Nothing to see here. The cheerleaders of the Judean Front National still believe to represent Bitcoin. Unbelievable.
Even in the censored subreddit Mike gets the most upvotes.
... sounds like you're another footsoldier for BankCoin, report to Hearn for duties. BS. A BankCoin is no competition to a permissionless p2p coin. Tell that to Mike, he's given up on Bitcoin already. No. |
|
|
|
Nothing to see here. The cheerleaders of the Judean Front National still believe to represent Bitcoin. Unbelievable.
Even in the censored subreddit Mike gets the most upvotes.
... sounds like you're another footsoldier for BankCoin, report to Hearn for duties. BS. A BankCoin is no competition to a permissionless p2p coin. |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to see here. The cheerleaders of the Judean peoples Front National still believe to represent Bitcoin. Unbelievable.
Even in the censored subreddit Mike gets the most upvotes.
|
|
|
|
Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.
Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.
It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/ ... and the XTbuttheads have finally found their natural home, r/buttcoin, it was just a matter of time. Compared to the censored sub not only the humor is better there. |
|
|
|
Peter R's central thesis is that there is no need for a block size limit. He has shown that the mining dynamics will lead to a natural, free-market limit.
Of course, the butters that are working for blocking the butt stream are not happy with this, as their business plan of selling services to gambling websites requires that the butts move slowly. So they have rejected his paper.
It's intellectually bankrupt. Whoever is behind that decision ought to be ashamed of themselves.https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3tb7z4/peter_rs_paper_on_his_bitcoin_unlimited_proposal/
|
|
|
|
Poor Peter R, he got #R3KT by the sensor ships!  For some unknown reason this made me laugh. Poor Peter Rtroll . Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed?
When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again.
If you analyze and compare the amount of "people" that were in favor of XT when it was supposed to be "right fucking now" and the amount of "people" that are still posting around here (in favor) you can clearly see that most were just shill accounts. We're left with a few trolls that have not stopped trying to manipulate people and divert arguments. The chances for XT are slim, if not null right now. I'm still curious as to why they keep coming back here and don't stay on their forum? It's probably very lonely there. It was never intended or supposed to be right now. They're lying notoriously: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12379135#msg12379135 |
|
|
|
L.M.A.O cens0rshipppp! #R3KT!  ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: " scaling bitcoin conference" The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe.  there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only. im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century. You? Who are you? Nobody is discussing your 'concepts' anywhere in the cyberspace. It's Peter's papers that lead to hyperventilation among a bunch of haters. Banning, censoring and hyperventilation just leads to additional PR. Go on! https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/666980391883001857...
bitcoin is doing fine, ignoring your whining attacks, socialist brigading, and pseudodemocratic voting will lead it towards new highs.
now if you'd just fork off already, that would be surprisingly constructive from you trolls.
talk is cheap kiddos.
Not tonight dear. 2016 is the year with block reward halving and block size cap increase. You will then have the freedom to run an old core implementation on a dying chain. Have fun! |
|
|
|
L.M.A.O cens0rshipppp! #R3KT! ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: " scaling bitcoin conference" The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe. there is no totalitarian cheerleader (otoh right back at you, statist/corporatist) here if not for bitcoin total victory only. im not letting reddit noobs and charlatan wannabes spreading misinformation and fud about the most promising technology of the century. You? Who are you? Nobody is discussing your 'concepts' anywhere in the cyberspace. It's Peter's papers that lead to hyperventilation among a bunch of haters. Banning, censoring and hyperventilation just leads to additional PR. Go on! https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/666980391883001857 |
|
|
|
L.M.A.O cens0rshipppp! #R3KT! ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: " scaling bitcoin conference" The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe. Next year? LOL, remember when you thought XT was going to happen Right Fucking Now, but then it failed? When XT 2.0, AKA Unlimited, fails next year, I bet you will just move the goalposts again. You know that you are lying. I don't have to move goalposts. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016 |
|
|
|
L.M.A.O cens0rshipppp! #R3KT! ps: for people still having trouble to read, this conference is NOT about the blocksize: " scaling bitcoin conference" The haters last laugh, before they get their laughable cap teared down next year. Banning and censoring helps a lot. But not your side, as all the cheerleders of the Totalitarians ridiculously believe. |
|
|
|
Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.
Charisma has always big influence. Otherwise there won't be this endless thread where some 'bitcoiners' endlessly concentrate their 'energy' on Mike H., Gavin A. or Peter R. on one side and praise the Totalitarians on the other side. |
|
|
|
Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.
Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has. Yes, and that's the problem. Communist one-party systems don't work. The market will tear down this wall and enable competition. |
|
|
|
oh hello there A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism. XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover. Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol. I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin. I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done. hmm no. these fuckwits deserve every incivilities they had. this toxic so called community surely have no technological argument to raise the blocksize as of now, they spread fud about bitcoin's demises from the very begining, they practically wanted to brute fork bitcoin at 75%, they brigaded all over reddit, acted like stupid little kids, insulted all the core devs, ruined the dev mailing list with their sophisms and blatant misconceptions... Plus all the whining about ad homs, censorship, the bitching about blockstream, all the bullshit about how life is unfair, bitcoin is unfair, decentralize development, big blocks for them corporations, blablabla... so what now we should have a compromise? lmao, the only compromise is them forking off in january with hearndresssen. and good friggin riddance. The limit will be raised next year. Whether the minority of the vulgar pseudo-bitcoiners will be stupid enough to stay on a miniblockchain is irrelevant. They are free to do so. |
|
|
|
 Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon Yes. The main purpose of BIP101 is the gratifying fact that core is now forced to decide between presenting a solution to raise the limit, or to be forked off the game. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.
What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist). Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy. I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion. Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition. Right, except that when one internet standards body tries to develop a new standard, competing teams compete by proposing their own system, not hijacking the system of another team so as to change the way that standard works. Get it? Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks). Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes? Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody. Gaving is paid by the US government (MIT gets most money from gov). XT is therefore a plot by government to take over Bitcoin. No I dont believe the above but I am just trying to use your logic back at you. The poisonous attacks on Blockstream and the core developers doing their best (and what they believe is best for Bitcoin), is unhelpful and divisive . It is no problem that one developer works for the MIT, for Circle, for Blockstream or any company. It is a problem when several developers work for one company. Then it is time that this company gets competition. |
|
|
|
Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.
Where is the evidence that Blockstream bought the Bitcoin dev team? Good joke. |
|
|
|
Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.
What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist). Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy. I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion. Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition. Right, except that when one internet standards body tries to develop a new standard, competing teams compete by proposing their own system, not hijacking the system of another team so as to change the way that standard works. Get it? Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks). Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes? Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody. |
|
|
|
Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.
What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist). Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy. I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion. Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition. Right, except that when one internet standards body tries to develop a new standard, competing teams compete by proposing their own system, not hijacking the system of another team so as to change the way that standard works. Get it? Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks). |
|
|
|
Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.
What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist). Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy. I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion. Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
