What are you going to do when another implementation will try to fork the protocol with 50% subsidy instead of 75%? Or no subsidy at all, Just an aggressive fork by the big players that needs big blocks?

Me think it is just a question of time for it to happen. I hope your ass is ready.
It will be a good show for sure.

To the people in this thread suggesting that XT is an attack (or bad in some other way): is this because you think that we should only have one implementation of the protocol (Core), or do you support multiple implementations (just not XT)?

Already done a few days ago.

Worked well for the other propagandists yeah. Not very reassuring honestly.

sell sell sell

The latter is fundamentally less hackable than the former how exactly?

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me, or an attempt put some sort of new spin on a fairly routine business (running a server to process transactions) in order to justify a higher valuation the way companies like Square claim to be doing "payments innovation" but they are really just signing up merchants and getting credit card processing commissions (i.e. smoke and mirrors also).

Sounds like a centralized payment system that is superior to the old centralized payment system primarily from the perspective of someone who manages to place himself at the new center.

BitcoinXT is as much bitcoin as bitcoin core. Using censorship is a behaviour for panicked children.

Adults don't use censorship 

Your shilling couldn't be any more obvious. "Whole new paradigm" HA!

The price is absolutely incompetitive. Chinese will make it (if this product is good  ) much cheaper - so where is a profit?
To my mind it's a great laundering of money, my condolences for investors.

I agree with you that KnC and Bitfury are solo mining operations, however it still stands that only 29% of the hashing power is carried out by solo mining operations, for whom running full nodes even with much larger blocks would be trivial.

If you are referring to what is known as the selfish miner attack, the selfish miner attack has been shown to actually benefit smaller pools more and thereby incentivize the creation of smaller pools.

They are pools but they can be considered Solo operations because they run their own full node. Larger blocks do not favor large-industrialized solo miners, just repeating this does not make it true.

One correction adamstgBit is that miners do not run their own full node because the variance of solo mining is to high. Not because it is to expensive, I do absolutely agree with the rest of your points though.

where are you getting this data

looking https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC the first 90% of hashing power seems to be coming from pools

and VeritasSapere  has a really good point

1 mavise solo miner isnt nearly as good as 1000 pooled miners, as far as mining decentralization gose

i mean come on, you make up the definition of a miner to exclude what 90% of the hashing power is currently( workers free to join whatever pool they choose )

furthermore, miners do not pool together because running a full node is costly, FFS poeple run full nodes for fun!

so, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever.

deal with it.

I read comments, almost everybody bury this device. If nobody in Bitcointalk wants to buy I wonder who will they sell these for? Almost everybody who use Bitcoin in the world have an account here. People read this thread and decide not to buy.

There are simply too many lucrative opportunities for 21inc to be bothered with  .

Overall impression after reading that article is much better than impression I've got after reading the description of the final product. Dunno why, but I feel sorry for 21 Inc. engineers who aimed such great goals but seem to fail to achieve most of them. For me it looks like there was set a hard deadline and the engineers were forced to release a half-baked product, I believe 3-6 months more and they would come with a much better solution...

Well, I think I'll step back into the shadows and let others to express their disappointment.

It was and is easy to understand the vision of OR.

That article is misleading. I would argue on "A new approach to micropayments", "Decentralized device authentication" looks suspicious in the light of 21 Inc. ToS saying that they can collect any data and hand them over to legal authorities, other bullet points don't sound good too...

I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already.

The description of 21 Bitcoin Computer lacks solid vision of its purpose, maybe you could explain what IT-industry niche this device will shine in?

Let me explain it to you simply. Within Bitcoin XT today only the blocksize increase itself is fundamental to the protocol, and you can just run a BIP101 only version of XT or Core. These things that you are claiming here are completely counter factual and inaccurate. Therefore it is accurate to refer to your statements as conjecture because you have no proof backing up your statements.

This has not been proposed for XT and has not been implemented in the code.
The use of checkpoints has not been proposed for XT and has not been implemented in the code.
This has not been proposed for XT and has not been implemented in the code.
This has not been proposed for XT and has not been implemented in the code.
Because #1-4 are not true it will not make it hard to just run another implementation of Bitcoin.

I have studied political philosophy so I am well aware of how to predict and recognize tyranny, having 75% of the miners to agree with a fork in advance is not a tyranny by any stretch of the definition. Also to be the benevolent dictator of your implementation of Bitcoin is not wrong, and is not the same as being the benevolent dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction, I do hope that you can come to understand this difference. In the case of Bitcoin the code is all that really matters, so attacking the person has no relevance. What matters is what is in the code now, and none of the things you have mentioned are in the code now, it is completely counter factual. I am also aware of where you are getting this information from and you are quoting Mike Hearn out of context from a time before BIP101 was even implemented in XT and they where discussing hypothetical worst case scenarios. It does not even matter if Mike Hearn believes these things, since if he did try to implement these features like you claim he will, then people can simply just not use his implementation of Bitcoin and use another instead, it is that simple.

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.