Bitcoin Forum

I don't 'defend' him, just his right to his opinion. I agree with a lot of what he says, but wouldn't share the same level of skepticism he has. But in the end of the day it is just a personal view, and any intelligent person knows they must make their own minds up about it while making sure they have all the relevant facts.

Anyway, I'm not always negative. I think bitcoin makes plenty of nice, quiet advances everyday.  In my own business, we have taken almost 200BTC in revenues, and paid out over 80BTC to freelancers since January.  Bullish! Indeed....  But I cant get others to get involved because every time they look into it they find crackpots and scammers.  :o

Most of the scum gone silent... like RodeoX, Doomad, Elwar and some others.

LiteCoinGuy is still at it...

So this is what the XT haters have had to resort to?

I have never been able to understand what is the link between the XBT and BTC??

Yes it is quite confusing. If at all they want to improve why they didn't improve btc core itself?

must read. tweeted by szabo
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

The nice thing about allowing attackers to use a forum is that it becomes possible to pin people who have put in a lot of effort.  Looking through the now-locked thread, I identify some of the primary petites taches de merde as so:

 - cypherdoc
 - justusranvier
 - peter r
 - solex
 - erdogan
 - zarathustra
 - smooth/rocks
 - majamalu
 - stolfi (honorable mention - still as active as ever elsewhere.)

Some of them have really put in some effort over the years.  Others not mentioned are more likely to simply have been duped.  Interestingly, when I was doing a quick skim to make this list I noticed that most of these folks went dark within a stretch of hours of when cypherdoc did.

Like ASIC pre-orders, mtGOX, and the endless ponzi scams XT is clearly yet another attempt to screw the crypto community and fracture Bitcoin.

I find the XT shills reminiscent of the Gaw Hashlet/XPY shills that graced the pages of this forum just recently. There's still Paycoin shit stains all over the place!

i feel the samt about noxt folks.
why not just wait and see what happens? no need to make such a drama about it

So essentially you're saying:"Okay, let's not do anything and let the dangerous and risky fork happen." We are only gambling on a $3.4Bn market cap.  ::) If we were never taking actions, then stuff would go terribly wrong. NoXT can cause problems for XT, not Bitcoin itself.

The problem is that both sides are spreading misinformation. Usually I see things like BIP 101 can only be implemented in XT, or that the block size limit will never be changed in Core, and similar. These are manipulation attempts. They need to stop.

Lets compile a nice list of all the various attackers and professional FUD spreaders whose alterior motives in supporting XT shine through.

meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
satoshifanclub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

i feel the samt about noxt folks.
why not just wait and see what happens? no need to make such a drama about it

So essentially you're saying:"Okay, let's not do anything and let the dangerous and risky fork happen." We are only gambling on a $3.4Bn market cap.  ::) If we were never taking actions, then stuff would go terribly wrong. NoXT can cause problems for XT, not Bitcoin itself.

The problem is that both sides are spreading misinformation. Usually I see things like BIP 101 can only be implemented in XT, or that the block size limit will never be changed in Core, and similar. These are manipulation attempts. They need to stop.

I think the XT project is a manipulation of the price of Bitcoin

NoXT doesn't cause any problems. It is a joke. But if it would succeed, it would also cause problems for Bitcoin as a whole, since the split wouldn't be 75/25.

I don't know, about misinformation, I really try hard to keep to the facts here. Facts are(as far as I know):
There is only BitcoinXT with an BIP101-implementation(and there is an only-bigblocks-version)
There are no other implementation about blocksize increase.

And speaking about misinformation: What about the blacklisting-lie? Why not giving that example? Because it is an example of an anti-XT-lie?

btw. to pick up another discussion we had in another thread: Ilove-Obama seems like an account, that was just created to bash XT, doesn't it?

What we do know, is that [Satoshi Nakamoto] was able to combine many interesting technologies into a system that worked. That doesn't make her a saint, it doesn't make her a prophet, it doesn't make her a god -- it doesn't even make her a good programmer; the first version of Bitcoin was a fucking mess! Absolutely we should use the incredible insights and intelligence shown by Satoshi Nakamoto in her paper, and in the rest of her writings online, but we shouldn't just accept this kind of appeal to authority -- so if, the prophet Nakamoto said this was the case, then that's the truth. Nobody could predict 5 years out what's going to happen with a system at this scale, and we need to be flexible and dynamic, and not start appealing. People were asking me, "do you endorse big blocks or small blocks?". Who gives a fuck wether I endorse it or not? What is this, is this some kind of celebrity vote? Do I have data? Do I have analysis, do I have interesting opinions that I can back with data and analysis? Maybe, and where I do have those I've expressed them -- but this isn't some kind of thing where Bitcoin will proceed according to the plan that received the maximum number of celebrity endorsements among the core developers, and a few talking heads like myself -- that's ridiculous, that's not how you do engineering. And neither do you do engineering in a system of mutually assured destruction and heckler's veto, where no progress can be made because one person says no. We all need to be a bit more flexible and less dogmatic on this issue. I'm glad this debate is happening, I'm disappointed in some of the dogma that's in it, but nevertheless, I'm confident that in the end, what it's showing is that Bitcoin consensus is much more broad, amorphous, and involves many more constituents than we see. Merchants, exchanges, miners, wallets, core developers -- they all have a role to play, and they all have a voice in the consensus mechanism, and in the end I think that consensus mechanism works. What I will say is -- this is my ultimate aphorism:

You can be a small-blockist, or you can be a large-blockist. What you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a 100% loss of income.

