Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 94.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 04:02:50 PM

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 04:02:50 PM

I actually favor a more moderate increase as well, however in the absence of a third alternative and when forced to choose between Core and BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if that means I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

Well I'd even go with BIP101 in Core, but I'd never go with XT. It comes with a lot of baggage and a CEO.

Quote from: Peter R on November 12, 2015, 04:07:01 PM

Why does XT have to "take over"? Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all. My answer is, why would we? Exactly what do you think this will achieve aside unnecessary complexity; less control for Core?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 12, 2015, 03:54:56 PM

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

What is this? A popularity contest Roll Eyes

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

ffs peter, enough with your gifs already Angry

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on November 12, 2015, 03:51:43 PM

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

Maybe you need to read it again:

"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things."

If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals who make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered.

The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors".

As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Lauda on November 12, 2015, 03:56:10 PM

Increasing the block size != support for XT. I (e.g.) have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.

Why does XT have to "take over"? Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on November 12, 2015, 03:51:43 PM

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

heh, concur!!

Quote

The motivation of investors is the value of the coin. The general rule about Bitcoin upgrades, therefore, is that upgrades which increase Bitcoin's value will be adopted and those which do not will not. Therefore, Bitcoin is not likely to be upgraded in ways which make it easier to regulate because that would decrease the value of the coins. Bitcoin might be upgraded in ways that make it more anonymous because a more anonymous coin would likely be more valuable. An upgrade which allows for larger block sizes is also likely to be adopted because the current limit of 1 MB will eventually limit Bitcoin's value as a form of money. Obvious bug fixes are likely to be adopted, whereas cockamamie schemes which do not clearly improve Bitcoin's value-such as proof-of-stake mining or changing the block reward schedule-have no real chance of succeeding and are therefore hardly worth talking about.

This is not to say that Bitcoin is a divine substance or some immaculate bit of quintessence. It just means that Bitcoin upgrades must be a clear improvement to Bitcoin as an investment or else they face a sharp uphill battle to adoption.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/#selection-85.49-85.947

but you cant seriously think BIP101, BIP100, bitcoin XT or Unlimited are somehow credible, if anything they are likely to be dumped into oblivion. ^^

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Everyone should read this:
https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830
https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

These are also informative:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Inform yourself and decide for yourself using reason.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 12, 2015, 03:59:48 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 12, 2015, 03:54:56 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 12, 2015, 03:44:21 PM

lmao.

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

but butt butthole?!

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 12, 2015, 02:59:18 PM

Quality before quantity.

Yes. Much quality and much quantity is better than no quality and no quantitiy.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

For very high values of zero-per-thousand, and if you are enough of a charlatan, they have a mining supermajority and the market has spoken Cheesy

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on November 12, 2015, 03:54:32 PM

Quote from: Peter R on November 12, 2015, 03:38:48 PM

I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium. According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term). Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose. This is what I disagree with.

The block size limit as it currently exist is dictated by the peers in the network. As such, it serves their motivation, whatever it is. Not the ones of the devs or whomever else.

I agree.

Quote

Allow me a try at this game of words-twisting of yours Grin

:

The top-down policy is an emergent property of the code run by the full nodes.

I agree with this too. I also suspect it's an emergent property that's on the cusp of changing Grin

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on November 12, 2015, 03:56:10 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 03:40:02 PM

Core has not increased the blocksize and it has no definite plans to increase the blocksize either. If anyone is deluded here it certainly is not me. I also refuse to trust the Core development team to do so in good time. Since the only things that I trust within Bitcoin are the code, free market and how the protocol aligns incentive. I do not think we should rely on or trust any group of people with the future of Bitcoin, to do so would be antithetical to its design.

Said who? Mike? He's feeding you nonsense. Just because a developer or two don't agree with increasing it, it does not mean that it is not going to happen. How else would they implement LN which would be more or less pointless at the current block size limit.

