Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 9. (Read 378926 times)

If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago.

I think you will find that it is.

edit: Kinda hope some of the miners see your statement - that they are not participating in an ecosystem,  but merely the redundant host for a parasite.

I think that they could have a lot more influence if they could agree among themselves on a single, or two proposals (90% of them or more), but they can't. Their opinions matter, but they're not the ones doing the coding and probably lack expertise in the needed fields.

That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them.

If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc.

Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice.

What?  In what way?  Please cite from here what is a 'bizarre misrepresentation'.

They understand how damaging it would appear to do it unilaterally, so they are/have been waiting for the community to give them an option. If they are economically rational, they probably shouldn't wait years more while another entity sidles in to eat their lunch.

You assume the majority of hashing power agrees on the way forward when clearly that is not the scenario suggested.

Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.

Contentious or not, the outcome would be the same. A majority of hashing power would pick a side, and that side would win, the other side would be orphaned off into the ether as the losers realized they were mining worthless coins. I know it bothers you, but miners decide. If you want to have a vote, start hashing.

That's a bizarre misrepresentation of what happened.

Of course, if a contentious hard fork is forced through the situation would not be so simple as it creates a clear divide with both sides claiming legitimacy. The previous 2013 fork was accidental and there was underlying agreement by everyone of what side should be picked.

Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted. 

It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first

I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.

I also think that moving the majority of transactions off chain is not a solution to scaling the Bitcoin blockchain at all. This transactional volume needs to take place on the main Bitcoin blockchain in order to pay for its security over the long term, high volume, low fee should be the future of Bitcoin.

We also do not need to give up on any functionality like you say, this is a false dichotomy. Bitcoin can be a currency and a settlement network, they are actually reinforcing and synergistic of each other. Furthermore I think that mass adoption as a currency is critical for Bitcoins success over the long term, also because of the massive and profound change this would bring about in society.

When you say that people will just be able to pay a slightly higher fee I do not think that you get it. If the blocksize is not increased then transaction will become much more expensive and unreliable. It is not the case that you just need to pay a higher fee, in fact there will not be enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed. Bitcoin would become a settlement network for larger financial institutions, it certainly could not be used by everyday people. I do not even see this happening in first place however since under those circumstances I do not think it would be able to compete with alternatives.

Especially considering that it will have to co exist with a chain fork with the same genesis block, which will offer cheap, reliable and fast transactions. Without the need to sign up for or choose any third parties. Because of this utility and ease of use I believe the big blockchain will be able to out compete and therefore also maintain a higher level of security then the small blockchain. You would still have the small, ineffective and obscure blockchain that you want, even though ironically you deny yourself that right by saying that people should not have this freedom of choice over the protocol they adopt. People are not machines, people do have the free choice of protocol and no matter how much you theorise or think that they should not have this freedom, you can not change it. Bitcoin has brought this volunteerism out into the world, it might be a pandoras box but for better or worse nobody can stop it.

I would think people only join Bitcoin for the wealth. As long as they don't hurt anyone, they can continue investing in stocks for the life they need.

Since the attack reportedly took the (main) Coinbase.com page down, it was not "ineffectual."

I didn't miss the part where users could still log in to their subdomain, but thanks for entertaining us by grasping for that straw.

I did miss the part where the reasons for calling ddos "hacking" and "physical destruction" are elucidated.

Please, don't keep us waiting for the logical and semantic gymnastics!

I don't deal with Coinbase.  I don't count on ddos or other forums of "physical destruction"


Now proceed to discuss how many UDP packets can dance on a pinhead.  Yes, there's a good lulcow....   

That's a good quote here. In fact this governance problem not only happens on bitcoin, but any kind of large scale social community. That's why politics always exists. Notice that politics does not exist on gold since no one can change its property, but bitcoin's protocol is destined to struggle

You have several genius/technocrats each promoting different future plan, and majority of normal users would not be able to understand the pros and cons of those plans. So it finally ends up with politics, e.g. the solution who gain the most support wins, not the most brilliant solution wins. So trying to prove that you are most brilliant does not help to win the vote, instead you must try to study what is voters' favorite

In this case, what majority of uses want? Trust and stability. They might be willing to pay a little bit higher fee or use other off-chain services for daily small transactions, but they definitely don't want to see a split in the core devs and even strange forks that might destroy the whole ecosystem. When bitcoin worth nothing, all its function becomes useless, so to preserve its value is the highest priority here, and in order to do that you must give up on certain functionality

I'm not the only one who knows the conjuction:

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

Nah, my impression is that most in favor of moving past 1MB soon(er than 2017) think segwit can be quite beneficial, but probably better/cleaner as a hard fork.

The only one going to war with segwit seems to be MP and his toadies. 

This is not centralization but a fixed set of consensus rule. You can select not to participate and start your alt-coin, but you can not change the rules. No human can change the physical property of gold, that's the reason it is the most trustworthy money for thousands of years



In fact this  you is already here, it is called enterprise interest. There are many enterprises trying to push their desired features into bitcoin protocol. And it could even be an OPEC like organization that consists of large miners and exchanges, and there is strong incentive to cooperate to get higher profit by passing a new protocol