Topic: Coinbase is overstepping the bounds we should give it regarding Bitcoin XT - page 2. (Read 6674 times)

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

I understand that this place is full of people in bad faith that love censorship, appeal to authority and can't talk without being in full of logic fallacies.

I'm sure anyone with little brain can agree with you there.

Everytime these anti XT idiots open their mouth, its all about censorship and attacking,

Which is exactly false. It has been already established that your claim is silly but ofcourse you're refused to hear that then call anyone who disagrees.... shills.

You just confirm Rawdog's post, dont you see?

And at that moment, we knew that RawDog had never actually read any of the BIP papers else he would be aware that there are multiple other solutions for increasing the block size.

Jesus, guys. I'm not even fighting for or against XT or BIP101 here, you damn shills have come and turned the thread into your own little playground.

This thread was created to point out how Coinbase is trying to centralise the decision-making and how we should come to a solution of our own accord, even if it does end up being BIP101 anyway.

You have twisted this thread for your own agenda.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

I see you're still shamelessly spreadin lies

By forking the codebase, I meant a contentious hardfork of the consensus protocol, the users, and the miners. (Not enough characters in a Twitter message!)

Some people have mentioned that it's ironic for me to say this because I forked Bitcoin to create Litecoin. That fork is drastically different than what BitcoinXT is doing. Litecoin uses a different proof of work, so that it's not competing with Bitcoin for miners. And by creating a new genesis block, it did not fork Bitcoin's userbase. Users and miners can choose to (or not) support Litecoin and it would have no effect on Bitcoin whatsoever.

People have also said that forking the code is just a push of a button and that people do it all the time with open-source software projects. So forking should be encouraged instead of discouraged. I agree with this, but Bitcoin is different in that there is one thing that you need to be careful with. And that is the consensus protocol. Bitcoin only works if everyone (well, the vast majority of the people) are on the same protocol. Any small change to the protocol will leave users on a different fork and not able to reach consensus with the rest of the network. And that's fine in most cases. Users/miners, finding that they are left behind (shorter chain length), can quickly fix their code to be back in consensus.

The reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks. There are very good reasons why most of the core developers and Bitcoin experts are super cautious with increasing the block size too quickly. But these reasons are hard to explain to regular users of Bitcoin. Yet, it is quite easy for Mike & Gavin to convince people that supporting BitcoinXT means supporting block size increase, which makes Bitcoin scale for worldwide use, and it's what Satoshi intended. BitcoinXT is set to trigger with 75% miner support. This means it can trigger with only 50% miner support + a lucky streak. Or if there are malicious people running NoXT, they can cause the trigger to go off without majority support. When that happens, there's no guarantee that the losing side will all switch to running BitcoinXT. Now you've got a split user base and miner base. Some wallets will support BTC, some will support BTCXT, and some may support both. Same for exchanges and payment processors. It's going to be total chaos. Miners will switch back and forth between mining BTC and BTCXT. Users will send transactions on one network and not know why the recipient didn't get it. The price for both coins will tank. If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hearns-worst-case-scenario-checkpoints-in-xt-to-ignore-the-longest-chain-1089283). That is scary.

There's a better option. Really try to reach consensus. Unlike what you have been told, the devs actually support increasing the block size. They just couldn't come to a consensus on how much and when. And we still have plenty of time to get to a consensus. Next month, most of the devs and bitcoin experts are gathering in Montreal to discuss this topic to get everyone on the same page. Check out https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

I urge people to come to that workshop and contribute. I don't see why we cannot come to a consensus on this topic.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

Here's how you know the XT guys are right:  anti XT guys simply call them shills.  They try to ban them.  They don't want the argument heard.  They want to enforce 'bounds' on other people.  Yet, at the same time, they don't bring any argument at all in favor of crippling bitcoin with 1MB so that there stupid Blockstream will become more needed.  When someone tries to win an argument with DDOS and censorship - it is time to watch out.  XT is correct.  Blockstream/1MB is raging bullshit.

Not to mention that the discussion of Bitcoin XT wasn't even banned, Coinbase overstepping these bounds and pumping Bitcoin XT was. Jesus, guys.

Nah.  Let them try to persuade whoever they want.  It's called freedom of speech.

More importantly:  Blockstream, a private company who also controls most
of the core developers, represents far more of "centralized decision making" than
anything else.

 Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and  
 

BIP103 is to low.

BIP100
https://www.bridge21inc.com/blog/seven-reasons-a-vote-for-bip100-may-be-complicated/

Moreover, it add impracticability.
None will start business on a network that can have a size a day and a different size two months after and another one the next months (up and down)

It's pure logic, nothing hidden.

Currently, the Bitcoin blockchain is growing at a rate of ~1.2 GB every single month. Gavincoin’s 20 MB blocks would grow the size of its blockchain by 2.88 GIGABYTES PER DAY or 1.05 TERABYTES PER YEAR since they will be filled with essentially zero-fee spam transactions by design.

If you’re hosting your Gavincoin node on a VPS, you’re looking at costs in the order of $1,000 per year, or 50x what a Bitcoin node costs! Even if you’re running your Gavincoin node at home, and you want to buy 5 years of storage up-front, you’re looking at $300 for the hard drive and another $250 per year in additional Internet bandwidth capacity, which is again, about 50x more than you’re currently paying.

According to this page: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/visa-international-history/
Visa was doing 807 transactions per second in 1992.
Dividing the average transaction block size by the average number of transactions figures out the average transaction size and then dividing that by 1mb then dividing that out across ten minutes makes a number of around 2.8 transactions per second per megabyte of block space.

So a 100x increase in block size would get us to about 1/3rd of the way to the network capacity of the visa network from 1992 and about one half one one percent of the way to the capacity of the visa network in 2015.

Why is block size even talked about in the context of scaling again? It seems like even jumps of 100x or 1000x or whatever make virtually ZERO impact.

Never had a problem with coinbase.  

The fact they support bigger blocks is good!  

There are many option other than BIP 101 such as BIP 100, 102 & 103.
I think BIP 100 & BIP 103 looks better than BIP 101,so why many companies want use BIP 101? Are they have hidden motives or there are flaws in BIP 100 & BIP 103?

Wuille proposes to increase the block size limit with 4.4% by January 2017 and automatically repeat this process every 97 days, more or less. This allows for a yearly block size growth rate of 17.7%. According to Wuille, this is consistent with the average growth rate of bandwidth over the past years. The increases of the block size limit will then continue up until July 2063. At that rate, the maximum block size will reach 2MB by 2021, 8 MB by 2030, and eventually end up at slightly less than 2GB in 2063.

The maximum block size could double every 2.7 months, leading to growth at rates of 16x + every year.
The only ceiling on this would be the message size limit of 32MB. This is far faster than allowed by BIP101 and has the potential to truly put running a full client out of reach of all but professionals.