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

Quote from: Lauda on November 12, 2015, 03:56:10 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 03:45:08 PM

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

Increasing the block size != support for XT. I for one have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.

I actually favor a more moderate increase as well, however in the absence of a third alternative and when forced to choose between Core and BIP101, I choose BIP101, even if that means I am choosing the lesser of two evils.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 12, 2015, 03:54:56 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 12, 2015, 03:44:21 PM

lmao.

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

but butt butthole?!

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 12, 2015, 02:59:18 PM

Quality before quantity.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 03:40:02 PM

Core has not increased the blocksize and it has no definite plans to increase the blocksize either. If anyone is deluded here it certainly is not me. I also refuse to trust the Core development team to do so in good time. Since the only things that I trust within Bitcoin are the code, free market and how the protocol aligns incentive. I do not think we should rely on or trust any group of people with the future of Bitcoin, to do so would be antithetical to its design.

Said who? Mike? He's feeding people nonsense. Just because a developer or two don't agree with increasing it, it does not mean that it is not going to happen. How else would they implement LN which would be more or less pointless at the current block size limit?

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 12, 2015, 03:45:08 PM

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

Increasing the block size != support for XT. I (e.g.) have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.

Quote from: brg444 on November 12, 2015, 03:54:32 PM

Stop twisting definitions until they fit your arguments it is getting really tiring.

I define my horses as unicorns. That doesn't change the fact that they're horses.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 12, 2015, 03:44:21 PM

lmao.

Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on November 12, 2015, 03:38:48 PM

I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium. According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term). Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose. This is what I disagree with.

Regarding your other quotes, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.

Stop twisting definitions until they fit your arguments it is getting really tiring.

The block size limit as it currently exist is dictated by the peers in the network. As such, it serves their motivation, whatever it is. Not the ones of the devs or whomever else.

Allow me a try at this game of words-twisting of yours Grin

:

The top-down policy is an emergent property of the code run by the full nodes.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Holliday on November 12, 2015, 03:34:00 PM

Quote from: Peter R on November 12, 2015, 03:09:05 PM

For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure.

If the block size limit is removed, what will serve as the anti-spam measure?

Personally, I don't believe the limit should be removed. I think it should continue to serve its original purpose--that of an anti-spam measure that sits far above the free-market equilibrium block size. I also think it should be viewed as an emergent phenomenon rather than as a top-down policy tool and that we should welcome its discussion rather than labelling it an "attack."

Quote

Has the spam problem been solved?

No. That's why I like having some limit.

That being said, the problem has been significantly reduced. Due to the increased price of Bitcoin, the cost of creating a huge spam block is now much greater than it was in 2010 when the 1 MB limit was introduced. For example, if we assume that their is no block size limit and that miners are viciously competing for fees, then it would still cost about 100 BTC for a miner to produce a single 128 MB spam block (because statistically, it would take him 5 tries before one "stuck").

Quote

Apologies if I've already asked these questions

Have you seen my fee market paper or my talk in Montreal?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

yesus we are under attack!

open shill time! Cheesy

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: MbccompanyX on November 12, 2015, 03:36:02 PM

Quote from: Lauda on November 12, 2015, 03:31:01 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 12, 2015, 02:54:52 PM

What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator. Cheesy

Let's also not forget the advertising spam that Roger Ver is doing here, with AMA threads. If something gets done about it, incoming:"Censorship, dictatorship, tyranny by theymos!". Roll Eyes

All of this XT has just become a joke. What are their main arguments right now? Core won't raise the block size? If so, then you are really deluded.

There aren't main arguments at the moment, the whole thread becamed just the cove of some XT supporters that still tries to make XT look serious with making even more laughs for who knows the facts

Pretending like the other side has not made any arguments is not productive towards constructive discussion. People in support of increasing the blocksize have made extensive arguments, including myself. You might not agree with our arguments but it is false to say that we do not have any arguments like you claim.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 94. (Read 378993 times)