...

[brg444]

Haha ok well time will tell.

Will I be seeing you in Montreal this coming weekend?

I was hoping theymos would give me his tickets he said he'd giveaway to btctalk users but I think he's afraid I'd attack Gavin  

[1714834188]

1714834188

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?

Are you saying we need centrally planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

YES!

Thank you for answering honestly and not beating around the bush.  It is my opinion that most of the small-block supporters feel the same way (i.e., that we need a centrally-planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you   ?

I don't believe in killing endangered animals; I think it's terrible, personally.  So I guess I am glad there is a centrally-planned limit for killing bears in the mountains around Vancouver, for instance.  But this isn't about what I believe…we're discussing what will actually happen.  A centrally-planned limit on big game hunting requires that the organization implementing the limit also act to enforce that limit--with violence if necessary.  I'm not going to wade into whether this is right or wrong, what I'm pointing out is that to enforce a quota that goes against the free market outcome requires the backing of strong organization or government willing to use physical force if necessary.  

Do you think Bitcoin Core is strong enough an organization to enforce a quota that goes against the natural free-market outcome?  With 85% of the network nodes, it is already fairly strong.  However, how will this organization physically force users not to defect to other implementations of Bitcoin that support larger block sizes to satisfy the demands of the market?

That's ignoring the trick under our sleeve  

We'll have a whole suite of financial instruments and software boasting agile privacy and instant and unlimited transactions all supported by wealth of the scarcest and most decentralized crypto-commodity on this face of "the market". Open source and trustless. All brought to us by the good folks at Blockstream.

I'm sensing you expect the good folks at Blockstream to code/review/test at a faster pace than they have been coding/reviewing/testing revisions to Bitcoin core.  If I sense your expectations correctly, on what do you base these expectations for vigor and rigor?

[Peter R]

Haha ok well time will tell.

Will I be seeing you in Montreal this coming weekend?

I was hoping theymos would give me his tickets he said he'd giveaway to btctalk users but I think he's afraid I'd attack Gavin  

That's too bad.  Another time then.

[brg444]

You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.

To quote davout:

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?

Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?

Are you saying we need centrally planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized?

YES!

Thank you for answering honestly and not beating around the bush.  It is my opinion that most of the small-block supporters feel the same way (i.e., that we need a centrally-planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you   ?

I don't believe in killing endangered animals; I think it's terrible, personally.  So I guess I am glad there is a centrally-planned limit for killing bears in the mountains around Vancouver, for instance.  But this isn't about what I believe…we're discussing what will actually happen.  A centrally-planned limit on big game hunting requires that the organization implementing the limit also act to enforce that limit--with violence if necessary.  I'm not going to wade into whether this is right or wrong, what I'm pointing out is that to enforce a quota that goes against the free market outcome requires the backing of strong organization or government willing to use physical force if necessary.  

Do you think Bitcoin Core is strong enough an organization to enforce a quota that goes against the natural free-market outcome?  With 85% of the network nodes, it is already fairly strong.  However, how will this organization physically force users not to defect to other implementations of Bitcoin that support larger block sizes to satisfy the demands of the market?

That's ignoring the trick under our sleeve  

We'll have a whole suite of financial instruments and software boasting agile privacy and instant and unlimited transactions all supported by wealth of the scarcest and most decentralized crypto-commodity on this face of "the market". Open source and trustless. All brought to us by the good folks at Blockstream.

I'm sensing you expect the good folks at Blockstream to code/review/test at a faster pace than they have been coding/reviewing/testing revisions to Bitcoin core.  If I sense your expectations correctly, on what do you base these expectations for vigor and rigor?

money 

plus they promise to hire and form more core devs. isn't that brilliant 

[iCEBREAKER]

There you go again, with your process objection meta.  I'll fetch your fainting couch because in an unprecedented outbreak of ill manners, several Bitcoiners (having uncharacteristically strong opinions) have expressed themselves vehemently!

Gavinista is a play on Sandinista, a Marxist variant of the Free Shit Army that came to power in a putsch comparable to Gavin's takeover bid.

As you sympathize with Death&Taxes' long-debunked Chicken Little panic over lack of more ~free tx, the Gavinista label applies.

I don't hate Frap.doc's guts, I'm just disappointed (albeit amused) he wound up on the wrong side of history but is too stubborn to admit being wrong.

As we consider the friendships and fortunes destroyed by the Bitcoin Civil War, let's remember it was Hearn who decided it best to force the governance issue Right Fucking Now, using overhyped block size FUD to incite the mob against their superiors, for the benefit of his junta.

As for "primate shit-slinging," yes we are going to rub the Gavinistas' faces in the steaming pile of poo XT represents.  There are consequences when you attack (with fully malicious intent) a multi-year multi-billion-dollar socioeconomic consensus and quickly destroy 20% of its market value.

