm afraid most of what you've written above sounds to me like "let's cross fingers, knock on wood and hope nothing bad happens".

I'm sure you'll understand others have similar concerns and would like to avoid for the security (and decentralization) of the network to rely on more than "hope".


I think the concept of alt as some sort of liquidity source for lower value transactions is not certain and IMO quite unlikely. I am of the belief that there can be only one POW coin and competitors will slowly but surely wither away. In other words, I don't think they're the solution we're looking for...


Lightning network and Blockstream are two things independent of each other. There are multiple implementations of the Lightning protocol being worked on, one of which is supported by Blockstream. Moreover Lightning involves no custodial trust. It is quite simply an intelligent use of Bitcoin's existing scripting features that allow for a superficial write-cache layer to be surimposed on top of Bitcoin's blockchain. To address your distinction of solution vs. "evolution", I consider Lightning and Sidechains to be exactly that: natural evolutions of Bitcoin's stack supported by a limited but robust base protocol and improved through layered innovation.

More details here: http://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf



Have you considered that removing the block size limit does not leave the decision into the hands of "the market" (if it exists in that context) but up to individual miners, according to their respective resources?

Who would you rather have influence the security and decentralization of the network?

Miners who are largely profit-driven actors and have shown worrying disregard for the network's health at times or the code dictated by existing consensus amongst network peers (full nodes) and investors?

Here is my most recent paper [link].  Can you explain your theory in more detail?  It sounds like you're suggesting that I didn't write it, yet there are many people who know that I did such as Prof. Wilmer from U Pitt, Prof. Bivar from George Washington U, contributors in Cypherdoc's thread, and other people here in Vancouver.  Suddenly, your "conspiracy theory" that other people are writing my papers and paying me to give talks about them [link], as well as funding VeritasSapere to post comments here gets pretty bizarre.  Is everybody else "in on it" too?

The truth is that the majority of the community recognizes that bigger blocks are needed for further adoption and we're all working hard in whatever ways we can to make that happen.  However, due to the censorship in online discussion, both sides of the debate are surrounded by a mist of mistrust.

So how to change block size limit without using central authority ? Giving the power just to miners is easy solution but still miners dont represent whole Bitcoin economy. The ultimate freedoom would be if everyone could set in client how big blocks he considers valid (basically unlimited block limit proposal but for practical purpose everyone has to set limits), but this will cause a lot of chaos and put a lot of responsibility and risk to everyone how big block every individual has to set to have working client with most Bitcoiners (if he sets low value) - so the only safe solution in this scenario for everybody is set huge block limits (which dont matter if majority are small miners who make huge bocks invalid pretty quickly because before they download and confirm it most likely small block is found instead).

Fork off already! 

Blockstream Core will be forced to implement larger blocks, because they've got competition. If they refuse, they'll be forked off. Their choice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3ttz1o/it_actually_doesnt_really_matter_if_blockstream/

Somehow i want to see if the website really uses the money for the mining rig to XT or just takes something from it (Hoping about 50% because XT is failed and everybody excent few ones wants to accept it) and i want to see even if only one person invested in the Mining rig or are multiple guys who only send money from some faucet because this is full laughing to the few survivors of XT

Meanwhile...


https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3txyt8/xt_mining_donation_fund_running_out_of_funds_lets/

 

Zara and Verita and Knight, hurry up and pay! 

sickpig pretty much nailed it.

Right now my exact thoughts are that I think no block size limit is preferable.

I am concerned that it does make it harder (more costly) to run a node, but I think those costs are worth bearing, I lean more towards the idea that people can transact without a trusted third party, than people must be able to transact on their own node. I think the broadcasting of a transaction to the network is reliable and 'decentralised' enough for smaller value, and if you are in the business of making large transactions such that you need the security of running your own node then you bear the cost of this and factor it in.

It concerns me that bigger blocks *could* favour big miners, but I don't think that's a certainty. I don't think that either side has provide conclusively that it will or it won't. I think ingenuity in the market place will prevail, as it typically does, and that the larger miners will be contained by inertia, and the smaller miners will be dynamic enough to squeeze out value in niches. I think the 'centralisation' of mining by referring to pools is a red herring, I think the 50% attack is 'self-limiting' and mitigable - I think anyone that attempts it is 'one' and the 'others' will move away, I think the protocol allows for this (and any future development should always pay heed to not forfeiting this).

I think that having bigger blocks does not provide a lasting solution to scaling the bitcoin network in terms of transactional throughput. I think its essential that other technologies are investigated. It occurred to me the other day that one solution already exists in the form of alt-coins. Sure they are not pegged, and sure they are volatile, but isn't that exactly the same argument levelled at bitcoin!? If we believe that over time bitcoin will capture a significant portion of the value in the world that fiat represents then it must inevitably stabilise. I think alts are probably on that same path just a little farther behind, and that this just mimics the current situation we have with competing fiat currencies. As one or two (or 4 or 17) alts emerge as the silvers to bitcoins gold, then I think they will gain the credibility, and assurance through hash rate that their chains are secure enough to handle, say, starbucks purchases.

