Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion - page 5.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: siameze on September 22, 2015, 02:19:21 PM

Quote from: hund on September 18, 2015, 06:07:09 PM

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

Rather succint, I'd say. The XT redditard army being the loudest voices and their inability to act like adults clearly altered some people's perceptions of it.

Adults don't use censorship Roll Eyes

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hund on September 18, 2015, 06:07:09 PM

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

Rather succint, I'd say. The XT redditard army being the loudest voices and their inability to act like adults clearly altered some people's perceptions of it.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 18, 2015, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 18, 2015, 06:02:16 PM

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

That is just not true. The one person that control the hash is the pool operator. For instance the owner of Bitmain own Antpool. 18%
The owner of F2Pool, another 18%. Slush 8%, etc.

The "one person" thing is subjective, its whoever person that ultimately has ownership or control over the hashrate.

If for instance Antpool merged with F2P, they would have plenty of hash power to successfully attack or deny blocks. So i would strongly disagree with "Hash rate is properly decentralized".

lol come on what do you think would happen to all the users of Antpool and F2P?
they'd loss all the miners and likely never come back. Antpool and F2P would lose their business and reputation in order to 51% attack the network for a grand total of 5 mins?

hund

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 10

To put it short: Gavincoin died because it was a repulsive piece of shit same as its creators and supporters; to break it down to one sentence.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: Meuh6879 on September 18, 2015, 06:02:16 PM

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

That is just not true. The one person that control the hash is the pool operator. For instance the owner of Bitmain own Antpool. 18%
The owner of F2Pool, another 18%. Slush 8%, etc.

The "one person" thing is subjective, its whoever person that ultimately has ownership or control over the hashrate.

If for instance Antpool merged with F2P, they would have plenty of hash power to successfully attack or deny blocks. So i would strongly disagree with "Hash rate is properly decentralized".

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

never 1 person can't control hashrate of the bitcoin network ... even chinese farm can't produce 0,5% of the bitcoin network. (1 farm)

bitcoin network is better decentralised than you think ...

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: Q7 on September 18, 2015, 05:59:19 PM

At least it proves one thing that it needs to consensus of the majority to implement a change. But thinking of it, could it be true because if a miner by a single person who controls most of the hash power, then that is only one vote compared to the majority of people who holds less.

That's prohibited by the electricity/hardware cost, but sure if some super genius made a sure quantum, sub-space computer in his basement that would run SHA256d he would not only be able to overtake the majority but just the fact that existing would destroy bitcoin in itself.

If that person was wise as well as genius, then he would just keep his super machine at progressively more hashrate until it reach about 20%~ of the network. Then hopefully would not dump everything

Q7

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

At least it proves one thing that it needs to consensus of the majority to implement a change. But thinking of it, could it be true because if a miner by a single person who controls most of the hash power, then that is only one vote compared to the majority of people who holds less.

wxa7115

hero member

Activity: 2814

Merit: 734

Bitcoin is GOD

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 18, 2015, 01:47:59 PM

That's a sad reality then, because only when people start "losing money" that they will band together and be motivated to make a change to resume "making money". Proactive is not something that can be applied to any form of "big" society or group.

I think realizing the Potential of BTC require a different mindset than the standard "trader option" mind, because lets face it, the only common ground between stock and BTC is the perspective both come from a human's mind. The inner working of BTC is not comparable.

True, but that’s the way humans work, if I tell someone that a tsunami is coming with 100% certainty , let’s say in 20 years, do you think that person will do something about it? Most likely no, but if in the news there’s a headline that for some reason there’s going to be a shortage of toilet paper by tomorrow, what do you think it will happen? There’ll very long lines in order to get toilet paper.

maokoto

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

✪ NEXCHANGE | BTC, LTC, ETH & DOGE ✪

I thought for a while it was officially dead. But I see that it just did not have the response they expected. There has been a lot of debate however, and I think that is good.

hmmkay

full member

Activity: 306

Merit: 100

All this debate has shown, is the censorship of information.
One person having way too much to say on reddit and here. Decentralization much?
The same person who, after many years and funds, still hasn't managed to make a new forum.

Not very re-assuring, and embarrassing.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

The dead-ender Gavinistas over at https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3le3dg/discussion_on_forum_stating_that_xt_is_a_failure/ are pouting because this thread exists. Cheesy

They've now achieved a complete break from consensus reality, and believe XT "won already." Cheesy

Nevermind the fact XT may have achieved the opposite of its goal, by cementing 1MB into place for all time.

