Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 78.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 06:00:06 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:47:28 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:22:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:47:28 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:22:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:17:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

I have a background in political philosophy and to me 75% consensus already seems very high, 95% percent to me seems impossible especially when it comes to contentious issues. Considering that the problem of tyranny of the majority has been solved in Bitcoin, 75% consensus does seem reasonable to me in order to initiate a contentious hard fork. After all 5% of the miners should not be able to forestall and block any change to the Bitcoin protocol.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 05:47:28 PM

after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin.

Seriously?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 05:22:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 12:14:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 17, 2015, 12:13:21 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 12:10:12 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 17, 2015, 12:07:14 PM

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad Undecided

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

That was back in May, when it wasn't all that clear Gavin was a fraud.

I actually talked to Andreas relatively recently, it seemed like he held both Gavin and Mike in high regard. Furthermore it is irrelevant what we think of Gavin, the merit of increasing the blocksize stands on its own regardless of the personalities involved.

I am pretty sure he holds BlockStream people in very high regard also.

btw, credit to Gavin and Mike is that they made big contributions to Bitcoin. I dont agree with a lot of their opinions tho. I also think some of what Mike does and says, can be poisonous to debate and divisive. He misrepresents people and cherry picks arguments to suit his agenda. Also his doomsaying that even Gavin does not agree with.

Gavin has been more level-headed and trying to calm down some of the extreme opinions of his followers, credit to him for that.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:27:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 17, 2015, 10:10:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:04:22 AM

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there Roll Eyes

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

VeritasSapere. I am attacking what you are saying, not anything inherent to you.

And you REPEATEDLY alter what I do say to something that serves your argument, then stand back acting all Huh

, as if you're not aware of what you're doing.

Subverting my argument for your own ends.

It's pathetic, and transparent, and I have no need to handle ANY OTHER PERSON like this, except you. So, please. Do us all a favour.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:24:40 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 08:49:37 AM

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 04:20:31 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 04:15:36 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:53:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if possibly both Core and XT might not be able to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

Quote

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing the freedom of choice that Bitcoin allows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Except that this is just one moment in time like any other, and you know already (becasue I was talking to you at least once when I said it) that this could all have been completely different.

If Gavin was still in charge, proposing reckless blocksize increase schedules, it would be me supporting the fork. The combination of your poor memory and resulting poor logic really hasn't helped you out there.

I remember you stating this in the past but it does not change what you are saying now, denying that Core is an alternative just like all of the other implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, by saying that Core is not an alternative you are implying that Core is not a choice, which obviously is not true.

You are correct in pointing out that you did say this in the past, I suppose if that scenario did play out then you would consider Core an alternative? This is a bit hypocritical, or you could just admit that you where mistaken in the definition of the word alternative, instead of attacking me by saying that I am being overly rhetorical. It seems like sometimes you are just in this constant attack mode, you know I am not your enemy, I also want what is best for Bitcoin.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 04:15:36 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:53:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if possibly both Core and XT might not be able to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

Quote

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing free choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Except that this is just one moment in time like any other, and you know already (becasue I was talking to you at least once when I said it) that this could all have been completely different.

If Gavin was still in charge, proposing reckless blocksize increase schedules, it would be me supporting the fork. The combination of your poor memory and resulting poor logic really hasn't helped you out there.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:53:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

You are being overly literal, I am using the word sacred in an expressive way. There is nothing incorrect with me saying that a third alternative might be able to provide a solution like the eight megabyte increase we where discussing, if the possibly occurs that both Core and XT are unwilling to compromise.

The definition of alternative being:

Quote

(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice. "the various alternative methods for resolving disputes" or one of two or more available possibilities.

By saying that Core is not one of the alternatives you are implying that it has some sort of special status over the other options which stands beyond their own intrinsic merit, which I think is unwarranted, this is the mentality of totalitarianism and group think. This is why some people on this thread are opposing the freedom of choice that Bitcoin allows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:53:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status.

For you to disagree with that, it would involve a person having actually said it in order for you to respond. Show me that person. Show me them saying it.

(you really can't help yourself, can you? It's so incredibly obvious)

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:12:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:02:29 PM

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

This is where we disagree, Bitcoin Core does not have some sort of sacred status. It can be considered an option among the rest. Which means that if Core refuses to increase the blocksize and the economic majority does want it to be increased, then us switching over to other clients is justified, this is what puts the power in the hands of the people and this is how the Bitcoin protocol was designed to be.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 03:30:45 PM

Quote from: muyuu on November 17, 2015, 03:24:53 PM

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

Now.

I've got sympathies on both sides here; accommodating the lowest common denominator seems too restrictive, but it just so happens that the practical reality of that could mean 100's of millions across important populations like India or China with no capability to run a node. There's gotta be a way of finding a compromise between the two.

Practical reality is that 50% of the hashing power is within an area that could be considered the lowest common denominator in terms of internet bandwidth.

Unfortunately we're kind of in the dark about what typical non-mining Chinese users think on that subject.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: muyuu on November 17, 2015, 03:24:53 PM

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

Now.

I've got sympathies on both sides here; accommodating the lowest common denominator seems too restrictive, but it just so happens that the practical reality of that could mean 100's of millions across important populations like India or China with no capability to run a node. There's gotta be a way of finding a compromise between the two.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: muyuu on November 17, 2015, 03:24:53 PM

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

For uploading purposes?

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Nonsense. Most domestic connections will struggle massively at just 4MB average, and that's in the US. 8MB is the end of home desktop nodes in most of the world short term.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 02:44:00 PM

Solid reasoning spazzdla! In other words, it's a slightly arbitrary decision to some extent, although I'm sure some kind of useful, if not definitive, metrics could be tested to add some context.

And to be honest, I kind of prefer this argument to any of the technical ones, but maybe I'm just a bit worn out with the BIP101 shills. It's hard work arguing with sophists.

Thanks!!

It just kind of dawned on me it's been an issue for awhile and I haven't talked about it in some time. Was wondering what people are thinking. IMO it's best to really push this now and not when it is 100% required.

Although I am sure most agree to that.

spazzdla

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 17, 2015, 03:16:09 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on November 17, 2015, 02:11:27 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 17, 2015, 01:32:18 PM

Quote from: spazzdla on November 17, 2015, 01:30:57 PM

I like 8MB and holding.

Why 8?

Not a massive jump, not a baby step. Some large miners have agreed they would move to 8MB if needed.

Although it's more of kicking the can down the road, it's a solid kick which hopefully gives devs enough time to come up with ways to avoid need all transactions on the blockchain.

I am not 100% commited to 8MB, I can change opinions on this matter.

8x more current limit is kind of a massive jump considering some users are already experience trouble supporting their own nodes under current 1MB setting...

We can't be looking to accommodate people using phone lines.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 78. (Read 378992 times)