Bitcoin Forum

disableipprio=1

Money is inherently a social tool and to use a currency is to accept its rules, even if you don’t like them. You can’t use the dollar whilst opting out of quantitiative easing. Even if this were technically possible (maybe you are a large bank), you’re going to start receiving “eased” dollars instead of “real” dollars in payment sooner or later and arguing with your customers about this is a quick route to commercial death.

Any change to Bitcoin that is accepted by the majority inherently “disenfranchises” the people who didn’t want that change. This has nothing to do with hard or soft forks: regardless of which technique is used, if transactions using the new rules start to enter widespread circulation then sooner or later you will receive coins in payment that trace back to a new-rule transaction. And then you have two choices. You can verify the new rule, or you can not verify it. But the only thing not verifying does is reduce your own security: it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face. So in practice everyone always upgrades. To disagree with a soft fork that is adopted by the majority is no different than disagreeing with a hard fork: if you don’t like the new rules ….. tough cookies. That’s trade.

We can see proof of this in P2SH itself. The competing proposal had some miner and developer support, but in the end everyone accepted the version we have today. They had no choice in the matter, or rather, they chose to accept the change and continue using Bitcoin. It being a soft fork made no difference.

So the idea that hard forks vs soft forks is some epic struggle for personal rights over oppression just doesn’t make any technical sense. The distinction is not just wrong: it’s completely irrelevant.

Go here:  https://forum.bitcoin.com/

They'd love to talk about it over there. 

Because Gavincoin is dead.  Let's just leave it and move on.

Bitcoin as a payment network is a futile endeavor.  It's better as a store of value.

I'm pretty sure the $1G invested in that space that needs bitcoin as a payment system disagree with you.

Just being curious, why do you cheers for decentralized marketplace if bitcoin can't be used as a payment system?

Not the idea of a payment system with 'visa' scalability. 

edit:  BTC can, with the help of other platforms and doing off chain transactions.

So bitcoin can with the help of trusted third party?

If you want it to scale to 'Visa' like proportions, yes.  Or go XT, which the majority doesn't want.

And remember, it's you who want it to scale right now.  I'm fine with it evolving slowly.

Long time didn't see another XT discussion, lets just accept the fact that the idea in itself was ridiculous, maybe BIP 101 implemented seperately would be good, and it died away. Anyway, at least OP had the dignity to put this discussion in Altcoin discussion

Indeed. It's where it belongs.

Thanks OP, that minimum decency is usually missing in the XT crowd, that makes you elite there.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

The only thing ridiculous is the inability of bitcoin to move forward.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

The camp against a block-size increase apparently thinks that high fees and few transactions (like moving gold once a year) is how the blockchain should be used.

View this dialogue to see why:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ok69l/blockstream_to_launch_first_sidechain_for_bitcoin/cvyfzyw

If you read the conversation, you may come to the same conclusion. These individuals do not see bitcoin as a payment network. They see it as a settlement network only.

Going XT allows the system to grow organically BTW. Blocks won't be filled out overnight you know? The limit is still only an anti spam limit.

I like BTC fine as it is, thanks.  From nothing to worth over 200 per coin?  That's not bad.  Not bad at all. 

Just let it evolve.  No need to rush things.

Going XT allows the system to grow organically BTW. Blocks won't be filled out overnight you know? The limit is still only an anti spam limit.

I'm not convinced you understand how evolution work's or how bitcoin evolved to be worth $200+.

There are lots of hard forks in that history.

Adopting one that allows more users to join the network is part of that natural evolution. If you want to see price increase with market adoption you're going to need bigger blocks.

You're lucky you can come along for the ride.

Shit.  See how Gavincoin is dividing us?  

Disagreeing is a normal thing. Alienate one side with censorship is the only reason why people are now leading a war. Calling XT "Gavincoin" is nothing to help reconciliation and concensus.

The only people "leading a war" are you Gavinista insurgents.

Meni Rosenfeld on XT: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe


Team Gavincoin defected from the consensus of Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority by openly declaring their hostile technical and political intentions (http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010235.html).

The last things we want are "reconciliation and concensus" with such sworn enemies (https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1).

They will come crawling back, having surrendered unconditionally, or Team Core will continue to exist without them and be better for their absence.

Enjoy your shadowban.   ;)

Meni Rosenfeld on XT: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe


...

