What is wrong with theymos and the other mods?

[meono]

-snip-
It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.

75% is not real consensus. Introducing checkpoints to ignore the longest chain is not consensus either. I do wonder how you ignore the buggy "patches" within XT, since you seem to approve (approve =/= support) of it?

What is also interesting is that I've yet to see a reputable member switch to XT. More and more shills are joining the discussion in addition to a few legendary accounts waking up (coincidence? I think not).

IceBreaker is very reputable i'm sure.....

[turvarya]

-snip-
It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.

75% is not real consensus. Introducing checkpoints to ignore the longest chain is not consensus either. I do wonder how you ignore the buggy "patches" within XT, since you seem to approve (approve =/= support) of it?

What is also interesting is that I've yet to see a reputable member switch to XT. More and more shills are joining the discussion in addition to a few legendary accounts waking up (coincidence? I think not).
Update:

And this is different from every other bitcointalk discussion... how?

I'm solely talking about shills that are defending XT, which makes me think this was carefully planed some time before it started. Your first post was made in this very thread.

First person that comes to mind is LiteCoinGuy. He made a lot of helpful threads e.g. the hardware wallet-thread.
Is he not reputable ?
and btw. that is one of the points, that make this discussion so ridiculous: all this conspiracy theories and calling everybody a shill or sockpuppet, that is not the same opinion even from respected members(and yes, it is on both sides)

As far as if heard, there is a large block only version of BitcoinXT. I haven't set up my full node yet, but I will go for that.

[Lauda]

First person that comes to mind is LiteCoinGuy. He made a lot of helpful threads e.g. the hardware wallet-thread.
Is he not reputable ?

Ah yes, LiteCoinGuy. I have questioned his support, but he has failed to answer. I was talking more in the lines of DannyHamilton, DeathAndTaxes, tomatocage, etc. However, a lot of these members have not clarified their stance, or are choosing to ignore the debate (publicly at least) entirely.

and btw. that is one of the points, that make this discussion so ridiculous: all this conspiracy theories and calling everybody a shill or sockpuppet  , that is not the same opinion even from respected members(and yes, it is on both sides)

This is not a conspiracy theory. I was talking about new accounts popping up and rushing into XT discussions showing off support. Most of those are nothing other than shills.

As far as if heard, there is a large block only version of BitcoinXT. I haven't set up my full node yet, but I will go for that.

This is because a few people caught on that those patches as they call them, are bad. It would be hard though in the future to introduce something that would disregard/make such clients obsolete.

Update: Some corrections.

[turvarya]

First person that comes to mind is LiteCoinGuy. He made a lot of helpful threads e.g. the hardware wallet-thread.
Is he not reputable ?

Ah yes, LiteCoinGuy. I have questioned his support, but he has failed to answer. I was talking more in the lines of DannyHamilton, DeathAndTaxes, tomatocage, etc. However, a lot of these members have not clarified their stance, or are choosing to ignore the debate (publicly at least) entirely.

What exactly are you questioning? He supports it, he even made a thread about it.
And I don't wonder, that other people don't show their stance, like I said, the whole thing has become so ridiculous.

and btw. that is one of the points, that make this discussion so ridiculous: all this conspiracy theories and calling everybody a shill or sockpuppet, that is not the same opinion even from respected members(and yes, it is on both sides)

This is not a conspiracy theory. I was talking about new accounts popping up and rushing into XT discussions showing off support. Most of those are nothing other than shills.

Do quote one of this new accounts.

And this is different from every other bitcointalk discussion... how?

You should be long enough on this forum to know, that this also happens all the time. It even happens in small discussions. No big conspiracy there, just people who use the anonymity of the internet.

As far as if heard, there is a large block only version of BitcoinXT. I haven't set up my full node yet, but I will go for that.

This is because a few people caught on that those patches as they call them, are bad. It would not be hard in the future to introduce something that would disregard/make such clients obsolete.

I am not sure, what you want to tell me.

[balu2]

I suggested to rename the Forum to Gavincointalk a while back. Nobody listened. If people would have listened we would not have this discussion right now.
What's wrong with you people? Let's just push for renaming the forum to Gavincointalk to let Thermos know where it's at. Thank you for your attention.

[TheStuhlman]

hmmm    is BitcoinXT and Bitcoin one and the same?

if the answer is yes then bitcoinXT does not need a thread as there is one for bitcoin already.
if the answer is no then join the shitcoin club in alt announcements and shut the fuck up.

Btw I will use this occasion to announce my LitecoinXT project coming soon. 

[Lauda]

What exactly are you questioning? He supports it, he even made a thread about it.
And I don't wonder, that other people don't show their stance, like I said, the whole thing has become so ridiculous.

I'm questioning why. XT is not the right way, especially not with the implemented "patches" and controversial ideas that Hearn has.

Do quote one of this new accounts.

Here is one of the accounts, usually insulting non XT supporters.

You should be long enough on this forum to know, that this also happens all the time. It even happens in small discussions. No big conspiracy there, just people who use the anonymity of the internet.

There you have it, first post.

I am not sure, what you want to tell me.

That you will not possibly be able to run such a client.

I suggested to rename the Forum to Gavincointalk a while back. Nobody listened. If people would have listened we would not have this discussion right now.

No.

hmmm    is BitcoinXT and Bitcoin one and the same?

No, they are not. XT is a programmed altcoin.

Btw I will use this occasion to announce my LitecoinXT project coming soon. 

Relevance?

[EternalWingsofGod]

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.html

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.

[favdesu]

BitcoinXT is an altcoin and therefore belongs to the altcoin section of this forum. I find it perfectly reasonable.

