Topic: Szabo just tweeted this - page 2. (Read 3978 times)

whats interesting is Peercoin Achieves the second, now by design.

It heads of the whole Block size issue by going for the backbone, which is now becoming the problem for BTC as it tries to be 1 and 2, without being 2 first.

It seems that something like peercoin will take the lions share of large value transactions and BTC is falling into the middle of not being doge Ie doge can handle a high TPS at sacrifice of security [but who cares when your buying an ice cream and dont get hit up huge credit card fees], and not being good as a backbone.

Dont get me wrong I am a hardened BTC supporter, its just the boundary conditions do not support backbone currecy as well as Peercoin and so a debated like this rages.

I have being saying this for some time now, and it has come to fruition.

This boils down to whether one views Bitcoin as
currency or a commodity.

I believe there are good social and historical
reasons for believing that the former is untrue,
therefore it is a commodity with specific use
and this generalizes to all cryptocoins.

If you opt for the currency view, then of course there
can only be One.

Time will tell....

Someone would just bridge it. Switching proof of work algorithims might be much more effective and would have a potentially beneficial effect of resetting the currently highly centeralized mining climate... if one really did want to go the total war route. I don't currently believe it will be an issue.

Freedom that is only availble to people who dedicate their lives to it isn't really freedom. To be free you have to be free to do as you will, not forced to be nothing but a freedom fighter.

With few exceptions there has seldom in history been a kind of freedom that wasn't available to those few who really worked to achieve it at any cost. What fighting for peoples rights is fundimentally about is fighting for rights to be reconized by default or at least at a reasonable cost to people-- so that they are pratically available rather than merely theoretically available.

Money gains its value from network effect. For a pure money, like Bitcoin, virtually all its value comes from network effect. Money is probably the worlds greatest natural monopoly. Oh just have seperate things is not a cheap and easy choice.

Even though biased, that was an excellent article, best one
that I've read yet on the subject.

Couple of things spring to mind:

1) The author rightly points out that the fact that both Core and
XT share the same network will lead to a real messy situation.

That being so, would it make sense for Core to make a pre-emptive
strike by releasing a fork that switches to use another IP port
as soon as supermajority of nodes have adopted the release? How
would that affect XT?

2) The author rightly points out that the real issue is about philosophy
of "vision" of what Bitcoin is meant to be. To caricature a bit, will it be
some nice, safe Disney-friendly means of payment (XT) or the angry
testosterone-laden cypherpunk hell we here have gotten used to?

It would seem that there is actually demand for both. Which means
that even if Gavin's and Mike's project were thwarted, big players like
Paypal or Google might very well start building something very similar,
because there is a business opportunity here.

The end result being that we would have a semi-centralized payment
network for "ordinary folks" and a plethora of more anonymous alt
chains for those of geekish bent. Something for everyone.
Only the myopic fixation on One True Coin prevents people realizing that
this is the most likely outcome for crypto in the long run.

Bitcoin XT will and won't be a failed project. I admire the boldness of putting in the fork and to have people to fight it because it is motion and has stirred debate like nothing before.

Aguing will end up spurring innovation either way so let the Blocksize war begin!

Initially I had dismissed the email out-of-hand as being from an imposter. But now we have Szabo, the clear frontrunner in the Satoshi sweepstakes, tweeting an article which conspicuously proposes the email should be taken as genuine. 

The plot thickens! Why tweet this article? The most notable thing about it is its take on the Satoshi email. I am now reconsidering the emails legitimacy. And upon reading the email again, I can't help but wonder what the implications of the following could be:

"...I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project."

If someone is sitting on the world's largest stash of bitcoins because they believe in the project, but they then decide it's a failure, what incentive would they have to keep holding said bitcoins? Maybe he is trying to warn us...... of the Big Cashout™.

Even that slopply designed mess of bugs has effective blocksize and resource usage controls. Try something more like "Liquidcoin" if you want to see what a system looks like with no thought given to the incentives and stability of the system.

This is correct, and it was a point I made previously and was pretty agressively attacked for being "against planning" (though what I suggest is precisely the opposite: having a planned contingency that you use when you have a strong consensus that its the right choice is good planning)-- clearly people promoting this stuff with the massive uncertanty created by XT and the irritation of "stress tests" can't honestly be concerned with there being a bit of turbulance.

If we achieve the second, we can have both.  But if we only achieve the first, we likely cannot have the second (and wouldn't find it to be a substantial improvement over the fiat systems we have now, even if).

The reason for this is that if Bitcoin is secure and trustworthy, trustless decenteralized micropayment facilities can be built on top of it and extend Bitcoin's transaction security with arbritary speed or scale.  But if the system is fragle and underminable by attackers (government or otherwise) then it won't be robust enough to underpin these things.

(and things like micropayment channels were't my invention, they were recommended by the system's creator-- thats part of why Bitcoin has smart contracts to begin with.)

That's my question: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-gavin-is-so-desperate-about-his-fork-is-he-hiding-something-1154636

This is the crux of the matter to me --> " If such a system existed (like VISA), it would no longer be immune to government coercion or control.  The opponents of XT will argue that it is inevitable, and nay, necessary that sub-domains riding on top of the Bitcoin network be setup to handle local payments between local parties, thus keeping the required number of txns on the main net of Bitcoin manageable.  A current project under development, Lightning Network, is exactly one such solution."

Mike developed the Lightning Network, and he needs XT to succeed to support his project. This will give governments more control and it seems as if this is no problem to them. They want their projects to succeed at the

possible expense to the bitcoin network. {Possible 51% attacks / Spam etc..} How can people support XT if it goes against all common sense?

Give Wladimir and his team some time to experiment with bigger block sizes and scale when we know it's not a risk to the network or if the need force it to increase.    

This article basically echo the Jeff Garzik's view

Unfortunately it is still too complex for majority of users to understand. At this level of complexity, any kind of explanation from one side will be claimed as biased by the opponents

Maybe that's the reason that war never ends in human's history. Human is just incapable of keep peace and work towards the same goal. Or to say, they will eventually develop a conflict of interest in the end, and start to fight against each other

I have lived in different continents and I have never seen anything that is close to free market idealism. The market is either controlled by the government like in eastern or by banks in western. If you know what is "Market Maker" from large banks then you know market is typically made by a specific institution, and that institution usually have total control over what market can do, they could even shutdown the market in case of emergency

Take bitcoin for example, can free market decide what code goes into bitcoin protocol? Not as I know. Any code must be approved by core devs before they can be commited into GIT, otherwise they will just become an alt-coin. Someone must design and maintain the game rules so that others can play the game, but if someone is challenging the game rule maker, then it becomes politics

ethereum ??!?!

Erm. Turtle, I don't know if we are reading the same article, but the author of that article can generally be seen to be not in favor of XT (hence referring to an XT block as a 'Judas' block) and also not necessarily in favor of any block increase as he points out that at this stage it isn't needed, apart from when the stress test was implemented, and for scaling which he also points out can easily be brought out as a soft patch/fork.

Isn't that your stance also?

You appear to be against points which are your stated points elsewhere.

Interesting, I wonder what Crypto would be like without Bitcoin?

Presumably the free market will choose XT or Core, but did the free market have an opportunity to choose this XT over another XT, an alternative alternative? No.

Please bring any new info about the down sides of XT to /r/noxt

What a cop out response.
The email address it was sent from is the same email used when Satoshi first wrote about bitcoin.

So instead of speculation, we can look at these facts:

1) It is Satoshi's email address
2) Either Satoshi wrote this email or a someone that gained access to his account did
3) A signed PGP message would have proven it was Satoshi
4) An unsigned PGP message doesn't prove OR DISPROVE that it was Satoshi

XT is not the only solution to larger blocks. Core could support larger blocks as well once there is a consensus and an actual need to increase the block size. Blocks aren't filing up yet, except during the 'stress tests'. A fork will be required either way to support larger blocks but the way this fork is being done with XT, I cannot get behind.

I don't really want to get involved in what you are saying, but...
He actually said there is research, but it hasn't been finished to a satisfactory level yet.
In theory, no one really knows what will or will not happen.
The Core Devs are requesting more time for more tests.
At-least that is what i remember reading somewhere.