Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion - page 2.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 23, 2015, 03:51:52 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 03:46:00 PM

The funniest part with XT is that people are willingly choosing to run the client and support the rules that will prevent them from doing that in the future.
What a concept!

Congratulation on your turnaround. It's good to see a couple people are capable of changing opinions once proper facts are presented to them Grin

Unlike you, the most obtuse person around Roll Eyes

Care to explain why XT won't be forkable if implemented? Sounds like nonsense to me.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:49:00 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:31:53 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM

Past indicators does not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) but a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?

to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this.

core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you.

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Are you suggesting a consensus with BIP66 will be as easy to achieve than the block size issue?? Way to compare apples and oranges isn't it?

Which Core dev support larger blocks exactly? It there something I missed?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Very insightful Roll Eyes

Magical thinking much?

cool story. so any time an issue sees more controversy, we betray one of the founding principles and security measures of bitcoin in order to force the question? despite technical controversies?

controversy is natural. agreement will never be total. that doesn't mean betraying what bitcoin is and always has been to meet your meaningless definition of what it should be, is acceptable.

Maybe there will be a consensus but I just don't see it happening (maybe you have some insight that I don't?). Since there is a economic incentive to get larger block and there is no consensus for the status quo the market will simply get what it wants regardless of your definition of what bitcoin should be. I don't think the market can betrayed bitcoin as it is a tool for the free market. Nothing less, nothing more. Only people standing on its way would feel betrayed at this point.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 23, 2015, 03:46:00 PM

The funniest part with XT is that people are willingly choosing to run the client and support the rules that will prevent them from doing that in the future.
What a concept!

Congratulation on your turnaround. It's good to see a couple people are capable of changing opinions once proper facts are presented to them Grin

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:31:53 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM

Past indicators does not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) but a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?

to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this.

core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you.

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Are you suggesting a consensus with BIP66 will be as easy to achieve than the block size issue?? Way to compare apples and oranges isn't it?

Which Core dev support larger blocks exactly? It there something I missed?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Very insightful Roll Eyes

Magical thinking much?

cool story. so any time an issue sees more controversy, we betray one of the founding principles and security measures of bitcoin in order to force the question? despite technical controversies?

controversy is natural. agreement will never be total. that doesn't mean betraying what bitcoin is and always has been to meet your meaningless definition of what it should be, is acceptable.

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

The funniest part with XT is that people are willingly choosing to run the client and support the rules that will prevent them from doing that in the future.
What a concept!

Blawpaw

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1027

Bitcoin XT still isn't dead. Even though it looks it already is dead the debate will only end later this year:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--929659

Nevertheless, it seems good old classic BTC was the community choice.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM

Past indicators does not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) but a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?

to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this.

core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you.

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Are you suggesting a consensus with BIP66 will be as easy to achieve than the block size issue?? Way to compare apples and oranges isn't it?

Which Core dev support larger blocks exactly? It there something I missed?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:20:23 PM

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

Very insightful Roll Eyes

Magical thinking much?

coalitionfor8mb

jr. member

Activity: 42

Merit: 1

It's simple again!

There are multiple ways to change the rules and there is only one way to keep them intact.
Guess which one has more gravity? Grin

The costs of running a node must be preserved over the long periods of time in order for blockchain validation to remain permission-less.
Only when another system with similar properties of decentralization begins to push comparable amounts of transactions, only then Bitcoin needs to jump with its block size limit to counter that. In that case the solution will not be ambiguous as there will be clear targets to reach in order for Bitcoin to stay in the game.

Doc Martin

newbie

Activity: 36

Merit: 0

Rehash: 95% of miners implement BIP66 in July ----> totally impossible in September Grin

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 03:16:16 PM

Past indicators does not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) but a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?

to the bolded: this was 2 months ago. you're just making up arbitrary time lines about when consensus [automatically] becomes impossible. and you are suggesting that by definition, it becomes impossible. you offer no evidence of this.

core devs =/= "small blockists".....fact that you're still throwing around these misnomers tells me i should probably not waste my time discussing anything with you.

it resolves as every past issue has been resolved.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 03:01:53 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 02:45:31 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 02:42:07 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 02:29:47 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 02:21:40 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 02:17:01 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 02:14:44 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on September 23, 2015, 01:15:26 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 23, 2015, 10:02:21 AM

I am wondering if taking what miners think into consideration about what the market needs is not something ever more retarded and autistic...

Thanks to you and all the autistic geeks, bitcoin will soon be added to that list: http://saleshq.monster.com/news/articles/2655-the-20-worst-product-failures

don't fret, my friend. no need to refer to "thinking people" as "autists" and if you think bitcoin will fail -- don't let the door hit you on the way out. plenty of alt coins out there. go out and have a look.

A better option is to fork bitcoin and leave the "coin that doesn't scale" right in the dust and be added to the list. No need for an alt.

i have no problem with forking bitcoin. most altcoins are bitcoin forks. i don't mind.

but i don't agree with your approach. the one that should be left in the dust is the one that can't achieve consensus.

You mean Core? Since there is no consensus for the status quo neither, a split is to be expected at this point. I wouldn't bet on the coin that doesn't scale though.

actually, by the definition of consensus, the status quo = the consensus. we have one blockchain---that blockchain is "bitcoin". consensus has been achieved. let's see if another fork can achieve consensus, then, shall we?

According to who? The CEO of bitcoin? What stop half of the market to split to larger blocks simply because there is a financial incentive to do so and also because a consensus between large amount of people with diametrical views is outright impossible (as shown)?

how is it impossible? as far as i know, there is only one active fork of the blockchain. that's the point of consensus. what's your definition?

any other past hard forks are long dead. we already have consensus. you are just trying to redefine the word so you can say "it will never work, so let's change bitcoin through politics." sorry, but no.

I'm not redefining the word consensus, I am just saying it has now become impossible to achieve because the market has became too large for such a thing (or prove me wrong?). Since there is an economic incentives to get larger blocks and a consensus is impossible to achieve, now what do you expect exactly?

sorry, but the burden of proof is on you here. it sounds like you are just throwing around the phrase "impossible to achieve" willy nilly. why, just a few months ago, miners achieved 95% consensus to implement BIP 66. wtf are you talking about?

there is no reason to prove that consensus is impossible; firstly, you can't prove a negative. secondly, previous forks (including one as recently as july) are solid evidence that you are wrong.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11785195

Quote from: jl2012 on July 03, 2015, 08:58:39 PM

It completes at block 363275, an empty block by AntPool Cheesy

Past indicators do not take consideration of the actual state. Bitcoin was not as large as it is now so achieving consensus was much easier.

Do you see any indicator that we might reach somehow a consensus? Small blockists aren't willing to move an inch (including Core devs) while a large economic group wants and needs bigger blocks. Now what? How do you see this resolves?