Reddit Mod(s) banned/deleeted hundreds of XT posts...

[LiteCoinGuy]

And then a mod made a statement:


"So, guys, I'm a moderator in this forum, though I don't know for how long. It is late on a Saturday and I just logged in to see this mess. One of the forum moderators has been deleting hundreds of, what appear to me, to be perfectly valid comments.

Bitcoin-XT is NOT an alt-coin. It is an alternate client. Bitcoin-core is not some magical specially anointed copy of the code. That is deeply flawed and centralized thinking.

Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized and whichever client the majority of the community runs will, naturally, organically, and by design, become the new rule set on the network.

I get that some people are strongly opposed to this fork. But, censoring discussion and incorrectly calling it an alt-coin is not the solution in my opinion.

For the record I haven't been removing any of these comments today and, after sharing my opinion in this post, I may be removed as one of the mods. Which is fine if that happens. This is a volunteer thing that I do only when I'm already on the forum and have some free time.

But I won't resign either. Sorry this is all such a mess right now."


https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h5211/censorship/


Funny consensus - if you dont like what the majority wants, deleet it  

Thx to one honest moderator who made that statement.


------------

edit:





that makes sense.

/s

[iCEBREAKER]

Plenty of room in ^there^ for all you Theymos and BashCo haters.

[uvt9]

Plenty of room in ^there^ for all you Theymos and BashCo haters.

BashCo own /v/Bitcoin which is not censored and has decent number of subscriber.

[LiteCoinGuy]

iam not a Theymos and BashCo hater but i dont like censorship. when the community wants bigger blocks and the only way it XT - so it should be XT.

[Kprawn]

Freedom of speech should be allowed, even though you disagree with whatever the other person are saying. I am also not keen on the whole Bitcoin XT thing, but I would want

them to state their case. How would everyone choose or react to this if they did not have the correct information. Discussion is good and debate can only serve a good goal.

Just keep it civil.... delete non-constructive posts, and when people attack each other personally. 

[LiteCoinGuy]

Freedom of speech should be allowed, even though you disagree with whatever the other person are saying. I am also not keen on the whole Bitcoin XT thing, but I would want

them to state their case. How would everyone choose or react to this if they did not have the correct information. Discussion is good and debate can only serve a good goal.

Just keep it civil.... delete non-constructive posts, and when people attack each other personally.  

a debate is always a good thing and there were a lot of them. now time is running out. you need to install some software that can handle the next influx of users (maybe millions!). so you have to act now. that software is XT (bigger blocks).

this is why we have the turmoil because the decision has to be made.

[iCEBREAKER]

iam not a Theymos and BashCo hater but i dont like censorship. when the community wants bigger blocks and the only way it XT - so it should be XT.

XT is not the only way to get bigger blocks.  There are two other BIPs competing with Gavin's.  More may come.

You've never experienced censorship.  What you don't like is moderation decisions with which you disagree.

There are the people who don't like censorship:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_dissidents

I don't see anyone on that list because they posted about an altcoin in the wrong forum.   

[eternalgloom]

I've seen accusations pointed towards the mod in question having a financial interest in deleting these comments/threads.
Not sure what it means but it seemed interesting to share.

[Blazr]

Is there a way to move posts from one subreddit to another?

I can understand not wanting posts about the Bitcoin-XT currency in the Bitcoin subreddit. It would make more sense for those to go in a separate Bitcoin-XT subreddit (atleast until this whole thing blows over). Deleting them does seem unfair, though I think the reason they delete them is because they cant move them.

[LiteCoinGuy]

@eternalgloom

you can find something about that fact here:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

tl;dr: Blockstream may want to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.

[Carlton Banks]

I've seen accusations pointed towards the mod in question having a financial interest in deleting these comments/threads.
Not sure what it means but it seemed interesting to share.

Everyone with bitcoin has a financial interest in the outcome of the blocksize debate.

Some have ancillary motives that also have financial payoffs, like the Blockstream-ers, but you can include regular miners in that category too (in fact they straddle both categories irrespective of the result, as it will be them that process the transactions whether using on-chain BigBlocks or some off-chain solution).

Also, the Blockstream people will make money whether offchain becomes the prevalent solution or not. They're developing all potential sidechains, most of which will have nothing to do with processing BTC directly. They're not depending on the Lightning network, or anything else, because the technology has been made flexible and open-ended enough that they don't need to.

[RoadTrain]

@eternalgloom

you can find something about that fact here:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

tl;dr: Blockstream may want to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.

