This Is How To Kill XT… - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

Yeah, those hostile actors are, um, already in charge of Bitcoin development Shocked

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:32:46 AM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 23, 2015, 12:14:59 AM

Quote from: Sourgummies on August 23, 2015, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Great! Won't be easy to counter for the conspiracy fudsters, censors and alikes. What shall they whine about now?

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Kprawn on August 23, 2015, 02:23:57 AM

These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin.

The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that?

We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done. Shocked

Relax, the stress tests backfired, showing Bitcoin will indeed work the way it was designed to (ie under full load, with no actual congestion).

All it took was a few more sprinklings of crypto-magic in the forms of RBF, smart-wallets, less dumb pools/mines, etc.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 23, 2015, 12:14:59 AM

Quote from: Sourgummies on August 23, 2015, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

We can talk about it in 100 years okay? Honestly bitcoin wont survive if it can't get more than 3 tx per second lonnng before then. Its true its not an immediate need. The stress test we had recently just prove we will need it. Not now, indeed. But soonTM.

These "anonymous" stress tests means f$%^% and should rather be seen as a attack on Bitcoin, not a testing method to the benefit of Bitcoin.

The previous "testing" just hiked up the transaction fee's and proven nothing. Who benefited from that?

We saw that in theory Bitcoin can survive {with a backlog} on 200 tps ....And we are not anywhere near to that under normal circumstances, when there are no testing being done. Shocked

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 23, 2015, 02:05:49 AM

the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already Angry

They have made moves, in the form of BIPs 100-104 and Lightning/Sidechains/Treechains. Project Apollo was not built in a day. We need to listen to the engineer and researcher Dilberts and Wallys, not the pointy-haired/headed bosses. Or this might happen again.

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 23, 2015, 02:05:49 AM

somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size Angry

Core dev dudes have no power to force Bitcoin's multi-year, multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic majority to do anything. Especially not a contentious (ie potentially disastrous) hard fork (ie catastrophic consensus failure).

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 23, 2015, 02:05:49 AM

I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff Cry

Ah yes, the contemporary classic 'Zomg, Bitcoin WILL LITERALLY DIEEE if it does not immediately conform to my preferences' conceit. Roll Eyes

Please, fuck off back to /r/bitcoin_unsensored, or /v/bitcoinxt, or whatever vapid social media site you prefer.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 23, 2015, 01:46:27 AM

You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size. Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility.

GLWT. You gonna get rekt son. Cheesy

Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow. And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted. Cool

Your signature calls to "protect bitcoin until real technical consensus is formed about the block size." that is exactly what I am calling for. I am not dictating to Core what the ideal block size should be, I am just saying the Core developers needs to making a fucking move already. If you don't want XT, somebody needs to slap these dudes in the head and get them to increase the damn block size. Get them moving. I literally do not care what the size is, just DO IT!!

Otherwise I am in support of XT. I am not in support of a Core that does nothing but shill for BlockStream as we are heading for a shere cliff.. I project a large and sudden influx of new bitcoin users arriving unexpectedly in our near future. Core that sits on there hands and does nothing to prepare is more dangerous than anything you project onto XT.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

You presume to dictate to Core (under duress, no less) what is their ideal block size. Yet you ignore the repercussions of applied antifragility.

GLWT. You gonna get rekt son. Cheesy

Your supposed consensus is a paper lolcow. And it has been falling apart since the moment it was asserted. Cool

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Has any of the core developers recently addressed a possible compromise (besides Jeff) to the block size limit issue?

If so please link me to those quotes/posts of them.

Viscera

sr. member

Activity: 660

Merit: 250

OMG another bunch of Dictators telling the minority we are not important.

Bitcoin is NOT a Democrazy, Get over it losers. That's why I like it.

If 5% of Bitcoiners are able to keep Bitcoin the way it is and tell the 95% to jump off a cliff, I for one will be rejoicing that the Dictator types who keep crowing about "Consensus" have finally had there asses handed to them.

I hope they all keep banging their heads against this brick wall long enough for the minority to find a way to cut all their heads off.

They should go and crawl back their "Government" and cry... "MOOOOOOOOMMMMMM, the minority won't let us take over Bitcoin... MooooooOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!"

RGBKey

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 658

rgbkey.github.io/pgp.txt

Quote from: ?? on ??

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

You make a good point, but at this point I feel like there's already too many large companies making their own hardware, and not many other people are able to mine at all.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: knight22 on August 23, 2015, 12:32:46 AM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 23, 2015, 12:14:59 AM

Quote from: Sourgummies on August 23, 2015, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

Oh? Whats this then?;
configure.ac Introduce the beginnings of anti-DoS resource scheduling. 17 days ago

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 23, 2015, 12:14:59 AM

Quote from: Sourgummies on August 23, 2015, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

This XT patch is literally and only BIP101 integrated in Core. It already exist and you are free to run it as we speak.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hsc3f/bitcoinxt_with_just_the_patch_for_big_blocks_only/

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Pieter Wuille, one of Core developer thinks Andresen's 8MB block size is much too progressive. Based on research by Blockstream colleague Rusty Russell, Pieter Wuille believes average internet connection speed will not be able to keep up with Andresen’s proposal. Pieter Wuille has, therefore, proposed to increase the block size limit by 17.7 percent per year starting in 2017, which he formalized in BIP103.

But most of the Bitcoin Community want to make any changes can made to Bitcoin Core only. Forks from other than Core may made Bitcoin into an Alt Coin.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 115

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

Quote from: ?? on ??

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

All we need is as Andreas Antonopoulos said, "one Bitcoin documentary to run on national television in China" to get a huge spike in new users. Think about what would happen if another country like Greece or Cyprus has banks shutting down again. Think about if the us dollar collapses.

Any event like this requires larger block sizes than we currently have unless you want to see a backlog of transactions, transactions that aren't making into the block chain, 8+ hour transactions times, huge fees, etc. If we do not prepare now for such an event, we are doing HARM to Bitcoin. Therefore, your strong disagreement with a block size increase is a direct threat against bitcoin's success.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: Sourgummies on August 23, 2015, 12:12:14 AM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Correct, people don't seem to differentiate. Bip101 is NOT Bitcoin XT.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I strongly disagree with a blocksize increase, if it was needed core developers would've done it. It's not a blockstream conspiracy, it really isn't needed and actually hurts Bitcoin.

Biggest problem is block rewards will approach zero with time, transaction fees will be the only miner reward. If blocks are only partially filled then transactions can be sent for free, we need blocks to be full in the future so transaction fees increase enough to support miners.

We can talk about it in 100 years okay? Honestly bitcoin wont survive if it can't get more than 3 tx per second lonnng before then. Its true its not an immediate need. The stress test we had recently just prove we will need it. Not now, indeed. But soonTM.

Sourgummies

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Never ending parties are what Im into.

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 12:07:04 AM

I support this and NOT XT.

I think XT backers are taking people for block size change as pro XT. Seem to really be pushing this one point.

Delek

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 103

Salí para ver

I support this and NOT XT.

Liquid71

hero member

Activity: 835

Merit: 1000

There is NO Freedom without Privacy

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 22, 2015, 11:01:16 PM

Increase the BlockSize on Core.

It's obvious. We all want to increase the block size. Virtually no one disagrees about that. We have consensus!

But why doesn't it happen? Because the Core developers have invested 21 million dollars in BlockStream which requires small block sizes to maximize it's usefulness and profits. If you want to talk about a hostile takeover of Bitcoin, its' this TINY group of people who don't want to increase the block size vs the VAST MAJORITY of everyone else that wants to increase the Blocksize on Core.

The only reason XT is even in serious consideration, the only reason people are threatening to split bitcoin into two chains and go against consensus, is because the OBVIOUS SOLUTION to our problem is being stone walled by these developers who have more incentive for the success of BlockStream than they have incentive for the success of Bitcoin.

As the Core developers will not allow for a block size increase on Core, the only logical solution is to vote for XT. If you want to drop XT in it's tracks, support a block size increase on Core.

The part I put in bold is absolutely asinine. How do you have sidechains if Bitcoin fails Roll Eyes

It's not a conspiracy, didn't core devs propose BIP 101 as a temporary solution?

balu2

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

If you guys have problems with bitcoin you should go for an altcoin ... wait, you do that already.
No, seriously. Instead of bitching create a new genesisblock and fork off. Could be done immediately. There are even coins launched with bigger blocks already. Go buy them.

Sourgummies

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Never ending parties are what Im into.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12215618

Wanted to be on this list if I recall correctly.On my cell, otherwise I would have linked properly.

Topic: This Is How To Kill XT… - page 4. (Read 3953 times)