Topic: "Bitcoin" XT Status Update - page 8. (Read 11213 times)

Good news everyone!

XT is consigning Bitcoin's outdated and ineffective model of trust-free leaderless development to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.


Let's all welcome our new XT overlords.

If you see anyone post stuff like this:



report them to Fatherland Security.  They are probably Tea Partiers, or (even worse) Libertarians, who seek to disrupt our benevolent status quo of central banking, zombie bailouts, deficit spending for warfare/welfare, and rock-solid settlement/clearinghouse networks.

In today's highly entertaining episode of All My Bitcoins:

u/bashco and u/theymos politely reminded rabid, increasingly desperate Gavin fanboys XT is just another obscure (albeit hostile) altcoin and therefore off-topic in r/Bitcoin:






Epic frothy buttrage ensues, including much hyperbole about "censorship."   

Here's the highlight reel of Level 10 Poutrage:












 

Shows how much I'm paying attention to bitcoin.org. I'm not much of a fan of blockchain.info either - they were innovative in 2013, not so much now. No HD wallet is ridiculous in 2015.

Theymos isn't a fan of the blockchain.info wallet. It was removed from bitcoin.org some time ago.

Down to 83 Gavinista dead-enders.



Don't they know the war is over, and they lost?

Really...because if you had accumulated enough BTC to (likely) be set for life, got paid by MIT to develop the thing that you enjoyed working on most, you'd be embittered? That's not a word that I'd use to describe Gavin.

If it's a joke, it's prolly an embittered one.

It's funny that those who likely contribute very little to the community manage to disrespect someone like Gavin that committed thousands of lines of code improving the very thing that we all rely on. Rather pathetic, if you ask me.

Please fix title.

We definitely agree - no single individual or even group of individuals 'speaks' for the (super) majority and no, I don't accept Theymos as having (veto) rights over what users can or can't do anymore than Gavin does.

I will agree that it's entirely possible that this the software fork proposed by Gavin/Hearn and supported by an unknown number of participants may indeed turn into a a costly and protracted civil war. I'm hopeful that it will be more sane, more amicable and shorter than might be the case, but I fully acknowledge that it could be *bad* short term for Bitcoin and e-cash and possibly long term. However, I also think that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with at some point.

On the one side, I don't think a minority of users (including devs/holders/miners/etc) should be able to veto changes desired by the super majority. On the other hand I also don't think that a couple of devs, even influential ones like Gavin, should be able to sink Bitcoin now or forever.

There has to be a way to reconcile these problems and perhaps now is the time to force the conversation away from hypotheticals. No one is asking for Bitcoin to be more compliant with LEOs, no one wants to move away from the 21m coin cap, no one wants to change the mining algo - the block size, while important, shouldn't be so contentious that the minorities will be able to break it for everyone else...

Bitcoin.org is controlled by a number of people including theymos.  Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with it, but shouldn't have as I wasn't either, until the recent brouhaha over their Hard Fork Policy.   

I think my point was that Gavin no more necessarily speaks for a (super)majority than theymos.

The "software fork allowing users to choose" may not be innocuous as your bland description makes it sound, and glosses over the dangers of a contentious hard fork.

Without asking you for a future prediction, let's acknowledge the possibility this "software fork allowing users to choose" may turn into "a tumultuous, costly, protracted civil war resulting in unprecedented FUD/chaos/drama, and possibly irreparable damage to both (or all) sides, if not e-cash in general."

bitcoin.org - I honestly haven't thought about it much.  It's a website/domain, ultimately run /controlled by one dude, theymos, no? If so, how can you call that a majority or even supermajority? The pirate bay isn't tied to a domain and neither is decentralized Bitcoin. If users want >1M blocks and Theymos refuses to host wallet software that respects it, will that be THE factor? I'm not sure - you're asking for a future prediction which i don't have.

I will say that it won't affect SPV wallets since they have no clue about blocks, as BIP66 helped remind users.  Theymos won't likely start blocking breadwallet, blockchain.info, etc...

You want something definitive? I want to find out if a supermajority want larger blocks and unless we just trust 5 core devs to make the decision for everyone else, there will be a software fork allowing users to choose.

Perhaps Gavin is joking about being more dictatorial.  Perhaps not.  I'll judge him by his actions, many of which of late give cause for concern.

I'm straining to parse your post into a response to my question re: whether or not BTC.org's Hard Fork Policy represents one of the supermajorities of which you are so fond, and believe to be of such high utility in decision making processes.

You seem to be attempting to have it both ways, beginning with the wishy-washy platitude "Bitcoin.org can have whatever opinions it wants."

I'm sure you'll welcome the opportunity to answer the my question in a more direct (dare I hope, even Yes or No) manner, with less distracting truisms.   

