"Bitcoin" XT Status Update | Bitcointalksearch.org

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 04:30:44 PM

The Gavinista movement is purely political. They use the technological jibber jabber to impress the useful idiots at Reddit that bought in at $500-$1000 and desperately hope doubling the tps will double the price.

If this is true then there will be nothing to worry about, nothing to see here since 'idiots at Reddit that bought in at $500-$1000" aren't likely to garner > 75% hashing power before 2018.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2016, 03:09:46 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 01:08:25 PM

XT = BIP101, not Classic's withered rind of 2MB.
You can say the 'get theymos - kill Core' spirit of XT lives on in Classic, but that entails admitting its body is dead. Wink

It's time for sgbett and the other Gavinstas to put on their big boy pants, admit XT failed, and share what they learned from the experience.

I'm pretty sure that if Classic fails that we are going to see at least another attempt at a fork (I hope that I'm wrong though). The block size debate is ridiculous and especially people who want Bitcoin to remain a single layer. I wonder what the internet would look like if it was built on a single layer instead of the 7 that we are currently using (if that was possible).

We absolutely will see Bitcoin Doubleplusgood or something else after Classic goes away.

The Gavinistas' precious governance coup matters more to them than any technological feature or tps improvement.

That's why the XT and Unlimited people can agree to Classic's 'smallest, least controversial change possible' thin wedge approach.

When Adam Back proposes 2MB, it's "absurdly small." When Classic does the exact same thing, the Gavinistas clap for joy.

The Gavinista movement is purely political. They use the technological jibber jabber to impress the useful idiots at Reddit that bought in at $500-$1000 and desperately hope doubling the tps will double the price.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 01:08:25 PM

XT = BIP101, not Classic's withered rind of 2MB.
You can say the 'get theymos - kill Core' spirit of XT lives on in Classic, but that entails admitting its body is dead. Wink

It's time for sgbett and the other Gavinstas to put on their big boy pants, admit XT failed, and share what they learned from the experience.

I'm pretty sure that if Classic fails that we are going to see at least another attempt at a fork (I hope that I'm wrong though). The block size debate is ridiculous and especially people who want Bitcoin to remain a single layer. I wonder what the internet would look like if it was built on a single layer instead of the 7 that we are currently using (if that was possible).

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: jwinterm on February 05, 2016, 12:43:19 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 12:29:17 PM

Quote from: sgbett on February 05, 2016, 04:24:10 AM

The gracious victor should always be sure to heckle the sore loser. Its proper form!

Not always, only in cases like your own.

Did you really think you could spend months blustering about how XT was going to win, then slink away without a word when that failed to happen?

To be fair, it seems XT has basically merged with classic, so there is still some possibility of larger blocks happening without the blessing of core. I haven't really been keeping up with the drama lately, but if they (still?) have significant support from businesses and bitfury rolls out a few dozen of these badboys http://bitfury.com/products#container-datacenter for "testing" in support of classic's fork...I mean, it could happen, right?

XT = BIP101, not Classic's withered rind of 2MB.

You can say the 'get theymos - kill Core' spirit of XT lives on in Classic, but that entails admitting its body is dead. Wink

It's time for sgbett and the other Gavinstas to put on their big boy pants, admit XT failed, and share what they learned from the experience.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1116

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 12:29:17 PM

Quote from: sgbett on February 05, 2016, 04:24:10 AM

The gracious victor should always be sure to heckle the sore loser. Its proper form!

Not always, only in cases like your own.

Did you really think you could spend months blustering about how XT was going to win, then slink away without a word when that failed to happen?

To be fair, it seems XT has basically merged with classic, so there is still some possibility of larger blocks happening without the blessing of core. I haven't really been keeping up with the drama lately, but if they (still?) have significant support from businesses and bitfury rolls out a few dozen of these badboys http://bitfury.com/products#container-datacenter for "testing" in support of classic's fork...I mean, it could happen, right?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: sgbett on February 05, 2016, 04:24:10 AM

The gracious victor should always be sure to heckle the sore loser. Its proper form!

