Pages:
Author

Topic: What happens now that BitcoinXT is essentially dead (Read 3271 times)

sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin

That is false and you know it.

People are free to choose. Can you explain to me how is that in any way forcing?
If people don't like his code, then fine. They don't run it and that's it.

You fail to see that absolutely anyone is allowed to fork bitcoin. You, me, your neighbours dog. It's not even a question of debate. It's a hard irrefutable fact. The code is there on GitHub, free to fork and in the end its popularity among the network decides if that fork becomes "the Bitcoin".

Why do you guys have to turn everything into some ridicilous ad-hominems. It sounds like some poor tabloid journalism. It's like people discussing if Snowden/Assagne/Manning is naive/narcistic/criminal/gay/rapist or not instead of discussing the data they have presented us with, which is the only thing that matter. It's the same here. Personalities are irrelevant.

The code is the only thing that matters and people can choose, now and forever, like it or not.


I'll break it down for you...

"attempt to force"

attempt: the time period in which people can still choose... today.  

force: the point where no one can choose... if he were to win the majority of client installs and successfully fork the protocol.

Right now, you have a choice.  Today it is just an attempt.  If he succeeded in his attempt, then it would become force...  due to checkpoints, centralization (black/white/red lists, passports, tainting), a new status quo, etc.  in his own words, "a benevolent dictator".
You are wrong. If it is a choice today then tomorrow the consequences of that choice will have been derived from that initial decision. The majority of people are not being "forced" to install the client, in fact nobody is.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want, that is where the choice lies. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

The "benevolent dictator" seeks both, and can achieve both IF 75% of nodes adopt XT.  You are assuming that XT will be the same as Core has been in the past.  Based on Hearn's previous proposals, that looks very unlikely.  If he puts his ideas into XT, and 75% of people use it, good luck turning back the clock and undoing the damage.  His ideas are designed to centralize power to ultimately make it impossible to undo.  E.g., if he introduces trusted third-parties through tainted coins, he'll have the power to destroy anyone's bitcoins who oppose him. 

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin

That is false and you know it.

People are free to choose. Can you explain to me how is that in any way forcing?
If people don't like his code, then fine. They don't run it and that's it.

You fail to see that absolutely anyone is allowed to fork bitcoin. You, me, your neighbours dog. It's not even a question of debate. It's a hard irrefutable fact. The code is there on GitHub, free to fork and in the end its popularity among the network decides if that fork becomes "the Bitcoin".

Why do you guys have to turn everything into some ridicilous ad-hominems. It sounds like some poor tabloid journalism. It's like people discussing if Snowden/Assagne/Manning is naive/narcistic/criminal/gay/rapist or not instead of discussing the data they have presented us with, which is the only thing that matter. It's the same here. Personalities are irrelevant.

The code is the only thing that matters and people can choose, now and forever, like it or not.


I'll break it down for you...

"attempt to force"

attempt: the time period in which people can still choose... today.  

force: the point where no one can choose... if he were to win the majority of client installs and successfully fork the protocol.

Right now, you have a choice.  Today it is just an attempt.  If he succeeded in his attempt, then it would become force...  due to checkpoints, centralization (black/white/red lists, passports, tainting), a new status quo, etc.  in his own words, "a benevolent dictator".
You are wrong. If it is a choice today then tomorrow the consequences of that choice will have been derived from that initial decision. The majority of people are not being "forced" to install the client, in fact nobody is.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want, that is where the choice lies. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin

That is false and you know it.

People are free to choose. Can you explain to me how is that in any way forcing?
If people don't like his code, then fine. They don't run it and that's it.

You fail to see that absolutely anyone is allowed to fork bitcoin. You, me, your neighbours dog. It's not even a question of debate. It's a hard irrefutable fact. The code is there on GitHub, free to fork and in the end its popularity among the network decides if that fork becomes "the Bitcoin".

Why do you guys have to turn everything into some ridicilous ad-hominems. It sounds like some poor tabloid journalism. It's like people discussing if Snowden/Assagne/Manning is naive/narcistic/criminal/gay/rapist or not instead of discussing the data they have presented us with, which is the only thing that matter. It's the same here. Personalities are irrelevant.

The code is the only thing that matters and people can choose, now and forever, like it or not.


I'll break it down for you...

