Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 10. (Read 21883 times)

And this (Not Bitcoin XT) is exactly why contentious hard forks are doomed. Andresen and Hearn should grow a pair and bootstrap their own altcoin from scratch instead of trying to piggyback Bitcoin Core's network effect.

I have thought about this for a little bit, and I have thought of two scenarios that could happen because of NotBitcoinXT

Scenario #1: Some people (a small percentage, less than 10%), including miners and exchanges, use BitcoinXT. NotBitcoinXT gains enough usage to cause a fork. Those 10% using XT are forked, while everyone else continues on normally. Some business is disrupted, but not too majorly and those XT users abandon XT and return to Bitcoin Core and your plan worked to maintain the status quo.

Scenario #2: A large portion( around 50%) of the users are using XT, and some more people use NotBitcoinXT which causes a fork. Now half of the Network is one the XT chain, and the other half on the Core chain. There are essentially two Bitcoins because the XT chain will continue to call itself Bitcoin since it was supposed to be a fork with consensus. Users will be frustrated because there are two coins called Bitcoin but you can't know which one to use. Business are confused and get angry customers because of the two chains, and new users don't know which one to use. lot of users and businesses stop using Bitcoin due to the hassle involved with trying to sell things with Bitcoin and two chains. Then they leave and don't come back because of this massive fuck-up and Bitcoin is Dead. Also, malicious users will have both clients, and get double their coins and attempt to sell to get the most profit.

Scenario #3: Ntohing happens and neither XT nor NotBitcoinXT gains enough traction to cause a fork.

Also, if people start to see XT to appear like it is gaining traction(when a lot of it is NotBitcoinXT nodes) and nearing the fork point, it might actually cause more people to jump to XT in order to stay in business. After the fork scenario two happens and shit hits the fan.

So again, please tell me how causing Scenario #2 is good? Or are you trying to go for Scenario #1?

Seriously..   And you people wonder why we haven't seen mass adoption. 

Yes, Blockstream is a company, not a technology or software protocol.

Its two prototypes for scaling Bitcon, LN and SC, are open source.

If successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways.


I'm not the one comparing NotXT users with


Don't you find that comparison just a little dramatic?  

Wait, don't answer that.  Fuck off to https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt and stop supporting theymos' dictatorship!

The only hysteric person here is you and I am indeed banned from /r/bitcoin for talking about shuuuuuut XT

Since when did theymos control reddit?  Is he Pao's replacement?  Has he banned /r/BitcoinXT, /r/BTC, /r/bitcoin_uncensored, etc?

And how is this thread possible if "theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum?"

I guess he just did a really bad job of it.   

Your hysteria over NotXT users "gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot" is quite remarkable.

Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating.  The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better.

Blockstream and bitcoin are 2 separate things and in no way scales bitcoin itself.

There is no way to scale Bitcoin "currently."  Blockstream is working on it, and have at least two promising prototypes in SC/LN.

Bloating Layer 1 with more of the same is not "scaling up the current design."

You can't get to Visa from here, no matter how large you make the blocks.  Because trade-offs.  Make the blocks too large, and miners simply create more empty ones.  It's already a huge problem at 1MB 750k.

That spoof client could affect peoples psychology and actually create a new wave of bitcoin XT adoption.
Or it could make bitcoin XT allow >1 mb blocks too early and bring chaos to the bitcoin ecosystem.
I don't believe at this though. Even if it makes XT allow bigger blocks too early, we will not see any big blocks unless we get a big transaction volume.
Nice idea though.

Yes it's currently the only way. And protect the status quo is just useless. We need to push the block size higher, but BIP 101 isn't the only way to do it... BIP 102 & BIP 103 are some other way to do it but people here prefer to fight against XT than finding solution until we got some working other solution like lightning network [...]

Completely independent from whether or not we need to increase block sizes,
this fork is about the most destructive thing in the community that I've seen to date.

At the moment, only the developers get to decide on what's merged into Bitcoin Core, and what isn't.
Additionally to that, theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum and reddit.
In the end, bitcoin consensus is the only method of voting left to the community.

Whichever fork wins the vote, so be it, it got consensus. Removing this possibility
from the community seems really counter-productive.

By using this fork, you're not voting for one of option or the other. Instead, you're
the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.

Not the only way indeed but currently the only way. It's kind of the point.

I think most on this sub-forum are aware that scaling up the current design isn't the only way to allow for mainstream sized transaction rates.

Of everything you've ever said on this forum, your current signature is quite possibly the most honest you've even been about your views towards Bitcoin.  You genuinely believe Bitcoin is a means to provide enormous value to a small minority.  For you it's all about preserving the status quo.  It's not just that you don't care if Bitcoin becomes a niche plaything for a wealthy elite, in fact that's your actual goal here.  You're doing everything you can to try to undermine larger blocks, because you know that your endgame doesn't involve making Bitcoin scalable, it involves forcing everyone else off of "your" chain.

Bitcoin is not and will never be about preserving the status quo.  Keep dreaming if that's how you think this plays out in the long term. 

Don't use the XT client then. That's the idea (hope that's got you up to speed)

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm a litttle slow, but I still don't understand how causing a premature fork is good for Bitcoin and maintains the status quo?

Wouldn't a fork create two blockchains with some people on one and others on the other. If exchanges and miners don't specify which blockchain they are on, then users get confused, new users are even more confused, and people stop using Bitcoin. People then stop using Bitcoin both because of the confusion, and the fact that two of them now exist completely discredits Bitcoin. So not only is XT discredited and abandoned, but so is Bitcoin. So please explain to me how a premature fork is actually good since it has long been established that FORKING WITHOUT CONSENSUS IS NOT A GOOD THING which is what this client is doing.

Nobody cares about your lulzy, incomplete attempt to rehash of the block size debate, so I deleted it.

The entire point of NotXT is to give "false market indicators that could lead to an unnecessary forking or bad forking timing."

That's why it exists.  That's why we love it.  How could you not understand that by now?

We are leading XT into an ambush, wherein it will be contained and exterminated.

Isn't that wonderful, and hilarious?   

It's not using log scale, therefore it is invalid.

It is hypothetical until it is not. Your fear of bitcoinXT is irrational and even toxic. The day bitcoin transactions becomes so bloated that big companies like Coinbase, Circle, Xapo and all and even decentralized services like OpenBazaar have no choices to use bitcoinXT to process their transactions, big mining pools will follow and a consensus will emerge  simply because there is an incentive. This is hypothetical in a sense that it will only happen if bitcoin core doesn't offer scaling on time. NotbitcoinXT is not only useless but even more dangerous than XT itself as it gives false market indicators that could lead to an unnecessary forking or bad forking timing. This war mongering attitude is the only dangerous and childish behavior in this debate.

BITCOIN ALREADY HAS A MULTI-YEAR, MULTI-BILLION $$$$$ CONSENSUS, AND ANYONE "BRAVE" AND "COURAGEOUS" ENOUGH TO BE THE FIRST TO DEFECT FROM IT IS GOING TO HAVE A BAD TIME.  ESPECIALLY NOW, WITH NOTXT AND PSEUDONODE ADDING TO THE FUN!

UNTIL SOMEONE IS WILLING TO SELL THEIR BULLION FOR MY XTCOINS, AN ALTERNATIVE XT ECONOMIC MAJORITY IS PURELY HYPOTHETICAL AND REMAINS BOUND TO THE REALM OF PURE SPECULATION.

/ZOMG ALLCAPS!!1!