[source: Andreas Antonopoulos: "We live in an era where fear has overcome reason" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0) [at 39min] (2015-07-27)]

So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority.
[...]
Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency?

[source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/) (2015-08-19)]

Updated: LiteCoinGuy

Lets compile a nice list of all the various attackers and professional FUD spreaders whose alterior motives in supporting XT shine through.


meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
satoshifanclub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT

Ok, that's it. You even put LiteCoinGuy on that list, but not me?
That is outrageous, I am out.

he should put bitpay on his list too ;)
they just twittered they support BIP101

The fun thing is, when XT will fail, there will be a sudden bump back to Bitcoin that could invite dubious investors  ;D

XT can be around for a loooooong time before going bust you know?

Besides, even if the adoption is slow and takes months or years, there is no reason for XT adopters to return to the core code or mining pools: both clients use the same blockchain and the same Bitcoin. It makes no difference right now.

Personally I don't think core devs will accept BIP101 or a block size increase, so probably when the 1MB limit is reached (and we are close, some blocks are 900kb right now) and increased fees become necessary, many people will adopt XT immediately.

In addition, XT guarantees its users to be on the longuest chain no matter the outcome. Core does not. 

So, now you made a whole thread about personal attacking people.

That makes me mad, since I am not on that list. I really put a lot of effort here in the last few days. Just look at my posting history. I think, I deserve to be on that list.

Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.

This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.

It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.

There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.

I cant believe you agree to this nonsense. Did you even bother checking my posts to see if it fits the OP's thought?

I stood up against misleading info, FUD and just pure lies from turtlehuricane. Go to the FUD thread made by turtlehuricane regarding bitcoinXT "blacklist" coins, and read for yourself.

The OP also is hypocrite. He asked core devs to block malicious nodes just a month ago. But joint Turtlehuricance's to bash Mike for "blacklisting" eventhough they're both wrong, have no clues what the codes do, and still make bogus claim.

Nah, I don't know any of the people he named. I meant it more generically. I should have clarified that. The personal attacks are pointless. I agree that it should be discussed, and not in the manner it has been. This thread seemed like it would attract attention.

Because thats the whole point of this thread, you dont figure it out by the tittle?

Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.

This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.

Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.

meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts. Knows more about those leters and number things in bitcoin ( is it called cody?) so i dont like arguing with him. So I call him "big nose" instead. qed.
sAt0sHiFanClub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Made me look a complete tit.
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism. He isa lot cleverer than me. I really hate him.
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere. Acting all smart on here, with nbig words and well thught out arguments. Clever Clogs
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT.
Cryddit - altcoin developer; profits from alienating Bitcoin's userbase towards alternative crypto currencies
BitProdigy - is invested in Bitcoin; believes that the block size must be increased for the good of bitcoin; wants bitcoin to succeed and be mass adopted; thinks XT is the best current solution and so supports it until a practical alternative arrises such as increasing the block size on Core; in which case he would support Core and no longer support XT; but for now he's a XT shill which is his evil plan to support bitcoin by destroying it somehow; all I know is whoever supports XT is evil and wants to destroy Bitcoin so even though his reasoning for supporting XT is because he wants Bitcoin to succeed and feels that XT is the best way currently proposed for that to happen, still he must want to destroy bitcoin because by default supporting XT means you want to destroy bitcoin as a direct result of the laws of physics; therefore he is evil and is on the wall of shame

Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do....

The butthurt is strong.

Spite. 

The comment is in reference to all the similar threads. I am in the core camp but doesnt mean I will smear people that are XT driven.
Should have been more clear in my choice of words.

XT will never reach 75%, dont worry guys.

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

The 75% was just an arbitrary target the Hearn pulled out of his ass as something which would hopefully be tenable and provide some excuse to flip the switch.  Certainly it is not near the 'consensus' that Satoshi seemed to have been shooting for as a number needed to alter the character of the Bitcoin system.

Note that there is no problem with two chains (competing or not) existing.  People who go on and on about 'the longest chain' don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.  Core will continue to run just fine because of the thoughtfulllness of the designer to gaurd against all of the attacks he/they could think of.  XT's chain is illegal and irrelevant to Core.

A distinct minority in terms of count would be OK for XT to fork if need be.  Hearn could go ahead and flip the switch as soon as the number of 'compliment' SPV clients could be installed or upgraded on Joe Sixpack's device.  These would honor 'checkpointing' if he cannot get enough miners on-board.  The biggest necessity would be to get the corporates (Coinbase, TigerDirect, etc) on-board, but this is trivial; the state just needs to mandate a 'crypto-currency license.'

Both Blockstream and XT are awful.
Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is?  :'(

They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side.

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

It's a fork of Bitcoin Core with BIP101 implemented and a few optional patches.
-snip-

How am I supposed to know what to believe?
All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother.

How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?

blockstream wont touch bitcoin's core whilst bitcoin xt is a coup on the very fundamental of bitcoin by two usg moles.

no need to overthink this.

core devs consensus is anti xt.

hearn is no core dev, and gavin, chief scientist of my ass working at the very center of tptb at MIT does not even have a phd.

easy.

Bitcoin is not about the ecosystem deciding. And surely not noobs like you.

JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere

must read. tweeted by szabo
http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/