Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 76.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 19, 2015, 06:26:00 AM

Quote from: ATguy on November 19, 2015, 05:39:04 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 18, 2015, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 18, 2015, 04:02:22 PM

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

So, going back to what you were saying about consensus at the scaling conference.

Are you trying to say that you're only interested in respecting consensus when they come to the same conclusions about the technical solution as you have? Isn't that the opposite of consensus? Does that not constitute you forcing your opinion on others?

+

Quote from: hdbuck on November 19, 2015, 07:43:28 AM

2/ please provide technical details as to how relevant would the block size be when it come to scaling bitcoin effectively

I respect consensus which solves sufficient Bitcoin scaling over time so Bitcoin users are not forced to use another altcoin because of the insufficient Bitcoin blockchain space for every Bitcoin user otherwise. Unless someone prove it can be realisticaly done other way, the obvious main working solution is increasing blocksize limits periodically as needed based on how much the blocks are filled so there is not situation when blocks are filled up all the time (aka DDOS and Bitcoin users forced to use another altcoin because no more space for more transactions on Bitcoin blockchain anymore)

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ATguy on November 19, 2015, 05:39:04 AM

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

1/ please provide empirical data as to any increase of bitcoin user base
2/ please provide technical details as to how relevant would the block size be when it come to scaling bitcoin effectively
3/ please provide evidence as to how increasing the blocksize would not lead to further centralization of the network.

until then, it is the contrary that prevails as bitcoin works perfectly fine as of now.

and you can keep the "pretty much impossible" for yourself.

notbatman

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 1038

Those that have been deluded into supporting XT/BIP101 need to lay down the meth-pipe for a second. Off-chain and side-chain transactions will handle the bulk of the volume.

If there's an immediate problem it takes me 2 minutes to download and patch my node. Visa/MC/ATM goes down for 24/h+ sometimes in contrast.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ATguy on November 19, 2015, 05:39:04 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 18, 2015, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 18, 2015, 04:02:22 PM

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

So, going back to what you were saying about consensus at the scaling conference.

Are you trying to say that you're only interested in respecting consensus when they come to the same conclusions about the technical solution as you have? Isn't that the opposite of consensus? Does that not constitute you forcing your opinion on others?

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 18, 2015, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 18, 2015, 04:02:22 PM

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Thats pretty much impossible keeping 1MB and increasing the number of people using Bitcoin. But if someone proved it is possible put to 1MB several times more transanctions and the solution is secure (from possible attacks) and convenient for Bitcoin users plus no centralized service is needed, then 2016 is the latest year it could be tested whether it works. As I understand LN can not be the only solution because it is not convenient for Bitcoin users to have coins locked for longer time, but it can add to maybe -20% ? of the blockchain usage if LN gets popular - clearly not enought. But I pretty much doubt magic is possible here if we think about increasing Bitcoin usage at least hundred times in next 10 years and I dont understand the need to defend 1MB when Litecoin proved 4MB is fine for every 10 min from the security point.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 18, 2015, 04:19:58 PM

Quote from: ATguy on November 18, 2015, 04:02:22 PM

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

Ideally the cap wouldn't even be needed. It's there because there is a vulnerability in the form of forcing tonnes of work on everybody in asymmetric fashion and with unpredictable dynamics. When this is cheap and easy, the system just needs a safeguard or it's trivial to attack inexpensively.

If miners could agree to sustainable criteria for tx inclusion following some standard and feather-forking the miners who don't follow it, the cap would not be necessary.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: marcus_of_augustus on November 18, 2015, 04:50:16 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 04:46:02 PM

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

... and the XTbuttheads have finally found their natural home, r/buttcoin, it was just a matter of time.

Compared to the censored sub not only the humor is better there.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 04:46:02 PM

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

... and the XTbuttheads have finally found their natural home, r/buttcoin, it was just a matter of time.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.

Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.

It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Lauda on November 18, 2015, 10:56:20 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships! Cry

For some unknown reason this made me laugh. Poor Peter Rtroll Cry

.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

If you analyze and compare the amount of "people" that were in favor of XT when it was supposed to be "right fucking now" and the amount of "people" that are still posting around here (in favor) you can clearly see that most were just shill accounts. We're left with a few trolls that have not stopped trying to manipulate people and divert arguments. The chances for XT are slim, if not null right now. I'm still curious as to why they keep coming back here and don't stay on their forum? It's probably very lonely there.

"zomg sensor ships" is funny because it sends up Gavinista theft of a powerful word usually reserved for situations more serious than quibbles over internet forum moderation.

I'm coming around to the Gavinistas ~= JTRIG POV.

Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts).

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ATguy on November 18, 2015, 04:02:22 PM

I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

What would you say if the consensus at the conference was a design for scaling up that did not involve altering the blocksize? That's apparently what that conference is about (all solutions, not just one engineering approach).

