Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it 
Forum is not a democraty.
Users can not force moderator team ...
True, it is more a dictatorship. exactly what bitcoin should not be hm?
Topic: Reddit Mod(s) banned/deleeted hundreds of XT posts... (Read 1327 times)
Forum is not a democraty.
Users can not force moderator team ...
True, it is more a dictatorship. exactly what bitcoin should not be hm?
Rusty Russel concludes:
Quote
Thus I revise my bandwidth estimates; instead of 17% per annum this suggests 30% per annum as a reasonable growth rate.
30% per annum, good. What's the annual rate of increase in Gavin's exponential function? Well, it's 41.4% per annum, which is clearly beyond the pace of technological advances in bandwidth. Not to mention that the past experience doesn't guarantee the future progress.Gavincoin's rate of growth flagrantly disregards planning for the worst, in preference of hoping for the best.
That is a technical affront to and social engineering attack on Bitcoin's diversity, defensibility, diffuseness, and resilience.
Whether intentional or not, it is based on Hearn's Big Lie:
Quote
Bitcoin has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix has become a point of contention.
Let's fix Hearn's Big Lie so it accurately reflects the reality of this summer of drama:
Quote
Bitcoin has been thriving because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix has become a point of contention.
There. Much better.
Actually OP I considered you as a better member in the past (better than most campaign participants and most people one interacts on a daily basis; this is not ad hominem!). I wonder what has rallied your support for XT so much. Mike Hearn is not a good person nor are his intentions pure.
You've actually been spreading some misinformation in regards to this debate as well. XT is not the only way for bigger blocks. BIP 100 and BIP 102 are the proposed changes to Core that will allow bigger blocks. It's obvious that most of the members advocating XT either are misinformed or ignorant. This is wearing people out, including me. I have to repeat the same stuff hundreds of times (including a few others) and yet people continue being blind.
You've actually been spreading some misinformation in regards to this debate as well. XT is not the only way for bigger blocks. BIP 100 and BIP 102 are the proposed changes to Core that will allow bigger blocks. It's obvious that most of the members advocating XT either are misinformed or ignorant. This is wearing people out, including me. I have to repeat the same stuff hundreds of times (including a few others) and yet people continue being blind.
Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it
Forum is not a democraty.
Users can not force moderator team ...
The problem here is the information. Bitcoin XT was launched and published as being the "official" bitcoin. And backed by statements like "fork proposal made by leading bitcoin devs". I don't have refferences and shit, this is just my impressions of the situtations when exposed to the initial information. Then later by other sourses did I learned about the truth, that Bitcoin XT is a rouge dev team that went their own ways. I cannot spend all day looking at discussions and arguments. I am a end user, I need to know "peasent do this!".
Quote
no, that is not true.
please take a look at:
-bandwidth-
Extracting the figures gives:
#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit
#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit
please take a look at:
-bandwidth-
Extracting the figures gives:
#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit
#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit
Rusty Russel concludes:
Quote
Thus I revise my bandwidth estimates; instead of 17% per annum this suggests 30% per annum as a reasonable growth rate.
30% per annum, good. What's the annual rate of increase in Gavin's exponential function? Well, it's 41.4% per annum, which is clearly beyond the pace of technological advances in bandwidth. Not to mention that the past experience doesn't guarantee the future progress. 
Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it
sorry, but where is the proof on the major consent? as far as I see it, BitcoinXT is just another altcoin at this point and I honestly doubt it'll see consent anytime soon.
aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.
Yes, 1Mb -> 8Mb and then doubling every 2 years is aggressive and beyond the pace of technological advances. What the original client supported doesn't matter, it's not a bible.5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.
I'd kindly ask you to point me towards a lot of analysis. Thanks.no, that is not true.
please take a look at:
-bandwidth-
Extracting the figures gives:
#Average download speed in November 2008 was 3.6Mbit
#Average download speed in November 2014 was 22.8Mbit
#Average upload speed in November 2008 to April 2009 was 0.43Mbit/s
#Average upload speed in November 2014 was 2.9Mbit
http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=551
(storage is no problem, you can buy terrabytes of data today for 80 USD but you want facts
aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.
Yes, 1Mb -> 8Mb and then doubling every 2 years is aggressive and beyond the pace of technological advances. What the original client supported doesn't matter, it's not a bible.5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.
I'd kindly ask you to point me towards a lot of analysis. Thanks.
aggressive increases? the original client supported 32 MB blocks in 2010.
5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.
5 years later only 8MB should be no problem. alot of analysis has been done. storage and bandwidth are not the problem.
Quote
Bitcoin, the first and most widely used cryptocurrency, has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix, which was meant to be temporary and has been crippling its growth ever since it was put in place, has (surprisingly to many) become a point of contention.
Whether it was temporary doesn't matter now, as our knowledge has improved a lot since those times, so it must be re-evaluated. There are several recent academic publications linked to blocksize issue, there is some reasoning (whether valid or not, it does exist) against aggressive increases.Quote
The core devs that want to preserve this network capacity artificial cap have serious conflicts of interest since they became part of Blockstream, a company that seeks to build their own payment system on top of the Bitcoin network, and in doing so it would relegate the Bitcoin network to a secondary hidden role, like a settlement layer for the payment channels of their network, instead of letting it be the accessible-to-all network Bitcoin was meant to be.
