Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 7. (Read 21883 times)

I never thought there will be the day I agree with icebreaker

Yes, the thing about unpredictable outcomes is that their outcomes are difficult or even impossible to predict.  I blame the unimaginable chaos for that.  

Besides the lulz, shorting GavinCoin (especially with element-of-surprise proportional leverage provided by NotXT) can make a lot of money.

As the big fat buttcoiner brain bug, are you siding with XT b/c enemy of enemy equals friend or what?

I did see your 'I actually like BTC but am very skeptical' and admire your financial conservatism BTW...  

I can't imagine the chaotic outcome that you predict.  Either BitcoinXT (and/or other 8 MB versions of the software) will secure approval of 75% of the miners, in 6-8 months at most, and then 100% of the miners will switch to it; or it will fail to do so, and any miners that switched to it will promptly switch back.  The "fake XT" software is a childish idea; miners are in the game for real money, not for lulz.

But (sorry if I repeat myself) the "fake XT" proposal underscores the silliness of blockchain voting.  It is typical of the hacker mindset: a complicated programming hack that is invented in an attempt to avoid the need for personal contacts and political negotiation. 

Well, sorry, but that does not work.  The size limit issue will be decided by *people*, not computers or algorithms.  The only effective way to obtain a consensus on some issue is to discuss it with the relevant *people*; listening to them, trying to understand their worries and goals, finding a proposal that most of them could approve, or at least accept, triyng to convince them to do so, and getting their pledge that they will do so.   

Gavin, even without being obviously a political genius, knows how to do that (because of his experience at Google, and with the 2010 and 2013 incidents).  That is what he did this time, e.g. getting the Chinese miners to agree to 8 MB.  That is apparently an approach that Greg and Adam, prototypical hackers that they are, do not seem capable of doing -- and, for that reason, hate it, and call it "populist tactics".

I bet that the Core × XT "war" will be resolved that way: the miners (the Chinese, and probably others too) will talk to each other, and eventually agree that they all should raise the limit (by downloading BitcoinXT or some other 8 MB version, or rolling their own); or that they all should stick to 1 MB.

By the way, in the BitcoinXT Github repository there is already a branch that has only the 8 MB limit increase, without the other controversial changes:

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

(This is not a recommendation, of course; only an information.)

It's hard to believe someone with Cryddit's could-be-a-Satoshi level abilities would really not understand the diff between ~100% consensual forks and one predicated on a partially-faked "75%" (with 25% + NotXT spoofs strongly objecting).

As if the socioeconomic war of Gavincoin shorts vs longs will be over "within a day."  As if MPEX will simply get bored after a few hours and abandon whatever battle plans for a protracted/expensive strategy of attrition he is doubtlessly currently devising.   

If XT's fork is triggered it is not the end of the Great Schism, only the beginning of the hot phase.

The same thing that would happen if a group of miners with majority power decided to play see-saw with the blockchain.  That is, they mine ten blocks B(N+1), B(N+2), ... B(N+10) normally on top of some block B(N), then go back and mine 20 blocks C(N+1), C(N+2), ... C(N+20) on top of the same B(N), then mine another 20 blocks B(N+11), B(N+12), ..., B(N+30) on top of B(N+10), then mine C(N+21), C(N+22), ... C(N+40) on top of C(N+20), then...

Every sane person would conclude that bitcoin is a joke, while true bitcoiners will find a way to view that as "good for bitcoin".  That is what would happen.

Unless NotXT can now make pod-person versions of Gavinistas, you've confused nodes/blocks with "people."   

We are aware of the (apparent) popularity, especially on vapid cute-animal-focused social media, of XT.

How many times must we explain Bitcoin is not a one-opinion-one-vote democracy?  FFS, the populism and self-pity are nauseating.

Theymos already (famously) declared Gavinistas, whether 90% or 51%, are welcome to fuck off to their own forums and subs.

Why don't you demonstrate GavinCoin's supposedly dominant socioeconomic consensus, by being among the first to defect from Trolltalk?

If we miss you, we'll come say hello over at /v/bitcoinxt.

That's the point.

You can't REALLY know how much power is in each side BEFORE the fork, only AFTER the fork.

What will happen if we get that 75% of blocks were mined with those bits setted but, in reality, the hashpower is 49.3% and 50.7%. Goodbye Bitcoin.

This fork COULD BE a mess, maybe not, but could be in the scenario that I'm describing. This is REALLY necessary?, it is too much risk mate. We should stay with Bitcoin Core and make a new version of it, not building ANOTHER client to fork the blockchain.

Which is the goal of this or to cause confusion that forces an abort.

But then what happens if a lot of xt miners are also producing blocks to the point that the forked chain had enough halshpower to survive?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set (0x20000007 in hex)."

