Thank you for seeing something and saying something. Looks like Heam is still working for sigint.google.mil. |
|
|
|
We're not going to be able to prevent well funded business people from attempting to promote horrific architectures against the long term interest of Bitcoin and the public... if we could, the same stupidity would have been prevented in the wider world and there would be less need for Bitcoin. It's hard to count the number of times newbies have made proposals which would have centralized Bitcoin completely in the name of some fool result or another. Powerful businesses interests are now reliving the same history of bad ideas, but this time the bad ideas will be funded and they don't care if luminaries tell them that they're horrible ideas, they don't necessarily care about any of the principles that make Bitcoin a worthwhile contribution to the world. It's not, of course, a question or "anonymity": thats silly. If you have "good" and "bad" coins, that destroys fungibility, rapidly everyone must screen coins they accept or risk being left holding the bag. Fungiblity is an essential property of a money like good and without it the money cannot remove transactional friction. Privacy is also essential for fair markets: Without privacy your counter-parties and competition can see into your finances— get a raise and get a rent hike, and as long as there are power imbalances between people privacy is essential for human dignity. To stop this nonsense we have to make it impractical to pull off by changing the default behavior in the Bitcoin ecosystem: We consider the lack of a central authority to be an essential virtue, which means that we can't be protected by one either. We must protect ourselves. This means things like avoiding address reuse, avoiding centralized infrastructure, adopting— and funding!— privacy enhancing technology. Miners can play a role in this as Bitcoin users, but also by supporting mining pools and methods that promote privacy. They want to force people to use identified addresses so they can blacklist? What happens when miners start deprioritizing transactions that use addresses that have been previously seen? But what if some people really, really want to make everyone else also believe their preferred horrific architecture of the month is truly Bitcoin, even though they can't explain why? |
|
|
|
Any interest and or consideration I had for XT and the 'team' behind it just went out the window.
I will not touch XT and for that matter entertain anything coming from the XT 'team' anymore, no matter what explanation and or changes they come up with after this.
For me personally XT is as good as dead.
XT isn't dead until we lure it into NotXT's trap, then demonstrate why attempting a hard fork is a bad idea (especially for first movers). |
|
|
|
Looks like XT is a piece of shady bullshit. What will be in the next version ? Direct reporting to NSA ?
That's already in here, using DNS lookups. Fuck Heam, the core dev he rode in on, and everyone who has been enabling his anti-cypherpunk agenda. |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap. But here you are, still on Trolltalk, talking about how "easily" you can scramble your password and fuck off to /v/bitcoinXT (where you will be free of theymos's "unprofessional tactics." What's not "easy" is being the first to stick your neck out and accept XTcoins. (Or are they actually NotXTcoins?  ) And without brave first movers, no seeds of Gavinista Socioconomic Majority will ever bloom, much less bear fruit. |
|
|
|
this is why you never run code written by mike hearn
Heam is a true shitlord. He'd have to be, in order to get laanwj this pissed:  Bitcoin's real chief dev was over Heam's toxic BS and privacy-hostile assclown antics long ago. It's time for the rest of the us to catch up. We should start referring to XT as ' PanoptiCoin.' |
|
|
|
You can't change your vote in that thread. And the question is not about XT, just 8MB blocks in general. Plus, it was made long before we knew what Meni Rosenfeld thinks about XT: |
|
|
|
Gavin himself said Satoshi never spoke to him again after mentioning the CIA, but Satoshi's last message was to put Gavin in charge. It doesn't add up.
No it doesn't but it's all stuff that comes from Gavins' mouth. We have no evidence for nothing of that, do we? Was the "let's put Gavin in charge" msg signed with Satoshi's key? Or did Satoshi actually disappear get disappeared before it was written, so that msg could be plausibly confirmed by his subsequent absence? If we're going to declare Satohi's latest post to the list as fake until proven otherwise, let's do the same for his "Gavin is in charge" decision. If it's not signed, agnostic is the proper trust level. |
|
|
|
10% of all nodes are already XT or NotXT - time for the core devs to enjoy the lulz
I fixed your post to reflect the fact XT nodes are indistinguishable from NotXT node decoys (until it's too late for the Gavinistas to avoid the deadly trap we have set for them). Ever looked up where the term 'stool pigeon' came from?  |
|
|
|
This NotBitcoinXT going to destroy the trust in the XT ecosystem.
