I believe congratulations are in order. We've been moved to the alt-coin section!
WTF is this!?  LOL U MAD BRO?  #R3KT |
|
|
|
XT chat from here on out to be moderated.
the thread has always been multi-dimensional and you know that. and the "only" graphs posted are XT? lol. first off, that's not even true. second, you know that any graphs presented vary with the controversy of the day, XT being only a small slice of what the thread is all about over it's 4 y timeframe. "all XT chat is to be moderated"? by who's decision, theymos or you? and like you really cared about it ever being on track before XT came along. XT is an altcoin, and thus off-topic in the Main (IE Bitcoin) forum: 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.
Did you somehow miss ^that^ very important message from our sponsor?  |
|
|
|
The thread shouldn't have been hijacked in the first place, what a mess. The thread is mostly about XT now, and the only graphs posted are XT related.
It would be a lot of work to split or delete all the XT posts. Splitting is not easy to do in SMF, especially with large threads, and many posts to be split. So that isn't an option.
It could stay in speculation since the majority of the thread is relevant, but all XT chat from here on out to be moderated.
Might be better to just lock the thread since it's so far off track at this point.
if your motives were strictly topic related, then why didn't you leave the customary "(MOVED)" notice behind in Speculation redirecting confused readers where to go to find the moved thread? and why did you just remove my new topic thread in Speculation attempting to remedy your deficiency? Oh this is just too funny. I can't even!  |
|
|
|
You're obviously intelligent
I'm obviously trolling Nxtblg, for taking the precautionary principle as applied to block size and extrapolating a general position of 'no one should ever do anything dangerous, and especially not visit the moon.' It's a better (more entertaining) response than the silence he deserved. Why you are white knighting for him? Butthurt about theymos taking XT out back and shooting it, or what?  |
|
|
|
Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle
Well then, Circle is dead to me until they change that arrangement. Back to Satoshi Square and Buttonwood. |
|
|
|
So who is actually stupid enough to be the first to accept XTcoins?
I honestly don't know. Not me, that's for sure. I just run an XT node to be trendy and look cool. Oh the butthurt of some users in this thread is strong.  |
|
|
|
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
You already know adam3us's HashCash is One of the Eight Blessed References in Satoshi's Holy Whitepaper. LOL, let's tell Dr. Backamoto all about "how Bitcoin is supposed to work." He needs "most of the community" too halp hem lern dat maor gud. Seriously though, all of this blather about "the community" is starting to sound a little too 'Occupy' for my liking. Talking about Bitcoin does not make you part of it. What's next, bloviating about 'stakeholders?'  |
|
|
|
So, can you point me to an explanation from theymos?
I haven't seen one, but I could just have missed it.
Would like to see that too. 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.
|
|
|
|
FYI: your definition of the "precautionary principle", which you yourself voluntarily and affirmatively supplied before I jumped in, contained the four significant words "the burden of proof". If you choose to word-spin again by claiming that "the burden of proof" carries some recondite engineering-specific meaning unknown to all but a few specialists, for which it would be collegial to supply a link that backs up your fine words, those four words mean exactly what they say.
Fact: one of the worries about a moon shot that the worriers glommed onto was a real unknown: the level of cosmic background radiation (including those cosmic rays) beyond the protective sheath of the Van Allen belt. Had the "precautionary principle" been around, that objections - plus the complete lack of hard data on the real level of background radiation beyond the Van Allen Belt - would have nixed the Apollo moon shot, or at the minimum shelved it until enough unmanned spacecrafts had been sent up beyond the Van Allen Belt to provide enough measurements of the outside-the-Belt radiation level for a statistically valid gauge of the real radiation level. Including error bars, naturally.
But...thankfully for the human race, any such "precautionary principle" would have been laughed to the ground in the mid-late 1960s. NASA did take it slowly and methodically after Apollo 1 blew up, but that methodicalness was just ordinary prudence: nothing more.
So we shouldn't worry about what raising the 1mb 750k limit might break, because of cosmic rays on the moon?  Cool story bro. Thanks for demonstrating I was correct to surmise the involved abstruse distinctions (software vs space medicine, Bitcoin vs Cold War rivalry, abstract global deontology vs concrete local heuristics) are nuanced beyond your education and aptitude. I heard the crazy Soviets are experimenting with 50MB blocks at Baikonur. Quick, we must close the blockchain gap and leapfrog them with a 100MB maximum! |
|
|
|
Blockstream and bitcoin are 2 separate things and in no way scales bitcoin itself.
Yes, Blockstream is a company, not a technology or software protocol. Its two prototypes for scaling Bitcon, LN and SC, are open source. If successful, they will scale "bitcoin itself" in some very important ways. The only hysteric person here is you.
I'm not the one comparing NotXT users with the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.
Don't you find that comparison just a little dramatic? Wait, don't answer that. Fuck off to https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt and stop supporting theymos' dictatorship! |
|
|
|
At the moment, only the developers get to decide on what's merged into Bitcoin Core, and what isn't.
Additionally to that, theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum and reddit.
In the end, bitcoin consensus is the only method of voting left to the community.
Whichever fork wins the vote, so be it, it got consensus. Removing this possibility
from the community seems really counter-productive.
By using this fork, you're not voting for one of option or the other. Instead, you're
the guy gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot.
Since when did theymos control reddit? Is he Pao's replacement? Has he banned /r/BitcoinXT, /r/BTC, /r/bitcoin_uncensored, etc? And how is this thread possible if "theymos took away the possibility of open discussion on this forum?" I guess he just did a really bad job of it. Your hysteria over NotXT users "gunning down people standing in line in front of the ballot" is quite remarkable. Your already unseemly self-pity is becoming nauseating. The sooner you Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk yourselves the better. |
|
|
|
NotBitcoinXT can be used to protect the status quo
Of everything you've ever said on this forum, your current signature is quite possibly the most honest you've even been about your views towards Bitcoin. You genuinely believe Bitcoin is a means to provide enormous value to a small minority. For you it's all about preserving the status quo. It's not just that you don't care if Bitcoin becomes a niche plaything for a wealthy elite, in fact that's your actual goal here. You're doing everything you can to try to undermine larger blocks, because you know that your endgame doesn't involve making Bitcoin scalable, it involves forcing everyone else off of "your" chain. Bitcoin is not and will never be about preserving the status quo. Keep dreaming if that's how you think this plays out in the long term. I think most on this sub-forum are aware that scaling up the current design isn't the only way to allow for mainstream sized transaction rates. Not the only way indeed but currently the only way. It's kind of the point. There is no way to scale Bitcoin "currently." Blockstream is working on it, and have at least two promising prototypes in SC/LN. Bloating Layer 1 with more of the same is not "scaling up the current design." You can't get to Visa from here, no matter how large you make the blocks. Because trade-offs. Make the blocks too large, and miners simply create more empty ones. It's already a huge problem at 1MB 750k. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.
Lost it at "yappy-yay." I'm stealing that, and the first thing I'll do with it is describe the Gavinista, sorry, XT Manifesto. Don't blame smoothie for being mr extrapolator. The OP started the strawman extrapolation by including the "Permanently keeping" operator, in order to frame all who disagree as irrational, extremist 'always and never' types (always 1MB, never moar). Too bad for D&T his huffing and puffing failed to blow Core's house down and remake Bitcoin in the image of Square. It was a nice try, to be sure.  |
|
|
|
  Finally a responds from a Staff member, and then it is a meme?
Great job, you guys are doing, very professional ... CK's meme was perfect, LOL. XT is an altcoin, 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. Perhaps you'd be happier with your fellow Gavinistas over at /v/bitcoinXT? I promise you CK won't be posting any memes at you over there. |
|
|
|
In my opinion they made a choice and it is that Xt is not the path of BTC development in its present form. While it may not be a real satoshi post it does ring a true sentiment that it is a minority of users that want to move to Xt while the rest are still determining the best possible alternatives and options worth consideration. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlMaking Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold. Agree with all but the last sentence. Given the robust technical and social rebuff of the Gavinista's XT attack, I have been quite satisfied (and often delighted) watching the present situation unfold. Particularly hilarious is the buttrage of the reddit millennials who just discovered Bitcoin is not presently built to scale, nor is it a democracy, nor will their foot stamping and strong feelings make the slightest bit of difference no matter how much they whine. |
|
|
|
NotbitcoinXT is not only useless but even more dangerous than XT itself as it gives false market indicators that could lead to an unnecessary forking or bad forking timing. This war mongering attitude is the only dangerous and childish behavior in this debate.
Nobody cares about your lulzy, incomplete attempt to rehash of the block size debate, so I deleted it. The entire point of NotXT is to give "false market indicators that could lead to an unnecessary forking or bad forking timing." That's why it exists. That's why we love it. How could you not understand that by now? We are leading XT into an ambush, wherein it will be contained and exterminated. Isn't that wonderful, and hilarious? |
|
|
|
I'd dearly love to participate in the ensuing discussion, but honestly cannot read past the words "XT Manifesto" without snickering, giggling, and ultimately succumbing to hearty guffaws, belly laughs, and the like. Bitcoin Manifesto is hilarious for the same reasons as the idea of an Internet Police. I hope no mobility scooters were overloaded with neckbearded dwellers during the production of the "XT Manifesto." ROFLMAOPIMPIRL! |
|
|
|
The real problem isn't XT. The real problem is that there is no good means to break a serious impasse.
There is no "serious impasse." Bitcoin has just started working more like it was designed to, with RBF and (fledgling) fee pressure/markets. If there were a "serious impasse" (such that competitive fees no longer properly prioritized their tx, thus endangering the present and future value of BTC), the economic consensus would quickly coalesce around a solution. If you want to know what Satoshi thinks, look here: https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4. |
|
|
|
bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "
no, its not. If nothing else, it's worth showing the noobs that people have been setting their hair on fire over the supposed 'ZOMG RAISETHELIMIT OR ELSE DOOOM' issue for months, and Bitcoin keeps working just fine, heedless of their chicken little ultimatum/manifesto antics. At least D&T had the good graces to bugger off after being proven to be yet another boy who cried wolf. That's more than I can say for the current 'I hate thermos but I'll still participate in his forum' crowd. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure you do know how it works, the economic majority dont defect, the incentives ensure the majority's interests are best served.
You call this a hostile hard fork and an Altcion because you have another agenda that requires you to use political manipulation and fear to choose a path that is not in there best interests.
You are losing credibility by trying to elevate your understanding of Bitcoin by bench marking of my membership date. what relevance is that?
Your relatively recent membership date became relevant when you presumed to lecture me on Mining 101 and How Bitcoin Works. Actualizing XT's theoretical economic majority just got harder, as the risk of defecting from Bitcoin's is now compounded by the additional uncertainty generated by NotXT and PseudoNode. What you call "political manipulation and fear" others call "computer science." 
#R3KT |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