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 18, 2015, 11:27:31 AM

Furthermore the chances of BIP101 forking the network are still somewhat of an unknown since miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen before then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

The simple reason why BIP101 will continue to gain support is because it increases the blocksize whereas Core presently does not. There certainly are good arguments that can be made which favor increasing the blocksize and further decentralizing development.

Pretty much my thinking, either the next month conference sets how (and when) the blocksize limit is increased or (because of the incopetence to act) could get BIP101 more wide support (because it is the only working solution right now). I preffer if the next month conference gets consensus about the one time blocksize increase, and whenever the blocks become filled again in future another blocksize limit adjustment has to be made (hopefully not taking 1 year of pain in future again Sad

)

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 18, 2015, 11:27:31 AM

Quote from: Lauda on November 18, 2015, 10:56:20 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships! Cry

For some unknown reason this made me laugh. Poor Peter Rtroll Cry

.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

If you analyze and compare the amount of "people" that were in favor of XT when it was supposed to be "right fucking now" and the amount of "people" that are still posting around here (in favor) you can clearly see that most were just shill accounts. We're left with a few trolls that have not stopped trying to manipulate people and divert arguments. The chances for XT are slim, if not null right now. I'm still curious as to why they keep coming back here and don't stay on their forum? It's probably very lonely there.

It was never intended or supposed to be right now.

They're lying notoriously:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12379135

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on November 18, 2015, 10:56:20 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships! Cry

For some unknown reason this made me laugh. Poor Peter Rtroll Cry

.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

If you analyze and compare the amount of "people" that were in favor of XT when it was supposed to be "right fucking now" and the amount of "people" that are still posting around here (in favor) you can clearly see that most were just shill accounts. We're left with a few trolls that have not stopped trying to manipulate people and divert arguments. The chances for XT are slim, if not null right now. I'm still curious as to why they keep coming back here and don't stay on their forum? It's probably very lonely there.

It was never intended or supposed to be right now. The fork coded into BIP101 can not even be triggered until January 2016. I have presented real arguments even though you deny that I have done so, I recognize and acknowledge your position, you could at least have the courtesy to do the same.

Furthermore the chances of BIP101 forking the network are still somewhat of an unknown since miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen before then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

The simple reason why BIP101 will continue to gain support is because it increases the blocksize whereas Core presently does not. There certainly are good arguments that can be made which favor increasing the blocksize and further decentralizing development.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships! Cry

For some unknown reason this made me laugh. Poor Peter Rtroll Cry

.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

If you analyze and compare the amount of "people" that were in favor of XT when it was supposed to be "right fucking now" and the amount of "people" that are still posting around here (in favor) you can clearly see that most were just shill accounts. We're left with a few trolls that have not stopped trying to manipulate people and divert arguments. The chances for XT are slim, if not null right now. I'm still curious as to why they keep coming back here and don't stay on their forum? It's probably very lonely there.

Update:
Once again, BIP101 != XT.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 10:22:01 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 09:18:45 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only.

im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century.

You? Who are you? Nobody is discussing your 'concepts' anywhere in the cyberspace. It's Peter's papers that lead to hyperventilation among a bunch of haters. Banning, censoring and hyperventilation just leads to additional PR. Go on!

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/666980391883001857

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

...
bitcoin is doing fine, ignoring your whining attacks, socialist brigading, and pseudodemocratic voting will lead it towards new highs.

now if you'd just fork off already, that would be surprisingly constructive from you trolls.

talk is cheap kiddos.

Not tonight dear. 2016 is the year with block reward halving and block size cap increase. You will then have the freedom to run an old core implementation on a dying chain. Have fun!

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 10:10:30 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 09:18:45 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only.

im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century.

You? Who are you? Nobody is discussing your 'concepts' anywhere in the cyberspace. It's Peter's papers that lead to hyperventilation among a bunch of haters. Banning, censoring and hyperventilation just leads to additional PR. Go on!

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/666980391883001857

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

...
bitcoin is doing fine, ignoring your whining attacks, socialist brigading, and pseudodemocratic voting will lead it towards new highs.

now if you'd just fork off already, that would be surprisingly constructive from you trolls.

talk is cheap kiddos.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 09:18:45 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only.

im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century.

You? Who are you? Nobody is discussing your 'concepts' anywhere in the cyberspace. It's Peter's papers that lead to hyperventilation among a bunch of haters. Banning, censoring and hyperventilation just leads to additional PR. Go on!

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/666980391883001857

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 18, 2015, 09:18:30 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 18, 2015, 09:10:34 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 18, 2015, 08:16:35 AM

L.M.A.O

cens0rshipppp!

#R3KT! Cheesy

ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: "scaling bitcoin conference"

The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.

Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?

When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.

You know that you are lying. I don't have to move goalposts.

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

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Guaranteed that it went into some political rant, he just cannot help it.

Thankfully it wasn't allowed this time. It's cringe-worthy.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 76. (Read 378992 times)