So true. When is XTnodes.com going to acknowledge they have no way to tell genuine Gavinista nodes from NotXT and Pseudonode spoofs? I guess they like misleading the public, just like Gavin and Mike Heam.  |
|
|
|
Oh gotta love the drama in bitcoin world, it's like a soap opera
Yes, I just binged watched like 12 episodes over the last two days' drama-llama-rama marathon.  |
|
|
|
I'm not arguing that most are real, I'm arguing that you can't prove that most are fake.
You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on GavincoinXT to demonstrate its supposed economic majority, especially now that its ostensible node count has been spoofed into worthless noise. |
|
|
|
Excellent way to show the world the IQ sample of bitcoin XT bashers. Thanks for proving my point. Yes, Meni R is likely to have a very high IQ. The Weizmann Institute of Science doesn't just give you an M.Sc. in mathematics because they like the cut of your jib. How low can you go? thats not what i was replying to. So you agree Meni is likely to have a very high IQ, and Bitcoin-XT is reckless chaos? |
|
|
|
I've been looking around in every Bitcoin community I'm a member of, and almost every day I can see someone saying they switched to BitcoinXT.
I think you meant to say NotXT. NotXT+XT node count really took off when it came out:   |
|
|
|
It's fairly simple: Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.
The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
 I suppose if you're someone who's expertise lies in jingoistic put-downs and not in cryptocurrency-as-monetery-medium then it probably looks "fairly simple". 
To anyone who can read, bitcoin is defined by majority miner adoption, not majority business adoption.  Why are you calling Theymos "someone who's expertise lies in jingoistic put-downs" and saying he can't read? What did he ever do to you? Isn't it his right to moderate his forum as he sees fit? Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating. The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better. |
|
|
|
Excellent way to show the world the IQ sample of bitcoin XT bashers. Thanks for proving my point. Yes, Meni R is likely to have a very high IQ. The Weizmann Institute of Science doesn't just give you an M.Sc. in mathematics because they like the cut of your jib. The reward for making a quote completly out of context goes to iCEBREAKER The quote was not out of context. The surrounding text doesn't change the plain meaning of the sentence 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. Meni doesn't say "slash sarcasm" or "just kidding" in the next paragraph. He doesn't clarify that by "reckless" he actually meant "admirable." He doesn't explain that he really meant "shatters/fragments/chaos" in a *GOOD* way. You are just trying to deflect and spin his specific (and harsh) criticisms of XT, by using his other irrelevant positive opinions on larger blocks in general. Gavin: "XT?" Meni: "NACK"
iCEBREAKER: "lol rekt" |
|
|
|
before XT : 5800-5900 after XT : 6500 problem ?  The problem is you are counting NotXT nodes (and Pseudonodes) as XT nodes. Let me know how that works out for you.  |
|
|
|
XT is being led into NotXT's deadly trap, and there's nothing you can do to change that. Try not to be such a poor sport about it, old chap. The already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating. |
|
|
|
My point is: we don't know, the data is unreliable and this topic was ment to be about discussing the consequences that arise from this unreliable data. If it's 10%, 50%, 90% of the nodes that are fake is not the main question here. The question is: what are the consequences from us not knowing how reliable the data is?
One consequence additional risk for anyone "brave" enough to be the first to defect from Bitcoin's economic consensus. If you stick your neck out for XT, you might get your head chopped off by NotXT.  |
|
|
|
I do know about not only a few people hosting fake nodes. Also the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software. Then we have this topic which i think is credible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1155836.0 If you believe 100% of the nodes are legit this topic is not for you. Anyone with half a brain knows the node count is rigged - to what degree is up for discussion of course. You're the one that used the word "most". We asked for evidence that the majority are fake. You don't seem to have that. Your evidence shows that at least one(likely more) is fake. Far cry from most. You don't have evidence the majority are real. As OP noted, "the spike in nodes coincides with the release of noXT software." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