Given that compromise failed, Gavin and Mike went ahead to push Bitcoin-XT, and now the real issue isn't about technology, it's about the philosophy of Bitcoin evolution. To me, Bitcoin-XT represents a somewhat reckless approach, which in the name of advancement shatters existing structures, fragments the community, and spins the ecosystem into chaos. Whereas Bitcoin Core represents a frigid approach, where no technology improvement will ever be made because consensus can't be reached, and where we can't do anything about the fact that we can't do anything, because of the delegitimization of attempts to change the status quo by forking and letting the best currency win (and make no mistakes, there will be many necessary technology improvements down the road; the block size limit pales in comparison).
Both choices are bad.
I had plans once to write a paper about the game-theoretic aspects of changing the Bitcoin protocol, the contingencies in case of a fork, and how the mere threat of a fork can create a Schelling point which would prevent it from happening. I regret never getting around to it, because it might have been illuminating in the current debate. (For that matter, the other paper I had plans for writing was about transaction fees and how they relate to things like a block size limit; I regret that too, but again the block size is no longer the real issue).
But anyway, I do strongly believe that the possibility of forking Bitcoin - even if at first it has no consensus - is vital to Bitcoin's health, growth and survival. It's the glue that holds everything together and makes sure the Bitcoin economy has a say in case something goes wrong with the development. Ideally a contentious fork would forever remain a theoretical possibility - but if it is possible it means it can happen, and that's what we're seeing right now. Rejecting a fork on the grounds that it's a fork is wrong.
Of course, there are reasons to reject Bitcoin-XT on the grounds that its timing and method are wrong. The objection to the technical change was too strong to just gloss over it. We're definitely not anywhere near the point where Pieter, Greg or Wladimir can be conceivably considered rogue and we should break away from them. Mike and Gavin have, quite arrogantly I would say, assumed that this is just like any other software change and that virtually everyone will just automatically follow them, where the reality is far from it. They didn't properly consider the consequences of making this move without enough support. (They might reply that they have been fighting for this for a long time and exhausted all other options, but I don't accept this - they made many attempts at persuasion, but not enough at compromise).
So here we are, having to choose between two bad alternatives. The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).
But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...
Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.

Then enjoy your war and  your full time hyperventilation  :D

Theymos has been VERY CLEAR that is EXACTLY what he's doing for the purposes of destroying discussion. If you back his dictatorship you are not a 'friend', you are PART OF THE PROBLEM!

The dictatorship and attempts to subvert/destroy bitcoin will be remembered.

And trolls have been given a FREE REIGN in r/bitcoin for fuckin AGES, while legitimate discussion is censored and people are banned! Wtf do you think you are representing?? Take a good hard look in a mirror.

Such an authoritarian solution. All the censorship and banning and resulting streisanding has made your forum what it is. Clampdowns all day everyday, 'free speech zones', etc, you will never get the /r/bitcoin you want. Discussion will blossom in healthy environments free of such rigid conservative hardline ideological censorship and chilling effects.

You are liars. You are hypocrites. You give me a two week ban and yet don't lift it after two weeks. You manipulate the discusion. You crush any post that doesn't fit your agenda. You are hypocrates who ban me for criticizing a core dev in a thread where half the posts are criticizing mike and gavan and are allowed. How dare you come here and lie to our faces? Who would participate in the farce over there?? Who can believe anything you say??

The bitcoin community has been divided, not by trolls but by thermos and his bullshit agenda and north korean tactics and policies!

"Dictatorship?"  "Authoritarian?"  "North Korean?"

/r/bitcoin is not North Korean dictatorship, ^that^ is North Korean dictatorship.

I see what you did, you put the focus on "North Korean?" avoiding the obvious "Dictatorship?"  "Authoritarian?"

Bitcoin is inclusive, we can all use it it's public and open, your central control buddies or circle jerking is not going to make it an exclusive members only reserve chain for bankers or the new elites.  

even petty bitcoin trolls  will be aloud to use it.

You guys are doing a great job pushing away bitcoin newbies keeping your castle safe.

keep it up.

It has probably been moved by the censoring mods. Don't delude yourself.

I posted it here, it wasn't moved. This is theymos' forum, if he wants XT topics posted in the altcoin section I can respect that.

I was hoping to get a discussion going on what are the disadvantages of XT, but no one has brought anything in specific up.

Please! Someone attempt to persuade me ;)

I was hoping to get a discussion going on what are the disadvantages of XT, but no one has brought anything in specific up.

Please! Someone attempt to persuade me ;)

Decisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise.

My biggest problem with XT, and why I would never support it, is it gives all of the decision making powers to two people and two people only, and one of those two can override the other in extreme cases.  There is nothing more centralized than a system where 1 single person controls all aspects of said system.

Source: https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

My biggest problem with XT, and why I would never support it, is it gives all of the decision making powers to two people and two people only, and one of those two can override the other in extreme cases.  There is nothing more centralized than a system where 1 single person controls all aspects of said system.

Source: https://bitcoinxt.software/faq.html#who-is-involved

Gavin and I can’t be ‘dictators’ because all we do is write software: if we go crazy, or do other things you disagree with, XT can be forked in exactly the same way as we did.