Agreed on Hearn not being a core dev. Your concerns about Gavin are unjustified since he's never shown an indication to roll out changes or revoke access on some sort of a whim. If anything, he's a conservative and deliberate developer who has done an amazing job being dedicated to improving Bitcoin since 2010, when it was relatively worthless. He's earned his role as a core dev and holding the keys to the alert system, similar to Thermos as you call him.

So what people think he's the CEO of bitcoin? Lots of people think it's a ponzi scheme and I've been told at least once that Bitcoin was created by the yakuza (for real) as a tool to evade taxes. Most people that think these things don't have any Bitcoin and can be dismissed.

Bitcoin.org can have whatever opinions it wants. If Theymos is the last holdout on hard fork wallets...well then we'll see what happens. This is the point - everyone gets to use whatever influence they like. I don't think that accusing Gavin/Hearn/Todd/Back/luke-jr/Theymos/etc of being dictatorial and harmful to 'the cause' is accurate or fair. Everyone for the most part is doing what they think is the right way to contribute. One of those ways may be offering a hard fork to users...if they embrace it then you get to be concerned. If not, then what's the big deal?

I'm glad you were not affected by the BIP66 forks, and agree the silly miners/pools brought it upon themselves by playing too fast/loose with the rules.  In a textbook example of antifragility, BTC came out stronger as a result.

My point about BIP66 is that even a non-contentious supposed "95%" hypermajority translated, upon state vector collapse, into 64% (sufficient to cause some FUD/chaos/drama).  And thus, your reliance on an even flimsier "75%" "supermajority" is not justified and ill-advised, especially given the existing contention and expected gamesmanship over larger blocks.

[email protected] is not a core dev, and I don't care what he does.  But I reserve to right to LULZ when his nefarious public shenanigans backfire spectacularly, as in the current case of XTnodes.com.  

[email protected], OTOH, is of greater concern because he can revert core dev commits and even revoke their commit access.

And he has the keys to the alert system.  And people think he's the CEO of Bitcoin.  

Speaking of supermajorities, do you think Bitcoin.org's Hard Fork Policy represents one?  Or are you in the Thermos-Is-An-Evil-Undemocratic-Dictator camp?

I didn't lose a single satoshi from BIP66 and quite honestly, any SPV miner running that configuration and outdated software got exactly what they deserved. The same can be said for SPV users who put their faith in meaningful amounts of BTC on unverifiable chains.

If you want to use this as an example, I'me fine with that. I'm also fine with someone playing bad cop, if it moves off detente in this case. Bitcoin is decentralized, right? Why are you worrying about what 2 core devs do?

Your commendable (and expected) lack of personal involvement aside, did you really miss the wave of Gavinista goading/gloating around here and (especially) on reddit when their putsch began?  Why do you think XTnodes.com exists?  Please don't make me dive into r/bitcoin's sewer of idiocy to dredge up XT boasting threads!

"Supermajority" is a uselessly/harmfully confusing, subjective term which does not preclude contention.  See Bitcoin.org's Hard Fork Policy for details!

Remember what happened with BIP66's uncontentious supposed "95%" supermajority, or did you miss that imbroglio as well?

IMO, [email protected] set up XTnodes.com to act as a Bad Cop in order to intimidate the core devs into submission w/r/t larger blocks.

If you disagree with my interpretation, please ask him for his version.   

I don't recall nor plan on rubbing XT in anyone's face. My preference is for larger blocks and my hope is that the majority of the community (devs, users, miners, holders) supports this. If a supermajority supports a hard fork, then I'm supportive of that too. If XT ends up being a minority fork and never gains traction then that's also a vote worth respecting.

My point is that I'm not going down with the ship on the short side. As we've been discussing, the economic supermajority will win out and I don't intend to fight upstream - I'm not that dogmatic. This isn't about winning and losing - it's about supporting what you think is the right way to go but listening to the feedback you get.

Since XT doesn't have any relevant code regarding larger blocks, why start counting XT nodes?

Ah, I see how this works.

When XT node count is declining in relative and absolute terms, you pooh-pooh their significance ("XT nodes or no XT nodes").

But we all know that if XT node count was still climbing, the Gavinistas would still rubbing it in Team Core's faces and using XT as a cudgel to beat the recalcitrant core devs into submission, under threat of contentious hard fork.

Do you see the hypocrisy there, or do I need to draw a picture and in excruciating detail ELI5 the self-serving inconsistency?   

As for 0-confs, I agree they are nearly always a bad idea.  If you could successfully convince Frap.doc, Justus, and the rest of the Yet-Another-Centralized-Realtime-Retail-Payment-Rail camp of that, I'd appreciate it.

Well, XT nodes or no XT nodes, taking zero conf transactions for instant digital payments with no identity or recourse is always a bad idea. Second, XT doesn't have bigger block code so at this point it's all conjecture.

Let's not add bigger block into the zero conf argument since that's a whole separate issue with RBF and first seen RBF arguments and it has nothing to do with a hard fork.