Not always, only in cases like your own.

Did you really think you could spend months blustering about how XT was going to win, then slink away without a word when that failed to happen?

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 04, 2016, 10:25:22 PM

Quote from: sgbett on February 04, 2016, 07:26:28 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 04, 2016, 09:28:11 AM

OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost?

Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture?

Why are you so obsessed with XT winning or losing. Pinned your self worth on being right OTI? lol

I am more than happy to say that right now it doesn't look like XT is being used by any miners. You knew that though. If that means XT has "lost". Then it has lost.

BTW your 1MB rhetoric isn't aligned with MP anymore. Sorry to kill the romance Wink

That convoluted rant must be the most bitter, least graceful concession speech in Nixon in '62. Grin

Drama level at 11, patronizing and obnoxious, with plenty of deflection... business as usual I see.

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to admit what has been for months entirely obvious?

Oh well, at least you managed to recover some semblance of integrity as you sulk in your self-made bed of poor sportsmanship.

I'd hoped you would learn something from the experience, as I would have if XT had similarly demolished my expectations.

Unfortunately you're not the teachable type, so instructive object lessons like the XT debacle do nothing to further your education. Undecided

Even that silly old troll smoothie manned up and voluntarily took full responsibility for being on the wrong side of history vis-à-vis XT and Core.

To his credit, I didn't have to shame and hound him into verbalizing an admission of defeat and falling prey to an inferior (albeit trendy) social movement.

What is your major malfunction? Did your parents fail to properly educate you in matters of comity?

The gracious victor should always be sure to heckle the sore loser. Its proper form!

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: sgbett on February 04, 2016, 07:26:28 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 04, 2016, 09:28:11 AM

OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost?

Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture?

Why are you so obsessed with XT winning or losing. Pinned your self worth on being right OTI? lol

I am more than happy to say that right now it doesn't look like XT is being used by any miners. You knew that though. If that means XT has "lost". Then it has lost.

BTW your 1MB rhetoric isn't aligned with MP anymore. Sorry to kill the romance Wink

That convoluted rant must be the most bitter, least graceful concession speech in Nixon in '62. Grin

Drama level at 11, patronizing and obnoxious, with plenty of deflection... business as usual I see.

Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to admit what has been for months entirely obvious?

Oh well, at least you managed to recover some semblance of integrity as you sulk in your self-made bed of poor sportsmanship.

I'd hoped you would learn something from the experience, as I would have if XT had similarly demolished my expectations.

Unfortunately you're not the teachable type, so instructive object lessons like the XT debacle do nothing to further your education. Undecided

Even that silly old troll smoothie manned up and voluntarily took full responsibility for being on the wrong side of history vis-à-vis XT and Core.

To his credit, I didn't have to shame and hound him into verbalizing an admission of defeat and falling prey to an inferior (albeit trendy) social movement.

What is your major malfunction? Did your parents fail to properly educate you in matters of comity?

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 04, 2016, 09:28:11 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 23, 2015, 01:43:59 AM

Quote from: sgbett on August 21, 2015, 10:50:26 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 21, 2015, 03:08:32 AM

There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation." Grin

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger. As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

Quote

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless. It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost. This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect? I hope not! Tongue

Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend. I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself. I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.

If XT wins, I will admit defeat. May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?

*** Le 5 months later ***

OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost?

Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture?

Why are you so obsessed with XT winning or losing. Pinned your self worth on being right OTI? lol

I am more than happy to say that right now it doesn't look like XT is being used by any miners. You knew that though. If that means XT has "lost". Then it has lost.

BTW your 1MB rhetoric isn't aligned with MP anymore. Sorry to kill the romance Wink

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 23, 2015, 01:43:59 AM

Quote from: sgbett on August 21, 2015, 10:50:26 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 21, 2015, 03:08:32 AM

There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top."

Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins.

If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation." Grin

Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger. As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said:

Quote

The point of all this is that node votes-by-user-agent are, in principle, pretty much useless. It is trivial for anyone to turn their IP address into a "node" at near-zero storage/memory/CPU cost. This is also one of the reasons why incentivized full nodes don't work.

Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see.

That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan^TM.

Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan^TM.

You can't even see yourself.

Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect? I hope not! Tongue

Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend. I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself. I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.

If XT wins, I will admit defeat. May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?

*** Le 5 months later ***

OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost?

Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

So much for that fad. The Redditurd Army must have found a shiny new thing/cause/trend.

Furio

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1000

BTC | LTC | XLM | VEN | ARDR

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 15, 2015, 09:45:27 AM

Quote from: BCwinning on September 12, 2015, 09:47:25 AM

gavincoin

Well, that's didn't last long. The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea.

Thank fucking god! But it seems btc price is rising again, so who's gonna be the next idiot acting on his own and ripping the community apart, and convincing all the naysayers of opensource in general even more....

After all this drama in bitcoin world, cloud, scams, hardware issues, crash in december to allmost 100 dollar, we were allmost back at 350 euro's and then the community creates its own problem, an non-consent fork, and down to 150 again, unbelievable, mining is not only not profitable, you must be bad crazy or crazy rich to keep on doing it, I sure as shit cant mine anymore with this price. Sadly, because I didn't do it for the money, but I cant affort to invest this much to mine...

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: BCwinning on September 12, 2015, 09:47:25 AM

gavincoin

Well, that's didn't last long. The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea.

BCwinning

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: canth on August 26, 2015, 12:47:12 PM

Quote from: BCwinning on August 26, 2015, 12:22:21 PM

so they using their key to scare ppl into updating their client to their codebase.
classy move gavincoin

Evidence? Otherwise stop talking crazy.

just open up a version of core that doesn't have gavins latest bullshit code in it.
there is your evidence.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: canth on August 29, 2015, 07:26:02 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 01:33:53 AM

Quote from: canth on August 23, 2015, 09:15:34 AM

NotXT is certainly capable of mining blocks and indicating support for BIP101 while actually not conforming to BIP101. To put it in simple terms so you understand, here is the problem.

Hashrate in January 2016:

25% - Core blocks
25% - NotXT blocks (indicating XT)
50% - XT blocks (indicating XT and allowing for BIP101 blocks)

In this case, 750 blocks will likely be mined at some point in 2016 triggering the allowance of larger blocks. If the NotXT nodes keep up the charade, the trigger commences and the first >1M block will be broadcast splitting the network essentially 50/50.

Please explain why you think that this is not essentially the worst possible outcome of any sort of hard fork.

Now that was a quality post. I knew you could be goaded into making a positive contribution, given sufficient ribbing.

You've illustrated exactly what happens during the "moment of maximized risk for first defectors" I was talking about.

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! Cool

Of course all this discussion of XT is moot now that f2pool, bitfury, btcchina, and eligius have given their NACKs.

Cite: http://bitcoinmagnates.com/updated-major-mining-pools-make-a-stand-against-bitcoin-xt-fork-support-for-bip-100-grows/

Nothing is over until the gmaxwell sings.

GMAX already sang a beautiful eulogy for [email protected]'s failed governance coup.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilbit/mike_hearn_responds_to_xt_critics/cuiwqv6

On a scale of 1 to R3KT, how would you rate Mike's buttburn? Cheesy

PS KNCMiner changes position, now suports BIP100

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 29, 2015, 01:33:53 AM

Quote from: canth on August 23, 2015, 09:15:34 AM

NotXT is certainly capable of mining blocks and indicating support for BIP101 while actually not conforming to BIP101. To put it in simple terms so you understand, here is the problem.