Quote

This XT move created a lot of division. So if XT was secretly designed to cause so much division that the block size could never be changed (i.e. nothing resembling consensus could ever be formed), then XT might be a success.

#R3KT

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: knight22 on September 18, 2015, 09:41:23 AM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 17, 2015, 10:10:17 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 17, 2015, 10:04:53 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 17, 2015, 08:07:18 PM

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head - sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106 silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said? Tongue

Not being proactive and not allowing growth predictability is the greatest way to kill investment in the space.

sell sell sell

That's a sad reality then, because only when people start "losing money" that they will band together and be motivated to make a change to resume "making money". Proactive is not something that can be applied to any form of "big" society or group.

I think realizing the Potential of BTC require a different mindset than the standard "trader option" mind, because lets face it, the only common ground between stock and BTC is the perspective both come from a human's mind. The inner working of BTC is not comparable.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 17, 2015, 10:10:17 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 17, 2015, 10:04:53 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on September 17, 2015, 08:07:18 PM

Hmm yeah i wouldnt blame the BTC drop on XT. Sure the scaredy kitties might of dumped because of unfounded fears but i don't think the big BTC owners are that weak. XT didn't gain momentum, only FUD.

If such little FUD made the price drop so much, then we were over BTC's true value for sure. There is no need to worry about BTC price dropping over FUD and it was far from a civil war. It was just a loud mouthed minority causing a lot of waves and spam.

its not so much XT per say

its this whole block size issue

poeple find out bitcoin is not the limitless "money of the future" they thought it was - sell
then they find out no one is sure what to do about scalability - sell
then they find out gavin has left the dev team, to work on XT the solution to our problems - good news? maybe buy a little
then XT is a major flop, which seems to be the act of gavin coding with e NSA pointing a gun to his head - sell sell sell
2 of the best devs basically quit - sell?
then 100million ideas all kind of similar pop up, fears of bitcoin splitting in two set in - sell
bitcoin splits into BIP100 Vs BIP106 silly silly - sell everything

But there is absolutely no reason for this to happen, only people that don't know how Bitcoin work can be worried about that. You need consensus to change and consensus is not going to happen without the Bitcoin expert agreeing with the change.

This pretty much mean. If it is not;
1-Absolutely and immediately necessary.
2-Absolutely the right thing do to.

Then There will be no fork. None, at all, zilch. People need to stop listening to FUD and drama. But obviously the people that own the hash power aren't, because how many blocks did XT solve?

Enough said? Tongue

Not being proactive and not allowing growth predictability is the greatest way to kill investment in the space.

sell sell sell

Mr Felt

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 518

kalooki

newbie

Activity: 11

Merit: 0

Quote from: brg444 on September 17, 2015, 11:02:19 AM

Quote from: HostFat on September 17, 2015, 10:53:15 AM

Again, you should wait to see what will happen with the block always full Wink

The day where starting to count is the 11 January 2016.

And barring a stock market collapse I don't think we're going to see blocks full on average then. Wink

"Full blocks on average" is impossible unless every block is full.

uxgpf

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

This:

Quote

You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /r/Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on bitcointalk.org, bitcoin.it, and bitcoin.org)

Not in Bitcoin itself, but I do have power over certain centralized websites, which I've decided to use for the benefit of Bitcoin as a whole (as best I can).

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

I have completely opposite view of what is beneficial to Bitcoin (Hint: open discussion and inclusiveness). After reading above I think it's better for me to move elsewhere, where it's possible to discuss openly without a big brother actively warping discussion to his own ends. (Which theymos proudly admits here)

Have fun in your little North Korea.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

10,3 % of all nodes is not very "dead" isnt it Cheesy

?

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

XT got censored our of existence on forums like that but far from dead on free ones. Also nodes are under DDOS attacked all the time but we are getting better DDOS protection. Even Slush was DDOS until they stopped producing BIP101 so if you think it is dead or dead in a water you are just on wrong forums. It will be back when it is time for that. There is no rush. There is time. But when time will came it will be much batter because of all innovation we are forced to make then QT.

And that is pretty much all I' ready to write(or it might even be the last think I will be able to write) on this centrally controlled forum. Have fun with you masters playing there game...

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-26

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Topic: Bitcoin XT Post Mortem - Group Discussion - page 5. (Read 5868 times)