Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 87.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: RoadTrain on November 14, 2015, 10:54:08 AM

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 11:02:47 AM

Quote from: RoadTrain on November 14, 2015, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 10:35:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

Exactly, therefore Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority with the miners acting like a type of proxy for the economic majority. I agree with you completely on these points.

A proxy?

No.

The miners are dogs to the economic majority (the investors). They have to be kept on a tight leach and certainly have never and will never themselves determine the outcome of a fork

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: RoadTrain on November 14, 2015, 10:54:08 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 10:35:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

Exactly, therefore Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority with the miners acting like a type of proxy for the economic majority. I agree with you completely on these points.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 10:35:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 10:35:45 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

I really don't want to get into this debate this morning but you're clueless.

Do you even understand the part about valid chain?

The valid part is concerned with the fact that the transactions are conform with the rules enforced by the network of peers. Bitcoin being a peer-to-peer network no node is more important than the others, whether they mine or not.

If miners today decided to point their hashing power to Dogecoin it wouldn't make it Bitcoin. From the point of view of the Bitcoin network the hashing power merely dropped and that's it.

To be clear, the miners can not go against the majority of nodes. If they do so they only succeed in forking themselves out of the network and mine worthless tokens.

If you don't understand this very simple fact there's really no use pursuing any Bitcoin related discussion with you.

I give you a E for effort. Now return to your homeworks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: croTek4 on November 14, 2015, 10:10:46 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

There's real civil discussion going on here huh?

Deception agents deserve not an ounce of respect

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.

Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain.

croTek4

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

the Cat-a-clysm.

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2015, 09:38:30 AM

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

There's real civil discussion going on here huh?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2015, 09:54:52 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 09:49:43 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2015, 04:16:51 AM

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 12, 2015, 12:37:13 PM

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

Er, I wasn't talking to you. Is there anything else I can help you with?

Maybe explain to him how consensus work and why we can't have multiple implementations out there enforcing different block size.

This divide & conquer tactic is really getting tiring.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 14, 2015, 09:49:43 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2015, 04:16:51 AM

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 12, 2015, 12:37:13 PM

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

Er, I wasn't talking to you. Is there anything else I can help you with?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 14, 2015, 04:16:51 AM

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on November 12, 2015, 12:37:13 PM

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

Quote from: hdbuck on November 14, 2015, 08:02:56 AM

funny how them shills ignores brg's and my assertion that already lots of bitcoin clients are in the wild and that core is not that of a big deal anyway.

you trolls are such delusional weirdos.

I know there are lots of alternative clients in the wild, this does not change the contents of my arguments. I want there to be more options in terms of the blocksize, presently there are only two choices. I do not see what is wrong with giving people more options to choose from.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on November 14, 2015, 12:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

MbccompanyX

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: muyuu on November 14, 2015, 07:50:46 AM

v4 BIP65 (CLTV) already above 25%

Would be funny if BIP101 blocks started getting orphaned. Are they crying about this yet?

Maybe they are crying from when the whole BIP101 thing started and will never end... And i hope this whole nostop debate will end with somebody shooting the final argument that shows the 100% death of both XT and BIP101

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

funny how them shills ignores brg's and my assertion that already lots of bitcoin clients are in the wild and that core is not that of a big deal anyway. Roll Eyes

you trolls are such delusional weirdos.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

v4 BIP65 (CLTV) already above 25%

Would be funny if BIP101 blocks started getting orphaned. Are they crying about this yet?

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: veryscared on November 14, 2015, 05:52:54 AM

hearn should burn and gavin ? wot rhymes with gavin ?

Flaming?

veryscared

newbie

Activity: 16

Merit: 0

hearn should burn and gavin ? wot rhymes with gavin ?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 14, 2015, 02:57:29 AM

Exactly.
There is choice now. That's the reason why the Politbüro and their top down cheerleading Enthusiasts are hyperventilating like crazy.
Delicious.

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 03:28:38 PM

Quote from: muyuu on November 13, 2015, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 03:07:42 PM

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

Exactly.
There is choice now. That's the reason why the Politbüro and their top down cheerleading Enthusiasts are hyperventilating like crazy.
Delicious.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2015, 04:28:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 13, 2015, 04:18:23 PM

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 87. (Read 378993 times)