Did you read this? This is crazy shit.

[DGulari]

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin.  In every case, it is insanely serious.  Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken". 

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday.  Bet me. 

[1715357622]

1715357622

[1715357622]

1715357622

[farlack]

$5,000 says that bitcoin will change prices between the time I post this, and the time you read it.

[coinableS]

It could be the end of Gavin and Mike in the bitcoin developing world. If everyone stays with core, that is. I don't believe the developer base for XT is as large as it is for bitcoin core.

[GermanGiant]

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday.  Bet me. 

No. It wont. Both party holds enough bitcoin to resist the price. Let me know how much you wanna bet and whether ready to escrow ?

[tokeweed]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

[meono]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

[RGBKey]

You guys are overreacting, big time. This isn't the end of the world. Bitcoin will be fine.

[cryptothreads]

You guys are overreacting, big time. This isn't the end of the world. Bitcoin will be fine.

Honestly, Bitcoin will be just fine I agree.

[knight22]

You guys are overreacting, big time. This isn't the end of the world. Bitcoin will be fine.

Honestly, Bitcoin will be just fine I agree.

Indeed but bitcoin seems addicted to drama...

[tokeweed]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

Gavincoin fan? 

[meono]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

Gavincoin fan? 

no, i'm Kim Kardashian fan.

But i'm still smarter than you.

[lottery248]

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday.  Bet me. 

No. It wont. Both party holds enough bitcoin to resist the price. Let me know how much you wanna bet and whether ready to escrow ?

it is when pigs fly to be below $100 within 3 days, if it was true, it would destroy the world of bitcoin.
other alt coins would risk with this.

[GenTarkin]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

Unless the poster of this message signs it w/ one of the addresses that discovered blocks in the beginning (satoshi's blocks) .... its completely fake.

[meono]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

Unless the poster of this message signs it w/ one of the addresses that discovered blocks in the beginning (satoshi's blocks) .... its completely fake.

I (we all ) know its fake. I'm simply pointing out that because of the idiots who keep saying...." i hope Satoshi can weight in on this debate" , there we have an imposer.

This make us bitcoin community sound like a fucking cult.

[gentlemand]

This make us bitcoin community sound like a fucking cult.

At this stage in the game I think that's a valid observation.

cult
kʌlt/Submit
noun
1.
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St Olaf"
2.
a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.

[tokeweed]

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn.  He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'...  Not really.  They have ulterior motives with this fork.  Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.  

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making 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.

Satoshi Nakamoto

Enjoy your masturbation

Gavincoin fan?  

no, i'm Kim Kardashian fan.

But i'm still smarter than you.

Yup...  And way angrier.  Enjoy your masturbation. lolololol

[tadakaluri]

In its journey, Bitcoin face lot of hurdles.  So this time also it overcome this type of difficulties and it will be fine in future.

[jonald_fyookball]

It is crazy shit.  absolutely.

the sad thing is, Hearn is right.  (yeah.... the same Mike Hearn that previously said whitelisting is a good idea... the same Mike Hearn that I said shouldn't be trusted) Sadly, he is making a lot more sense and communicating a lot better than the so called core devs!

I am hopeful the community will do the right thing and move to bigger blocks in time to avert bandwidth issues.

And I think Hearn is right: the "core devs" are being stubborn and selfish and want to do things their own way.  They may be motivated as much by intellectual righteousness as by greed.  Regardless, they have failed to articulate their positions to the community (as far as I have seen) and so as much as I've had a bias against Hearn, he's the good guy right now.

[RGBKey]

You guys are overreacting, big time. This isn't the end of the world. Bitcoin will be fine.

Honestly, Bitcoin will be just fine I agree.

Indeed but bitcoin seems addicted to drama...

Not bitcoin, just the idiot shills on this forum. Not sure why, but they are drawn to controversy like moths to a flame.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
Price to less than $100 before Wednesday.  Bet me. 

I call BS.

Put your money where your mouth is.

I'll take that bet.