[-ck]

[turvarya]

What exactly are you questioning? He supports it, he even made a thread about it.
And I don't wonder, that other people don't show their stance, like I said, the whole thing has become so ridiculous.

I'm questioning why. XT is not the right way, especially not with the implemented "patches" and controversial ideas that Hearn has.

Don't be so arrogant, seriously. It is not the right way in your opinion. That doesn't mean that other people don't have other opinions.

Do quote one of this new accounts.

Here is one of the accounts, usually insulting non XT supporters.

You should be long enough on this forum to know, that this also happens all the time. It even happens in small discussions. No big conspiracy there, just people who use the anonymity of the internet.

There you have it, first post.

So, what? Nothing unusual on this forum. Do you really want me to find you a similar example of someone, who is against XT?
Your view is just biased.
What do you think about the fake-Satoshi-mail? Why don't you call that a big conspiracy?

I am not sure, what you want to tell me.

That you will not possibly be able to run such a client.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean, that the blockchain will somehow check, if you are running the "right" client. That might be your dictatorship-dream, but it is not possible.

Finally a responds from a Staff member, and then it is a meme?
Great job, you guys are doing, very professional ...

[Lauda]

Don't be so arrogant, seriously. It is not the right way in your opinion. That doesn't mean that other people don't have other opinions.
-snip-
So, what? Nothing unusual on this forum. Do you really want me to find you a similar example of someone, who is against XT?
Your view is just biased.
What do you think about the fake-Satoshi-mail? Why don't you call that a big conspiracy?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean, that the blockchain will somehow check, if you are running the "right" client. That might be your dictatorship-dream, but it is not possible.

1) You're wrong, nor am I being arrogant. Something can not be buggy in my opinion, nor have I tested those patches myself (they are bad). My opinion has been formed after extensive research related to both XT and Hearn, which I unfortunately can not say for most people.
2) You asked for a example, and now I'm biased? Interesting.
3) It is fake, and thus should just be disregarded.
4) Dictator dream:

The clearest statement I've seen on governance has been by Mike Hearn on our podcast. He said that there should be a benevolent dictator who makes the final calls and if people don't like it they can fork the code and convince users to switch.

Hard to accomplish? Maybe. Impossible? I doubt that.

That's because there are already dozens of threads about this already. See any thread about Theymos censoring XT and so on...

Way too many, yet people keep opening threads for the same discussions over and over again.

[-ck]

Finally a responds from a Staff member, and then it is a meme?
Great job, you guys are doing, very professional ...

That's because there are already dozens of threads about this already. See any thread about Theymos censoring XT and so on...

[turvarya]

Don't be so arrogant, seriously. It is not the right way in your opinion. That doesn't mean that other people don't have other opinions.
-snip-
So, what? Nothing unusual on this forum. Do you really want me to find you a similar example of someone, who is against XT?
Your view is just biased.
What do you think about the fake-Satoshi-mail? Why don't you call that a big conspiracy?

That doesn't make any sense at all. Do you mean, that the blockchain will somehow check, if you are running the "right" client. That might be your dictatorship-dream, but it is not possible.

1) You're wrong, nor am I being arrogant. Something can not be buggy in my opinion, nor have I tested those patches myself (they are bad). My opinion has been formed after extensive research related to both XT and Hearn, which I unfortunately can not say for most people.
2) You asked for a example, and now I'm biased? Interesting.
3) It is fake, and thus should just be disregarded.
4) Dictator dream:

The clearest statement I've seen on governance has been by Mike Hearn on our podcast. He said that there should be a benevolent dictator who makes the final calls and if people don't like it they can fork the code and convince users to switch.

Hard to accomplish? Maybe. Impossible? I doubt that.

ad 1) "Other people are just too stupid to understand"--> Yes, that is arrogance, like it or not.
ad 2) 3) You exactly prove my point. The fake email should be disregarded, but some newbie accounts are a conspiracy. That is a biased view.
ad 4) And again, we have hypocrisy:
Dictatorship from Hearn--> such a bad thing
Dictatorship from other devs --> Oh yes please, we need that so much.

Finally a responds from a Staff member, and then it is a meme?
Great job, you guys are doing, very professional ...

That's because there are already dozens of threads about this already. See any thread about Theymos censoring XT and so on...

So, can you point me to an explanation from theymos?
I haven't seen one, but I could just have missed it.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.html

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.

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.   

[arnuschky]

Dictatorship from Hearn--> such a bad thing
Dictatorship from other devs --> Oh yes please, we need that so much.

This is something that really bothers me as well - loads of hypocrisy in this debate.

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

[Lauda]

ad 1) "Other people are just too stupid to understand"--> Yes, that is arrogance, like it or not.
ad 2) 3) You exactly prove my point. The fake email should be disregarded, but some newbie accounts are a conspiracy. That is a biased view.
ad 4) And again, we have hypocrisy:
Dictatorship from Hearn--> such a bad thing
Dictatorship from other devs --> Oh yes please, we need that so much.
-snip-

Where did you find that quote, as I can't find it? I might have gotten a little bit carried away on that one (still can't find it), so I would like to correct it.
I never said that they were a conspiracy (not that unusual here), nor is my view biased. If it was, I would say that the mail is real and satoshi is right (negative view of XT).
What Hearn is proposing is nowhere near what we have today. He's essentially saying that he would implement stuff even if a lot of people are against it. I have not see this happen with Core (yet).

Update: Some corrections and additions.

[knight22]

There is so much shame in the forum it has literally became unsustainable. No one should trust bitcointalk anymore. Only a fool would.