Topic: Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion (Read 5857 times)

LOL. I recall that one of the buttcoiners made a subreddit simulator at one point that emulated topics and replies that the average r/bitcoin user would make. I honestly couldn't tell the difference. Damn bots could even formulate more intelligent replies.

For all the worries and the headaches, I must admit the zero percenters also add some comedy value to the community. Not worth it, though.

Good question!  Checkpoints, in the sense of a centrally-controlled blockchain such as XT aims to create, work as follows.

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1797/what-are-checkpoints


The only problem (besides being Stalinesque) with checkpoints is that they require you to trust the entity setting them, thereby defeating the entire purpose of using the unprecedentedly trust-free arrangement of PoW-based Bitcoin-type schema.

http://goldprice.org/spot-gold.html

Then consider Bitcoin is much more useful then gold 

Care to explain how you think a useless thing will retain any value jackass? Maybe I should go buy some bernie babies and tulips instead of bitcoins? No? What da ya think herp derp?

This is where bitcoin will end if it remains crippled and/or too expansive to use http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

Poe's law aside, if endlessly entertaining idiots like knight22 didn't exist, we would have to pick up the fail-gauntlet and emulate them ourselves.   

And how these checkpoints works exactly?

XT won't be BLOCKCHAIN-forkable, because uber-shitlord [email protected] has promised to maintain his "final call" via Stalinesque checkpoints.

XT is obviously SOFTWARE-forkable, as already demonstrated by NotXT (and whatever other weaponized versions are floating around unannounced in the darkness of the civil war's strategic non-disclosure fog).

Its implementation was too abrupt and too combative. It exposed some properly ugly attitudes on all sides and it hasn't done Bitcoin any favours in the eyes of those watching it.

My sides.

Why, you think the big pockets hang there ?  

Here: http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/ Maybe you're curious what some group who controls...oh what..? at least 300,000 BTC? think about the future of Bitcoin.

Maybe you should read more speculation boards and troll box  

Yes sure people were buying Bitcoin because they were expecting banks and corporations to compromise it and so knight22 and his hobos could buy their Doritos with it 

Nope but from the speculation that they will. 

 

You are fucking delusional.

Bitcoin rose to a 3.5B$ market cap without any of these "customers" and corporate parasites.

Get a grip seriously

If the costs of running a full node jump too high as a result of a hard fork allowing more transactions,
it will create a precedent and a tendency for keeping it going in that direction to the point that running a validator stops being permission-less.

There is no commercial success that would be able to replace that ability in order for Bitcoin to maintain its core value proposition.
No one is capable of running a SWIFT node or VISA node at home today and those systems are tremendously successful commercially.

There is a line that Bitcoin should never cross in order to remember its origins and that line is the cost of running a full validator at home.

The thing you don't get is that "the industry" and their merchant/consumers are the largest part of the market. Of course they have little leverage over governance decision but they are those giving most value to the coins and they are free to choose whatever system that fits their needs. If developers willingly ignore those needs in their decision making well I'm sorry but bitcoin will just become a commercial failure and another system will prevail (split fork or altcoin) and that system that better fits the needs of the largest market spectrum will become a commercial success. There is absolutely no doubts about that.

Actually, I created this account for the purposes of finding a properly balanced solution
in between the two radical approaches that were floating around at a time (XT-exponent and Core-1MB-forever).
From that perspective my opinion hasn't changed much, only the sense of urgency (which was partly caused by this potential XT-fork) did.

I still believe that jumping to 8MB limit at some point in the future is the best option, as the only threat to Bitcoin comes from similar competing systems (and there isn't much ambiguity in how to proceed in order to counter their current theoretical bandwidth targets), but only if they show themselves worthy to do this.

But, yeah, I did figure out a few interesting things about Bitcoin in those recent debates.

You aren't seeing things very clearly are you?

The consensus currently IS status quo.

What you describe as "the market" is your own myopic fabrication of a very complex economy.

You like to pretend that consumers and merchants form some kind of economic majority when it's quite apparent they have little leverage over governance decisions.

As long as the Bitcoin holders & the peers (nodes) are not satisfied with the need for an increase or the way to go about it status quo will prevail. No matter of "industry" support is going to change that. Bitcoin exists explicitly to avoid pressure and coercion from these banking parasites. It is an attempt to build an economy OUTSIDE of the existing system and you shill would like us to bend over to their demand? You will eventually get what you deserve for this pathetic display.

Stop lying to yourself.

it seems you take some majoritarian view. there may be some merit to that, however, i don't understand how one can oppose a 51% attack on a technical level and also support a 51% attack on a political level. either we value consensus, or we don't.

there is economic incentive to achieve larger blocks, yes. that's why it will likely eventually happen. but miner incentives, like price discovery, do not play out overnight. scaling cannot be an overnight process.

i am not re-defining bitcoin. bitcoin already is. in order to hard fork the protocol, a new consensus must be achieved. you can't write off the blockchain that miners are currently mining, lol.

if consensus goes from 95-100% --> 75% or 51%, indeed, many will feel betrayed, and we will have a civil war on our hands. those who assume that a simple majority can force the rest of the market into a contentious hard fork put far too much faith into their linear understanding of miner incentives, and are obviously not versed in game theory.

in such a situation, we will have multiple blockchains. whatever view you take on the block size debate, it is of utmost importance that we prevent such a situation. in that case, it's possible that bitcoin will never again comprise a "single" blockchain. security on all chains will be crippled, as will trust in bitcoin.