"attempt to force"

attempt: the time period in which people can still choose... today. 

force: the point where no one can choose... if he were to win the majority of client installs and successfully fork the protocol.

Right now, you have a choice.  Today it is just an attempt.  If he succeeded in his attempt, then it would become force...  due to checkpoints, centralization (black/white/red lists, passports, tainting), a new status quo, etc.  in his own words, "a benevolent dictator". 
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
Well the product they made just made the community get confused and well the reaction happened ,300 dollars just broken to 200 dollars ... sure some panic sellers made it happen at exchange but well community react to news... making them have to choose is like force you to do something you should need to.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin

That is false and you know it.

People are free to choose. Can you explain to me how is that in any way forcing?
If people don't like his code, then fine. They don't run it and that's it.

You fail to see that absolutely anyone is allowed to fork bitcoin. You, me, your neighbours dog. It's not even a question of debate. It's a hard irrefutable fact. The code is there on GitHub, free to fork and in the end its popularity among the network decides if that fork becomes "the Bitcoin".

Why do you guys have to turn everything into some ridicilous ad-hominems. It sounds like some poor tabloid journalism. It's like people discussing if Snowden/Assagne/Manning is naive/narcistic/criminal/gay/rapist or not instead of discussing the data they have presented us with, which is the only thing that matter. It's the same here. Personalities are irrelevant.

The code is the only thing that matters and people can choose, now and forever, like it or not.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
I guess Gavin and Mike need to go back to their masters and beg for forgiveness for their failure with XT and come up with something the community wants. They will have a much bigger fan base, when they put something on the table with features serving the users interest.

The XT Shills needs to crawl back into the holes they came from and the divided Bitcoin community need to lick their wounds and hold hands and sing until we face the next civil war. ^hmf^

Due to MH's long track record of proposing really bad ideas, followed by his latest attempt to force them with both a code fork and a protocol fork with his pipe dream of taking over the code running Bitcoin, I don't see him recovering respect again from those of us who believe in the core principles of Bitcoin.  He'll probably spend the rest of his life trying to get rich on the sidelines while trying to convince big money overlords he can still deliver.   He can change his name, but he'll have a hard time changing his easy to recognize appearance.

Gavin has a better chance of recouping respect, although it will be a long hard road if he decides to pursue it. 

legendary
Activity: 3542
Merit: 1965
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
I guess Gavin and Mike need to go back to their masters and beg for forgiveness for their failure with XT and come up with something the community wants. They will have a much bigger fan base, when they put something on the table with features serving the users interest.

The XT Shills needs to crawl back into the holes they came from and the divided Bitcoin community need to lick their wounds and hold hands and sing until we face the next civil war. ^hmf^
hero member
Activity: 727
Merit: 500
Minimum Effort/Maximum effect
We have no choice, we  must integrate Bitcoin XT into Bitcoin Core and proceed as a double blockchain.
The standard chain is already hitting 50GB, we must embrace the duality.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.

I agree with that concern and here is a way to mitigate this, quoting Matt Corallo:

Quote
"Greatest common denominator" agreement did not seem to be agreeing to an increase which continues over time, but which instead limits itself to a set, smooth increase for X time and then requires a second hardfork if there is agreement on a need for more blocksize at that point."

Smooth is the key word here. It won't even go from 1-2, providing we do hard fork, but should follow a schedule of smooth increases over-time or according to a cost-based flex cap for X time.

I'm guessing they'd like to throw "the industry" and "the community" a bone while they get to work on building & lobbying for actual scaling systems.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
Well the team avoiding a consensus will result in a damage since community wont be able to know what the developers wanna to do with bitcoin,it can drops several on next announcements of those team,with two visions...just hoping they return work as one otherwise the mess will start.
full member
Activity: 131
Merit: 100
★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?

What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?


~BCX~
i think that there were currently 3 blocks mined so far.
But it seems like that Bitcoin XT is going to die in near future.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?

One of Bitcoin's value is permissionlessness. Permissionlessness to use Bitcoin and permissionlessness to contribute. So I expect Mike and Gavin will always be welcomed to contribute to Bitcoin's future, just like before the XT episode.