Hashrate in January 2016:

25% - Core blocks
25% - NotXT blocks (indicating XT)
50% - XT blocks (indicating XT and allowing for BIP101 blocks)

In this case, 750 blocks will likely be mined at some point in 2016 triggering the allowance of larger blocks. If the NotXT nodes keep up the charade, the trigger commences and the first >1M block will be broadcast splitting the network essentially 50/50.

Please explain why you think that this is not essentially the worst possible outcome of any sort of hard fork.

Now that was a quality post. I knew you could be goaded into making a positive contribution, given sufficient ribbing.

You've illustrated exactly what happens during the "moment of maximized risk for first defectors" I was talking about.

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! Cool

Of course all this discussion of XT is moot now that f2pool, bitfury, btcchina, and eligius have given their NACKs.

Cite: http://bitcoinmagnates.com/updated-major-mining-pools-make-a-stand-against-bitcoin-xt-fork-support-for-bip-100-grows/

Nothing is over until the gmaxwell sings.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: canth on August 23, 2015, 09:15:34 AM

NotXT is certainly capable of mining blocks and indicating support for BIP101 while actually not conforming to BIP101. To put it in simple terms so you understand, here is the problem.

Hashrate in January 2016:

25% - Core blocks
25% - NotXT blocks (indicating XT)
50% - XT blocks (indicating XT and allowing for BIP101 blocks)

In this case, 750 blocks will likely be mined at some point in 2016 triggering the allowance of larger blocks. If the NotXT nodes keep up the charade, the trigger commences and the first >1M block will be broadcast splitting the network essentially 50/50.

Please explain why you think that this is not essentially the worst possible outcome of any sort of hard fork.

Now that was a quality post. I knew you could be goaded into making a positive contribution, given sufficient ribbing.

You've illustrated exactly what happens during the "moment of maximized risk for first defectors" I was talking about.

Hearn picked the least optimal 'magic number' with "75%" just like he went about creating XT in the least optimal way possible (Great Schism).

Cite: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

From the POV of Core defense, XT's idiotic choice of "75%" is great, as it minimizes XT's chances of success! Cool

Of course all this discussion of XT is moot now that f2pool, bitfury, btcchina, and eligius have given their NACKs.

Cite: http://bitcoinmagnates.com/updated-major-mining-pools-make-a-stand-against-bitcoin-xt-fork-support-for-bip-100-grows/

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BCwinning on August 26, 2015, 12:22:21 PM

so they using their key to scare ppl into updating their client to their codebase.
classy move gavincoin

Evidence? Otherwise stop talking crazy.

BCwinning

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

so they using their key to scare ppl into updating their client to their codebase.
classy move gavincoin

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: ZephramC on August 26, 2015, 01:30:29 AM

Quote from: canth on August 25, 2015, 08:49:55 AM

Quote from: btccashacc on August 25, 2015, 02:38:26 AM

why we must upgrade from Core to XT ?

Right now, you don't have to. You have until January 2016 at least to push the core devs to consider BIP 101 or an alternative for increasing throughput. Keeping the block size at 1MB seems very unlikely given miner, industry and user support for larger blocks. The only question is how this gets implemented and whether or not a 'contentious' hard fork is the mechanism used to make the change.

You do not have to upgrade. Question whether to increase block size at all does not have "the only one valid" answer? (No matter what economic players, miners, XT developers, Core developers, Satoshi, etc. says.)
If there is a block size change (it do not have to be increase) there are multiple possible solutions to this issue (BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP1XX, other BIPs, suggestions and solutions aspiring to BIP status and multiple ideas).
Bitcoin XT is one of possible implementations of BIP101, although most finished and popular one.

Agreed there are many possible solutions and the final one is far from assured at this point. However, the likelihood of not having an increase seems extremely unlikely at this point. Miners, industry, many core/xt devs and users want an increase.

Under what scenario would you see status quo or a decrease as possible? If there's anywhere that has this bet going, let me know - I'm happy to take someone's money who's on the "blocksize doesn't increase in 2016" bet.

Topic: "Bitcoin" XT Status Update (Read 11213 times)