That's a serious accusation, but I still haven't seen solid proof of that being the case (the reddit 'summary' I have read is not solid). I can say that Gavin&Mike are colluding with banks or goverment to bring Bitcoin under their control -- that's easier after they take over the network with their XT. I think it's a win-win for the gov't -- Bitcoin either being irreversibly damaged due to split, or being under their control, giving them leverage to implement more controversial changes (whitelisting by Mike would be one of those, I guess).
But it would be just baseless FUD, so I won't say that.
This is what you have to know...
Quote
Bitcoin, the first and most widely used cryptocurrency, has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix, which was meant to be temporary and has been crippling its growth ever since it was put in place, has (surprisingly to many) become a point of contention.
The core devs that want to preserve this network capacity artificial cap have serious conflicts of interest since they became part of Blockstream, a company that seeks to build their own payment system on top of the Bitcoin network, and in doing so it would relegate the Bitcoin network to a secondary hidden role, like a settlement layer for the payment channels of their network, instead of letting it be the accessible-to-all network Bitcoin was meant to be.
In response, a few ex-core developers have come up with Bitcoin-XT, which stays true to Bitcoin's original vision, but updating the Bitcoin software to Bitcoin-XT will split the community, at least temporarily, in two groups with different rules. The mods of this subreddit are largely aligned with the Blockstream folks, or are otherwise against forking Bitcoin to increase the cap, and have thus been banning a lot of posts and comments on Bitcoin-XT, hence the commotion you are witnessing.
The core devs that want to preserve this network capacity artificial cap have serious conflicts of interest since they became part of Blockstream, a company that seeks to build their own payment system on top of the Bitcoin network, and in doing so it would relegate the Bitcoin network to a secondary hidden role, like a settlement layer for the payment channels of their network, instead of letting it be the accessible-to-all network Bitcoin was meant to be.
In response, a few ex-core developers have come up with Bitcoin-XT, which stays true to Bitcoin's original vision, but updating the Bitcoin software to Bitcoin-XT will split the community, at least temporarily, in two groups with different rules. The mods of this subreddit are largely aligned with the Blockstream folks, or are otherwise against forking Bitcoin to increase the cap, and have thus been banning a lot of posts and comments on Bitcoin-XT, hence the commotion you are witnessing.
When we have legit Bitcoin Core, Why we need this Bitcoin XT. Every one use Bitcoin Core only to avoid complications in future.
The Bitcoin subreddit has been heavily censored for months. I think this is just the first time people are starting to really notice.
I have a theory: LiteCoinGuy is advocating for XT (ignoring all the concerns raised by people) because he wants Bitcoin to fail and be superceded by Litecoin! I've just exposed your real agenda, man!
Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.
Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.
no. you can also call me BitCoinGuy if you like that
read the post above, that is my intention.
I have a theory: LiteCoinGuy is advocating for XT (ignoring all the concerns raised by people) because he wants Bitcoin to fail and be superceded by Litecoin! I've just exposed your real agenda, man!
Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.
Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.
this topic is important so it should stay here. the community has to choose between
a centralised 1 MB blockchain
and
a free and open blockchain that can live up to its promise! a blockchain everyone has access to, world wide, small and big transactions, every usecase you can imagine, uncensored, nearly free transaction costs for everyone in the world!
the internet of value. that blockchain has bigger blocks.
make your choice
a centralised 1 MB blockchain
and
a free and open blockchain that can live up to its promise! a blockchain everyone has access to, world wide, small and big transactions, every usecase you can imagine, uncensored, nearly free transaction costs for everyone in the world!
the internet of value. that blockchain has bigger blocks.
make your choice
Getting a bit bored of reading all these XT cheerleader threads. Why do they have to keep starting threads about the same or very similar stuff.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Bitcoin-XT is NOT an alt-coin. It is an alternate client.
Feel free to move this thread to the appropriate section of the forum then - 'Alternative Clients' - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Bitcoin-XT is NOT an alt-coin. It is an alternate client.
Feel free to move this thread to the appropriate section of the forum then - 'Alternative Clients' - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0
@eternalgloom
you can find something about that fact here:
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/
tl;dr: Blockstream may want to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.
For God's sake, you don't know shit about sidechannels (wtf is that, btw? do you mean sidechains?) and the LN. I'll give you a quote form the LN paper.you can find something about that fact here:
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/
tl;dr: Blockstream may want to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.
Quote
While it may appear as though this system will mitigate the block size increases in the short term, if it achieves global scale, it will necessitate a block size increase in the long term. Creating a credible threat that spamming the blockchain to encourage transactions to timeout becomes imperative.
In short: the LN allows the transaction throughput to rise without increasing blocksize, but only to a point -- if transactions on the blockchain are choked (as you suggest), the LN becomes unreliable as there's an attack vector which works when there's a transaction backlog. The LN depends on there being enough space in blocks.I'd also like to point you to 2 replies by Mark Friedenbach that may be of relevance
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01330.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01334.html
I've seen accusations pointed towards the mod in question having a financial interest in deleting these comments/threads.
Not sure what it means but it seemed interesting to share.
Not sure what it means but it seemed interesting to share.
Everyone with bitcoin has a financial interest in the outcome of the blocksize debate.
Some have ancillary motives that also have financial payoffs, like the Blockstream-ers, but you can include regular miners in that category too (in fact they straddle both categories irrespective of the result, as it will be them that process the transactions whether using on-chain BigBlocks or some off-chain solution).
Also, the Blockstream people will make money whether offchain becomes the prevalent solution or not. They're developing all potential sidechains, most of which will have nothing to do with processing BTC directly. They're not depending on the Lightning network, or anything else, because the technology has been made flexible and open-ended enough that they don't need to.
Jump to: