Time to stand up to the XT shills here! - page 7.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: spartacusrex on November 09, 2015, 06:09:22 AM

IF some secure and decentralised mechanism is created to transact off the main-chain for low fees, keeping the amount of main-chain TXNs low, who would choose to transact on the main-chain for sky high fees ?

(..since we can't have low TXN count and low fees on the main chain..)

The Lightning Network should actually be cheaper and faster than transacting on the main chain (that's at least what a developer said - search on reddit or ask on IRC). I don't see a reason for which one should not use it. I'd use the main chain only for a high amount of money. Bloating the main chain just for the sake of transacting on it isn't a valid reason.

People need to cool down. Even BIP101 in Core would be better than XT due to the baggage that it comes with.

spartacusrex

hero member

Activity: 718

Merit: 545

SQT! .. Serious Question Time..

..

IF some secure and decentralised mechanism is created to transact off the main-chain for low fees, keeping the amount of main-chain TXNs low, who would choose to transact on the main-chain for sky high fees ?

(..since we can't have low TXN count and low fees on the main chain..)

Stringer Bell

member

Activity: 107

Merit: 11

Quote from: CIYAM on November 08, 2015, 11:42:38 PM

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

Exactly. Quoted for Truth.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on November 09, 2015, 02:24:13 AM

but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.

just saying.

Bitcoin will not fail. You will fail if you'll not jump to the >75% train.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: jwinterm on November 09, 2015, 01:57:13 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 09:26:51 PM

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?
...

Seems like an immaterial point in the context of SPV mining, everytime an empty block is mined they're going to drag down the average. There were many almost full or full blocks in the recent price rise.

Also, maybe OP's wife told him she would take away all his BTC if he didn't go all out anti-XT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all

Also also, with regards to OP's recent post, there is a version of XT which only implements the big blocks/BIP101 change, not the rest of XT's changes:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

I'd like to see blocksizes increased, preferably in a dynamic manner like I assume ArticMine supports, but I'm not really invested in or committed to one BIP or another, however the amount of vitriol that gets thrown around here is ridiculous. Maybe all you hardcore "shills" anti-XT or pro-XT should take a deep breath and read this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

eh, i am no troll sry.

i do understand that bitcoin is not scaling *as is*, and was never meant to in the first place, because you obvioulsy cant keep the record of all the world's transactions on a single layer whilst keeping it decentralized..

hence i do understand that increasing the block size is irrelevant to effectively scaling bitcoin, and more importantly, puts decentralization at risk.

so it is clear by now that the XTers are a minority, else be my guest, run a node, and fork off already because it is futile to complain about this all over the place.

i otoh, am not complaining at all, and am quite happy with bitcoin's current state of affairs.

but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.

just saying.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1963

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I am not acctually a supporter of any of these changes now. It seems as though both sides has a bit of a hidden agenda with the BIP they submitted. The people should set aside their agenda and come to the table with BIP's that are needed. You cannot submit a BIP to take control over Bitcoin development or to further your side chains or lightning project, or whatever project you are working on.

The BIP you submit, should benefit the protocol and it's users, not your power trip or your pockets.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1116

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 09:26:51 PM

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?
...

Seems like an immaterial point in the context of SPV mining, everytime an empty block is mined they're going to drag down the average. There were many almost full or full blocks in the recent price rise.

Also, maybe OP's wife told him she would take away all his BTC if he didn't go all out anti-XT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all

Also also, with regards to OP's recent post, there is a version of XT which only implements the big blocks/BIP101 change, not the rest of XT's changes:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

I'd like to see blocksizes increased, preferably in a dynamic manner like I assume ArticMine supports, but I'm not really invested in or committed to one BIP or another, however the amount of vitriol that gets thrown around here is ridiculous. Maybe all you hardcore "shills" anti-XT or pro-XT should take a deep breath and read this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

cjmoles

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1017

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 08:57:15 PM

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

I think that Moore's Law is underestimated by some of the participants in this discussion. Yes, they are considering an evolving technology, but are they considering a technology that is evolving at an exponential rate?
Innovation happens very quickly around digital technology....very quickly! Some here are too young to even remember how innovative the first Atari Pong game was...loved it...or the 8800 and 8080 chip sets! We've come a long way very fast since then...very fast....Remember when there was no such thing as a personal computer, a cell phone, or an application specific integrated circuit? I do! And I'm still young.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: CIYAM on November 08, 2015, 11:42:38 PM

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

XT is open source. Since it is on the market, the user has choice.
The only people who are trying to control Bitcoin are on the side that is banning, censoring, DDoSing.

I want to respond to all this consensus talk by saying that all that matters is the consensus of the users, not the consensus of the devs, moderators, or some nebulous definition of the "community".

Bitcoin was designed so that all that matters is the consensus of the users of the software. The consensus of the developers is irrelevant except as a source for informing user consensus. The consensus of the moderators is similarly irrelevant.

To reach consensus, users must be able to test alternate implementations and moreso to switch to implementations inconsistent with the consensus of the developers, moderators, or any other smaller subgroup. If users cannot switch implementations, they cannot meaningfully achieve consensus, because any decision they make represents an imposition of the coercive will of a smaller group in charge of the "allowed implementations" rather than an organic consensus of the users.

Therefore, any actions which prevent users from exploring alternatives to achieve consensus are actively hostile to such a consensus. This includes coercion of the community against switching implementations, and coercion of the community against the forking of the currency, all of which are essential tools inherent to the consensus-enabling data structure that brought us all here in the first place.

Bitcoin is an idea, not a piece of software. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin Core. Telling users what Bitcoin is and isn't constitutes deciding for them in a coercive fashion, and is the most counterproductive action one can take towards achieving a consensus of the users. It also shows an alarming lack of faith in the blockchain datastructure itself, which was built to allow for forking both soft and hard.

Scaling Bitcoin requires consensus of the users. Consensus of the users requires free discussion, the ability to explore alternate implementations, and the ability to create both soft and hard forks freely. Consensus requires market participation, and consensus on scaling Bitcoin cannot be meaningfully achieved otherwise, especially not through such policed weekly sandboxed discussions only a few users are still participating in.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3qpnud/scaling_bitcoin_102915/cwrrbdk

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: CIYAM on November 08, 2015, 11:42:38 PM

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

This is a very valid point. It can be addressed by supporting the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT or if one prefers fork it and call it something else. There is a lot of controversial and needless baggage added to Bitcoin XT that only serves to confuse the debate. When it comes to the blocksize issue the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT is the best of the interim solutions that have been proposed. I have not seen a good permanent solution to the blocksize issue. Furthermore the hard fork in Bitcoin XT only applies to the blocksize. The "baggage" can be added or removed without a hard fork.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

It's only a question of trajectory now imo. Adam's 2-4-8 is a possibility, and I've no doubt others will emerge.

XT might not be the solution, but it is a manifestation of the opinion of part of the network.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

The rally is fading so now its back to the blocksize debate. Yay.

I don't see a single thin in this thread that hasn't been said before.
I still support Bip101.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 09:26:51 PM

...

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?

otoh i heard ripple is a lot cheaper and faster... where is their mass adoption?

Well I guess we can wait for Bitcoin to start to fail and then act.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:20:36 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 09:13:07 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 08:57:15 PM

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).

edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?

otoh i heard ripple is a lot cheaper and faster... where is their mass adoption?

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 09:13:07 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 08:57:15 PM

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).

edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:11:43 PM

Quote from: smoothie on November 08, 2015, 09:09:57 PM

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

See you in the alt-coin section, Wink

See you all over the forum. Tongue

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ArticMine on November 08, 2015, 09:06:54 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 08, 2015, 08:57:15 PM

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).

edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: smoothie on November 08, 2015, 09:09:57 PM

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

See you in the alt-coin section, Wink

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

Topic: Time to stand up to the XT shills here! - page 7. (Read 10639 times)