So, what will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? Without the needed hashpower, XT will become surely an altcoin with near-zero value?

If there is a fork in the blockchain, as pointed put above, it creates many security threats to the entire network. In addition, from what I have read so far, two different chains may lead to the creation of a new coin.If this were to happen, the value of Bitcoin will drop. That is why I am personally against this non-consensus fork. Is there anything I'm not understanding? Please let me know.

"All devs are equal, but some devs are more equal than others."

Who are the developers with commit rights to BitcoinCore, and what are their affiliations?

To help you, these developers are listed on Blockstream's "Team" page: Adam Back (President), Greg Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo, Mark Friedenbach, Rusty Russell, Patrick "Intersango" Strateman, Jorge Timón, and Glen Willen. There may be others. Luke "Tonal" Jr works for Blockstream as contractor. Peter Todd works half-time for Viacoin, an altcoin that claims to be bitcoin done right -- e.g. with 25 times faster confirms.


Note quite.  I don't recall writing "delusional fools", bluntly like that, although I do believe that many of them are.  I understand that, strictly technically, bitcoin is not a ponzi; but it is a pyramid scheme, also called "ponzi" in comon parlance -- and that is the only aspect that many bitcoiners seem to care about.  I believe that the price will go to (practically) zero eventually, and the sooner that happens,  the better; but I have no idea how long it will take, actually. 

And I am not "anti-Bitcoin".  I think its is a significant invention and a great technical experiment, and I would admire it if it had not been hijacked by speculators and turned into a giant pyramid scheme -- that has already transferred a billion dollars or two from some naive investors and unlucky speculators to the pockets of smarter and luckier guys, and burned at least half a billion dollars of electricity so that its users could save maybe a million dollars in bank fees.


As a computer scientist, it really bothers me that Adam Back and the Blockstream devs keep spreading all that nonsensical and groundless FUD about the dangers of 8MB, claiming that the "fee market" will work and that the LN will save bitcoin -- while ignoring all data, all that is known about saturated network behavior and service pricing, and all inconvenient questions about the viability of the LN.   

I have no particular admiration for Gavin and Mike; in particular, I cannot respect Gavin given his continuing support for the Shrem Karpelès & Friends Foundation.  But their "agendas" for pushing the block size limit increase are quite obvious: they want to keep bitcoin working as it has been working so far, and usable for the purpose it was created for -- and also reduce the risk of crippling spam attacks.  Whereas Blockstream's agenda, that makes them desperately wish for bitcoin to become unusable and vulnerable to spam attacks, can only be speculated upon.  (Maybe, as Napoleon would suggest, there is no malice, but only gross incompetence and irresponsibility.)


As you know, since I discovered Bitcoin I have been doubling my holdings every day.  (I was tempted to triple them during the recent dip, but I did not want to break a tradition.)

And how exactly is this not FUD against Core devs? Even if you concede to the accusations, how is this not a ad hominem argument? There is a very clear reason this debate should remain purely technical. This is an engineering problem, it should only be treated on this basis.

This is baseless FUD. There are many Bitcoin developers who are not related to Blockstream against XT because they favor a more cautious approach to the block-size increase.

Anyhow, anybody following your posts since the beginning knows you are anti-Bitcoin. You have said Bitcoin believers are delusional fools, you have also said Bitcoin is a ponzi-scheme that will go to 0 rather sooner than later, you've never supported Bitcoin and you never will.

It is not a surprise that you are pushing the most dangerous solution (8MB straight away and then x2 every year until 8GB are reached) that will probably lead to complete centralization and thus the death of Bitcoin. It is not a surprise that you go to great length to expose the "conflict of interest" of devs associated to Blockstream, while you don't comment on the very real issues that such an abrupt change in block size could bring to Bitcoin.... Nor you criticize Hearn's and Andresen's shady agendas.

Hopefully you've at least bought some.

Very well said.

Miners directly depend on the users. 75+% of the hashrate constitutes super majority. (if we would go after a higher % of the miners, then a single big miner could veto the change)

It was chosen because all other metrics can be spoofed, hashrate cannot.

This is simply wrong.  XT is programmed to fork with 75% support of the hash rate, but that is not consensus, not even among miners.  Even more importantly, the miners are not what actually counts here.  It is the users and the "economic majority" that is often quoted recently.

Right now 1 company has control over bitcoin's future, and has been spreading baseless FUD and ad-hominem because it does not intend to relinquish it.  If that is not bad enough already...

We manage to get here by working together. Bitcoin is a community system base on multiple person.
If 2 persons want to take control, this could only be bad.

This will also not help us for the mass adoption. We need to fix that. Do not download XT or NOTXT its making think more complicated and investors will just leave. my 2 cent