That being said, it seems clear Mike/Gavin and the other core devs don't share the same Bitcoin vision. Mike/Gavin see Bitcoin as a payment system (SPV, 0-conf, user-experience, ...) while the core devs see Bitcoin as a currency (resilience, censorship-resistance, privacy, ...) on which payment protocols can be build on (Lightning). At this point, it is unclear if the two visions can walk hand in hand in the same direction.

I don't think, they have different visions of Bitcoin. They just disagree on how Bitcoin reaches it's goal.
I don't think, a (internet) currency, which is not a payment system makes much sense and a payment system, which is not a currency, is not something you would need Bitcoin for.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
lol that argument isn't worth having. Not least because it gives Andresen and Hearn an opportunity to present themselves as the "middle ground" (between lunacy and genocide lol).

Funny thing is that Andresen would probably support no limit rather than BIP 101. Smiley

Quote from: Gavin Adresen
In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Quote
What happens now that BitcoinXT is essentially dead

Core devs won't agree with each other about the scaling proposals (because they have different goals) and Wladimir doesn't make the choice (if such is against his principles), thus there is an eternal lock-up on the issue and they'll move to work on other more interesting issues.

The average transaction rate will just level out at about 0.5 MB/block or half of the current blocksize limit (like it did when majority had 250, 500 and 750kB soft limits).  Some players in the economy will just leave to another projects or quit as they lose their confidence in Bitcoin's ability to grow, which in turn causes price to start trending down. There will be other forks as people get uneasy about about profits and growth getting wasted and Bitcoin will survive.

Really? Well.. no one knows.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Btw. there's now another fork called Bitcoin Unlimited or (Bitcoin U) with no blocksize limit. I just saw it announced on reddit, but can't find the thread anymore (maybe it got deleted).


lol that argument isn't worth having. Not least because it gives Andresen and Hearn an opportunity to present themselves as the "middle ground" (between lunacy and genocide lol).
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Btw. there's now another fork called Bitcoin Unlimited or (Bitcoin U) with no blocksize limit. I just saw it announced on reddit, but can't find the thread anymore (maybe it got deleted).
member
Activity: 554
Merit: 11
CurioInvest [IEO Live]
What of Gavin and Mike?

Will they still be taken seriously in future projects?

One of Bitcoin's value is permissionlessness. Permissionlessness to use Bitcoin and permissionlessness to contribute. So I expect Mike and Gavin will always be welcomed to contribute to Bitcoin's future, just like before the XT episode.

That being said, it seems clear Mike/Gavin and the other core devs don't share the same Bitcoin vision. Mike/Gavin see Bitcoin as a payment system (SPV, 0-conf, user-experience, ...) while the core devs see Bitcoin as a currency (resilience, censorship-resistance, privacy, ...) on which payment protocols can be build on (Lightning). At this point, it is unclear if the two visions can walk hand in hand in the same direction.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
The feeling I got from the conference and overhearing a couple discussion is the trend is tending toward a very conservative increase to provide necessary time to develop necessary layers to scale.

It's quite clear to me a majority of the focus shifted from the block size as any type of scaling solution to more realist and sensible proposals like different implementations of open payment protocols.

The danger of that strategy is a sudden spike in use taking place during the earlier phases of the conservative increase (if >1 phase even exists). The sooner that some tx rate spike inducing event happens after a conservative increase, the easier it would be to exploit user frustration by construing the tx spike as being a direct consequence of making too conservative an increase (followed by another unilateral hard fork attempt...)

I'm looking at the purely political angle, and so it's easy to dismiss it as just a hypothetical, but it seems to me that ruling out this kind of oppotunity somehow needs to be either addressed in it's own right or made redundant by whatever the preferred solution to scaling is.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
1. "Not based on trust" Then what is it? Magic? Bitcoin = money. Money = trust. Seems pretty fundamental to me.
It is based in Proof of Work. Maybe you have heard about that.

I wanted to comment on the other things, but you are just throwing around words, without meaning and I have better things to do ...

There are thousands of coins based on proof of work. Surely there is something special about Bitcoin?
There are millions of unsuccessful open source projects which are very similar to successful open source projects.
And again, nothing special in Bitcoin World.

You didn't answer the question. Why did Bitcoin succeed and other POW coins failed?
Because it was the first and because of the network effect. The same reasons other open source projects are very successful.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Maybe Mike will vanish and make his own altcoin.
Pages:
Jump to: