Bitcoin is Forking

[chek2fire]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

[Soros Shorts]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

Well, it could be said that there are 2 developers, but I don't really like the second one (not personally, just what he stands for). Regardless I strongly feel this way too and I won't consider supporting XT until it is backed by a diverse group of developers, including a few with privacy conscious views.

[turvarya]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

How often does it have to be repeated to get into the mind of the stupid, that there is not one person, who could change Bitcoin and never will?
That is just not how Bitcoin works.

It's stupid statements like yours, that makes this whole debate so ridiculous. Statements that show, that a lot of people don't even understand the basics of how Bitcoin work.

[insidertradingeverywhere]

Arlight, alright ... already on my way to stock up altcoins and cash in parts of my btc. Thanks for letting me know ...

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Remove the link from the OP that says satoshi commented on this. It's a fake to please the idiots that need satoshi's view on this. Obvious fake due non signed message.

[acquafredda]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

Well, it could be said that there are 2 developers, but I don't really like the second one (not personally, just what he stands for). Regardless I strongly feel this way too and I won't consider supporting XT until it is backed by a diverse group of developers, including a few with privacy conscious views.

I completely agree with this. I think supporting XT right now is out of question. It is too early anyway.
My biggest concern is how things are being done: it is simply non sense to me to lead things this way.

I supposed that when mathematics is in command we don't need anything else: I was wrong because there are people who like to play even with this.

[cryptothreads]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

Well, it could be said that there are 2 developers, but I don't really like the second one (not personally, just what he stands for). Regardless I strongly feel this way too and I won't consider supporting XT until it is backed by a diverse group of developers, including a few with privacy conscious views.

I completely agree with this. I think supporting XT right now is out of question. It is too early anyway.
My biggest concern is how things are being done: it is simply non sense to me to lead things this way.

I supposed that when mathematics is in command we don't need anything else: I was wrong because there are people who like to play even with this.

Why can't people have consensus around things ?

[pedrog]

and if this fork success and we give such a big power to only one developer in the system who says that in the future this person will not decide to fork again the system and completely change it like to increase the bitcoins number, to change the mining system etc.
Is not good in the human history when one and only one person has the power to rule a system. If this happen this system is going to fail asap.

If you don't agree with the changes you don't have to adopt the particular software, ultimately it's our choice.

[gentlemand]

Why can't people have consensus around things ?

You can't find consensus amongst five people who run a suburban golf club. What are the odds of managing it among thousands spread across the globe all with their own idea of what they want this to be?

Consensus is impossible. Majority will win.

[forevernoob]

Arlight, alright ... already on my way to stock up altcoins and cash in parts of my btc. Thanks for letting me know ...

But if Bitcoin tanks wouldn't it take the alts with it?

[johnyj]

The issue with blockchain tps limit is NOW, and unless you have a system ready built to solve, all the arguments from you are pure fantasy.

Are you living in a world of talk and fantasy? Search the hardware sub forum, there are already people using ASIC miners to heat their house, and they are running them even it does not dig out any meaningful coins because they need heat anyway, and most likely they will upgrade to the new miner when they see a more attractive model

On the other hand, unless the big mining farms cooperate with distributed heating companies (which is extremely difficult due to their location), they will face huge loss when bitcoin difficulty is driven up by home miners by another fold

It has been proved that large mining operations are much more risky than distributed home miners, they either make big money or big loss, but their tolerance for a sustained loss is extremely low, many of them went down during the past year. Home miners and garage miners are not profit oriented, they could support the network regardless of bitcoin's price

At the end of 2011, when price had reached a level that mining is no longer profitable even for the most efficient GPU miners, many home miners and garage miners were still carrying on, because what they are interested is bitcoin, cost is irrelevant. But now, if the mining is no longer profitable even for the most efficient miners, I'm afraid that mining farms will shut down at large scale. A bitcoin network supported by speculative mining operations are extremely unstable, when there is no fiat money to make, those speculators will quit

[insidertradingeverywhere]

Arlight, alright ... already on my way to stock up altcoins and cash in parts of my btc. Thanks for letting me know ...

But if Bitcoin tanks wouldn't it take the alts with it?

Wouldn't think so. Quite the opposite. Depends on why BTC tanks. Does it tank because the BTC community made a mistake, does it tank because of stupidity and groupthink?
I think most alts can process already many times the tps that btc does. So if BTC tanks due to a very unwise hardfork LTC and his friends will go to the moon - they can handle much more txs already.
It's very predictable to me and this year i make a lot of money by just putting money on the alts that have solutions to BTC problems.
Basically alts are the solution to this problem with the throughput of txs - but apparently everyone is blind and biased. There is so much unused free space on all these alternative chains, it's more than anyone could ever use. Why people would want to put BTC at risk with controversial forks is beyond me. It's not rational. If BTC tanks due to such a stuuupid hardfork i'll be rich from altcoins for sure.
If BTC tanks at first alts would tank too but if BTC would be broken beyond possible repair alts would go berserk. BTC failing due to a problem that's not inherent to alts and is specific to BTC alone is the altcoin bagholders wet dream scenario. 

[chek2fire]

About Mike Hearn

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

If this success many people will be out of the game in bitcoin community and the next day will be not the same

[meono]

The issue with blockchain tps limit is NOW, and unless you have a system ready built to solve, all the arguments from you are pure fantasy.

Are you living in a world of talk and fantasy? Search the hardware sub forum, there are already people using ASIC miners to heat their house, and they are running them even it does not dig out any meaningful coins because they need heat anyway, and most likely they will upgrade to the new miner when they see a more attractive model

On the other hand, unless the big mining farms cooperate with distributed heating companies (which is extremely difficult due to their location), they will face huge loss when bitcoin difficulty is driven up by home miners by another fold

It has been proved that large mining operations are much more risky than distributed home miners, they either make big money or big loss, but their tolerance for a sustained loss is extremely low, many of them went down during the past year. Home miners and garage miners are not profit oriented, they could support the network regardless of bitcoin's price

At the end of 2011, when price had reached a level that mining is no longer profitable even for the most efficient GPU miners, many home miners and garage miners were still carrying on, because what they are interested is bitcoin, cost is irrelevant. But now, if the mining is no longer profitable even for the most efficient miners, I'm afraid that mining farms will shut down at large scale. A bitcoin network supported by speculative mining operations are extremely unstable, when there is no fiat money to make, those speculators will quit

LOL, you must be too stupid to have reading comprehension, read my post again.

The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

    By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous — while at the same time being completely implausible — a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

About Mike Hearn

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=333824.0

If this success many people will be out of the game in bitcoin community and the next day will be not the same

Thanks for this important link. That is ample reason not to support Bitcoin XT right there. Do you have any other links that prove Mike Hearn wants to take Bitcoin XT in a different direction than Satoshi Nakomoto intended?