Then there is Blockstream and the lightning network. I think that, they certainly think they are doing something great. I didn't at first but thats because I was afraid. Who am I to say they are not? I think there is enormous capacity for the development of a wide range of new crypto-financial-institutions. Much as I have my head in the idealogical cloud of bitcoin destroying TPTB and bringing about a new era of cashless, bankless anarchy, I think that the reality is that many of the existing structures will remain they'll just pivot on a s/USD/XBT/g

For business to continue as usual this is how it will *have* to go. B2B relies on all that middle man crap. Its us punters on the shop floor that are being fleeced. Bitcoin may alleviate thinned for a personal account, but it won't magically preclude the need for everything else in the system especially not in my lifetime.

So let Blockchain set up a trusted third party scheme, with subscription fees so that exchanges can swap XBT off chain. Let anyone else who feels they can add-value to BTC set up a service, sell it, win customers and profit. At the end of the day capitalism is a great system, that is let down by accountability and 'cheating' amongst other things. BTC can address a couple of those things imho.

I don't think any one of those ideas is a *solution* for scaling, and I think there are many other things that are happening right now, some that we know about some that we don't. I think many of these things will contribute to furthering the bitcoin project as a whole. By means well understood or in ways which we haven't even thought of yet.

Fundamentally I believe that scaling doesn't need *solving*, it needs *evolving*.

Now with regards to my philosophical take on what is going on. I think on the one hand people talk about how great openness and sharing is and how letting the market decide is better because its more 'decentralised'. I think now bitcoin is big though, people are scared because there is more to lose and so automatically revert to the old hierarchical models of thinking. I think people assume that, despite the countless examples throughout nature, science, history etc that humans can be smarter. I categorically believe that no individual (or small group) is smarter than the commons. I think there is something fundamentally successful about evolutionary process. I think that the imposition of restrictions on any system introduces points of failure.

There is a famous quote - "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" and I think that applies here. That is why the 'debate' no longer concerns me, because I think 'power' has already ceded to the network participants as a whole. I think we are approaching the bitcoin singularity, which I do not think is characterised by price explosions and mass adoption, but by the bitcoin network becoming 'self-aware'. It is becoming evolutionary, and attempts to restrict it, to own it, to control it, will fail. That applies to devs, to miners, to pools. Banks, businesses etc. Everyone can push but the direction of bitcoin is a vector product, and one of the factors is 'inertia'. This inertia is the evolutionary component of bitcoin, the emergent behaviour of the network.

Take XT for example. The network sees it as damage and routes around it. If the network saw a need for XT then it would have changed course, and no amount of forum caterwauling, industry pressure, core dev decree can *really* change it. (of course if XT support is a proxy for BIP101 and core implemented that to stop XT adoption then they could change things in that respect, but the message remains that the network changed course for BIP101 and there was nothing anyone could do)

If I believe what I have written (and I do, or why would I write it!) then I also must believe that the network deciding to reject BIP101 is the right choice right now, and that this whole thread is a sideshow and that if the network never goes BIP101 then that is what the network decides. I think its foolish to assume that BIP101 being rejected now means that the fat lady has sung. The future is uncertain. No-one knows.

So that's what *I* think. I'm not really interested in whether I am right or wrong, or whether I will be right or wrong. Ego gets you into all sorts of trouble. Equally, if I have said something that is in opposition to what somebody else has said, I don't think it makes them wrong. I was asked what I thought and I answered. Now I watch and wait to see what happens.

BU does not exist and will never see the light of the day.

Whether or not we get larger blocks the majority of network peers will still be running Core five years from now.

Notoriously lying won't help. BU is our preferred and right choice. A censorship resistent currency within a censorship resistent communication environment.

Lauda against Lauda:

"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people":

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/lauda-101872

In other words, no matter what happens, nor how much evidence/facts someone summarizes they will still go around telling people that XT or BIP101 is the right choice. We have already figured out the two possible reasons for which they are doing this. If they want a discussion about ideas, here is one: "Both XT and BIP101 are bad." Discussion concluded.


Technically this is not right. You completely forgot the XT propaganda shills: XT is the right answer. Anyone who disagrees is set to destroy Bitcoin by making it system for the elite.

Um, you mean the topic of discussion that was initiated by the great mind of Peter R. Rizun?

He already said is on the former camp (Big Blockers). Still he's summarising the content of this thread rather small/big blocks argument in a more general fashion. More to the point a few posts ago he did try to address the quite polarized attitude that pervades this thread.

And what do you think? Both sides are wrong (and therefore morons)?

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.