For God's sake, you don't know shit about sidechannels (wtf is that, btw? do you mean sidechains?) and the LN. I'll give you a quote form the LN paper.

While it may appear as though this system will mitigate the block size increases in the short term, if it achieves global scale, it will necessitate a block size increase in the long term. Creating a credible threat that spamming the blockchain to encourage transactions to timeout becomes imperative.

In short: the LN allows the transaction throughput to rise without increasing blocksize, but only to a point -- if transactions on the blockchain are choked (as you suggest), the LN becomes unreliable as there's an attack vector which works when there's a transaction backlog. The LN depends on there being enough space in blocks.

I'd also like to point you to 2 replies by Mark Friedenbach that may be of relevance
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg01330.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg01334.html

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Getting a bit bored of reading all these XT cheerleader threads. Why do they have to keep starting threads about the same or very similar stuff.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Bitcoin-XT is NOT an alt-coin. It is an alternate client.

Feel free to move this thread to the appropriate section of the forum then - 'Alternative Clients' - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=37.0

[LiteCoinGuy]

this topic is important so it should stay here. the community has to choose between

a centralised 1 MB blockchain

and

a free and open blockchain that can live up to its promise! a blockchain everyone has access to, world wide, small and big transactions, every usecase you can imagine, uncensored, nearly free transaction costs for everyone in the world!

the internet of value. that blockchain has bigger blocks.

make your choice  

[RoadTrain]

I have a theory: LiteCoinGuy is advocating for XT (ignoring all the concerns raised by people) because he wants Bitcoin to fail and be superceded by Litecoin! I've just exposed your real agenda, man!

Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I have a theory: LiteCoinGuy is advocating for XT (ignoring all the concerns raised by people) because he wants Bitcoin to fail and be superceded by Litecoin! I've just exposed your real agenda, man!

Your last post is wrong in almost every aspect, I can't believe you are serious.

no. you can also call me BitCoinGuy if you like that  

read the post above, that is my intention.

[MicroGuy]

The Bitcoin subreddit has been heavily censored for months. I think this is just the first time people are starting to really notice.

[tadakaluri]

When we have legit Bitcoin Core, Why we need this Bitcoin XT. Every one use Bitcoin Core only to avoid complications in future.

[Denker]

This is what you have to know...

Bitcoin, the first and most widely used cryptocurrency, has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix, which was meant to be temporary and has been crippling its growth ever since it was put in place, has (surprisingly to many) become a point of contention.

The core devs that want to preserve this network capacity artificial cap have serious conflicts of interest since they became part of Blockstream, a company that seeks to build their own payment system on top of the Bitcoin network, and in doing so it would relegate the Bitcoin network to a secondary hidden role, like a settlement layer for the payment channels of their network, instead of letting it be the accessible-to-all network Bitcoin was meant to be.

In response, a few ex-core developers have come up with Bitcoin-XT, which stays true to Bitcoin's original vision, but updating the Bitcoin software to Bitcoin-XT will split the community, at least temporarily, in two groups with different rules. The mods of this subreddit are largely aligned with the Blockstream folks, or are otherwise against forking Bitcoin to increase the cap, and have thus been banning a lot of posts and comments on Bitcoin-XT, hence the commotion you are witnessing.

[RoadTrain]

Bitcoin, the first and most widely used cryptocurrency, has been suffering because the failure to remove an anti-spam fix, which was meant to be temporary and has been crippling its growth ever since it was put in place, has (surprisingly to many) become a point of contention.

Whether it was temporary doesn't matter now, as our knowledge has improved a lot since those times, so it must be re-evaluated. There are several recent academic publications linked to blocksize issue, there is some reasoning (whether valid or not, it does exist) against aggressive increases.

The core devs that want to preserve this network capacity artificial cap have serious conflicts of interest since they became part of Blockstream, a company that seeks to build their own payment system on top of the Bitcoin network, and in doing so it would relegate the Bitcoin network to a secondary hidden role, like a settlement layer for the payment channels of their network, instead of letting it be the accessible-to-all network Bitcoin was meant to be.

That's a serious accusation, but I still haven't seen solid proof of that being the case (the reddit 'summary' I have read is not solid).

I can say that Gavin&Mike are colluding with banks or goverment to bring Bitcoin under their control -- that's easier after they take over the network with their XT. I think it's a win-win for the gov't -- Bitcoin either being irreversibly damaged due to split, or being under their control, giving them leverage to implement more controversial changes (whitelisting by Mike would be one of those, I guess).

But it would be just baseless FUD, so I won't say that.