Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 70. (Read 378992 times)

Oh yeah, the whole "you're just not ready" excuse  

Irrelevant. But you don't get it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12379135;topicseen#msg12379135
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016

Great contribution to this thread! Deserving of the #REKT stamp of approval

It's amazing to see what uncontroversial technical consensus looks like:

BIP65 a week release of supporting version






Now compare BIP101/XT after 3 months



source: https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/5y?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

Core running at full steam while XT's spiritual leader just rage quit and the "Unlimited" team of Lolcows can't even figure out what the hell it is they're trying to do.

Your signature is sucking up to the bankers.

You are free to suggest whatever you want. The market will force the centralized dev team to raise the limit. That is my prediction. If you decide to prolong the stalemate ("which is the preferred outcome of bitcoin core" according to your cheerleader iCEBREAKER, the ad hominem warrior), your influence will be marginalized. The market will not be forced to follow the devs of one company any longer. The tide is turning.

Do you enjoy sucking up to the bankers?

Are these the leaders you trust Bitcoin with? Larry Summers, Citibank & Visa?

No, xapo did it before. Those are the market players who will enforce big blocks next year. Zero chance for the stream blocking trolls.

Is there a life beyond war for you frontists? Every second 'post' with war and blood pictures. How sick is that? Bitcoin is not a playground for warriors and socialist collectivists (Front National statists).

Your ridiculous XT-proxy war is the best sign that the Bitcoin 'community' will leave your ridiculous 1MB cap behind next year. Nobody cares about your XT phobia.
It is irrelevant how the devs are forced to implement big blocks. Relevant is that they are.

Speaking of 'out of band', let me again suggest that it ('out of band') is a powerful concept which could be used to financially reward all infrastructure providers rather than just miners.  Specifically, 'full verifying transfer nodes' (shortened to 'full nodes'.)  The obvious reason for doing so would be that it would foster a broad and robust network.

If a dedicated subordinate chain were used for the 'global network infrastructure support reward' duty, the payouts could be done on the micro level.  Only those actively supporting the infrastructure would care much about this particular sidecoin so the load would not need to be borne on the main-chain.  Better yet, there would need be nearly no changes to core as it operates now provided that the miners could be induced to submit the block reward to the support sidechain.  Not sure how best this would be accomplished (if it is even very possible.)

 

I also think he is. To his merit he never quite reached my & Ice's level and as far as I remember remained somewhat cordial although had his share of snarky comments 

That's appreciated. It's pretty normal to have emotions involved since we are all very much invested into this thing. Allow me to return the apology for whatever flaming I might've participated in  

I always considered you a sane person and was a little befuddled to see you get carried away by the FUD of other propaganda artists who deserve much more blame.

It's understandable to have a differing opinions on the issue of the block size but please make sure you don't lose your mind like these guys over there: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-115

In other words, we are not at the limit. Ignore that article. Just because some miners have set up soft limits that does not mean that we are at a limit. Nothing should surprise you here. Some are eager to rush everyone into a decision or just an increase. The real question is why? (definitely not because of good intentions) Rushing into anything is usually very bad.

Is anyone else struggling to remember the above? Not saying it didn't happen, bett, but you're possibly being a little too hard on yourself 

I want to apologise to Ice and Berg and anyone one else that I may have had a pop at on this or other threads.

I still remain of the opinion that block size increase (sooner rather than later) should happen. Circular arguments for and against by either side have been done to death, so lets agree to disagree.

What I wanted to apologise for though, is that in previous discussion I have assumed bad faith from those who may hold a different view to me. The one thing we all share is a desire for bitcoin to succeed. Despite 'bitcoin succeeding' meaning different things to different people. When one feels passionate about something it can be hard to not let emotions cloud your thinking. My passion go the better of me, I got caught up in the squabble. I realised it wasn't helping so I took time out to reflect and think about what really matters. That's why now I am posting again.

I think the argument is stupid and pointless, the animosity it generates amongst those on this forum is of no benefit to anyone, this is not a criticism of one side, its criticism of everyone involved including myself.

Furthermore I don't think the kind of discussion going on here or in any other thread is an accurate representation of the reality of what is going on amongst the people that actually matter (devs), regardless of how much one side may try to vilify those devs on the opposing side, or pick over posts to try and mischaracterise their position. I think the truth is probably far more mundane, and that the internet's "drama amplification unit" is in full effect.

I think what will be will be. I think we'll get bigger blocks and I think we'll get sidechains. I think they are both necessary and most certainly not mutually exclusive, in fact I think they are symbiotic in nature, and both crucial to the 'success' of bitcoin whatever that may be defined as. I think you need them both whether bitcoin is a settlement layer, or is used for buying your coffee.

I think I have been just as bad as everyone else. I am human, fallible, sometimes driven by emotion and that they got the better of me. Crucially I hope I have the strength to learn from this and not get caught up in it again.

So, flame on, warriors!

 

I'm not sure that's what the article (from Jan. 2015) implies..

Did some miner self-enforce a 750kb soft limit? Yes.

Is the effective limit 1MB? Absolutely.

I mean we're seeing blocks above 750kb on a daily basis now...

750kb is the limit of a 1MB block. We are already at the limit.

You are correct. However it is also safe to assume that quite a decent portion of the current volume is spam. Regardless of both points, whoever says that there is a issue right now is a manipulative liar. Hong Kong is a few days away; people need to be a little more patient.