These examples of what happens when you attack Bitcoin need to be publicized, so that next time someone considers attacking Bitcoin with their vanity fork, they may account for such precedents in their decision.

Clearly my attempt to cajole some kind of topical response out of you failed.  It's clear that you're against XT, and have grievances with how the whole project was brought about. You might use more pointed terms, I suppose.

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

XT is a dead (stillborn) altcoin, not a topic fit for serious discussion beyond milking the bitter-clinger XTurd lolcows for comedic/instructive value.

Bitcoin began as a cheap payment network, but its destiny is gradual transition via marginalism to expensive (relative to ~free) high-value settlements and storage of value.  IOW, as blocks fill up, Layer 2 (payments) must be separated from Layer 1 (settlements) if Bitcoin is to scale rather than simply bloat until something breaks.

You edited out my topical response, leaving only the introductory color commentary.  I'll replace it (in bold), so everyone can admire your skill at misleading the public, which is after all the favorite activity of Gavinistas everywhere.   

Bitcoin tx fees must be sufficient to replace declining block subsidies.  That can only happen with full blocks, as davout demonstates in BIP000.

Tx fees should be "expensive" in that sense, and eventually should be much higher than the sub-trivial currently ~free subsidized prices.

Full nodes must be "cheap-to-use" so ~everyone has the option to 1) be their own financial institution and 2) contribute to a diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network (especially during the inevitable crackdown(s) by the desperate dying Fiat Empire).

Mass adoption by currently enfranchised/banked consumers (who can just use their iphone paypal app instead) is not nearly as important as System D penetration.  As Justus famously declared, "only black markets matter; if you aren't helping build them you are wasting your time."

All of the above considerations' practical degrees of freedom are constrained by Nash's NSA Conjecture:

Why is Nash’s “NSA” Conjecture Significant?

The relevance and significance here is that from the view I have described there is a conjecture that although bitcoin’s core principles THEORETICALLY can be changed, that the actuality of it is they cannot.

Ossification at 1MB (and 21e6 coins, and 10 minute blocks, and SHA256 PoW) is a feature, not a bug.   

[iCEBREAKER]

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Myself I'd be interested to know why you apparently feel mass adoption of retail consumer is the only way leading to success for Bitcoin?

You do understand we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up?

We are at the historic crossroads predicted by Chaum, a binary choice between unprecedented freedom and eternal authoritarianism.

I don't think the XTurds in thrall to Gavin are capable of understanding we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up.  That limitation is fully intentional:

Aldous Huxley, speaking at U.C. Berkeley in 1962, outlines his vision for the ‘ultimate revolution’, a scientific dictatorship where people will be conditioned to enjoy their servitude, and will pose little opposition to the ‘ruling oligarchy’, as he puts it. He also takes a moment to compare his book, “Brave New World,” to George Orwell’s “1984” and considers the technique in the latter too outdated for actual implementation.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears…they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

[iCEBREAKER]

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Bravo!  That is an excellent corollary to davout's maxim:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

[iCEBREAKER]

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)

The Holy Whitepaper does not distinguish between Bitcoin-the-Coin (which with time tends towards suitability for high value settlements and wealth storage) and bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology (which manifests as myriad altcoins far more appropriate for small casual transactions).

Such implementation details are beyond the narrow (high-level protocol architecture) scope of the Holy Whitepaper, as are forward looking statements regarding Layer 2 (which stands to obviate and moot the entire retail payment rail debate).

[iCEBREAKER]

According to the Bitcoin white paper, it was designed for "small casual transactions" that are too costly with conventional trust-based online payment methods (e.g., Visa, Paypal, etc.)

Man... that's like your own interpretation. Have you considered that Satoshi's proposition was to create a trustless layer from which services enabling these transactions could be created?

I really don't see how you're still trying to fight for including all of the world's transaction on the blockchain when there is consensus among pretty much all the qualified engineers (that would include Gavin although I'm increasingly doubtful about his qualifications) that a POW system is simply not able to efficiently service this type of load/transactions.

You and cypherdoc's crew are really alone in your own little world and it's quite worrying to see you entertain this cargo cult

I like people (such as Luke-jr) who intentionally choose to reside in elaborately constructed private worlds of Baroque fantasy.  At least they aren't boring!   

But Gavinistas aren't independent thinkers, so they suck.  All they do is tediously rationalize their externally implanted desire for a Magical UniCoin capable of piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset.

Even non-specialists can understand the logic of trickle-down honesty best explained by davout and (more recently) Holliday:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".  -davout

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The possibility of censorship-proof transactions by itself will cut down on censorship because it will be seen as futile.

Peter R and Frap.doc's problem is Dunning-Kruger.  They have outsmarted themselves, in pursuit of (preferred but incorrect) conclusions within domains where they mistakenly consider themselves experts.

Oh well...their ensuing cognitive dissonance, as XT/101 burns on the ash heap of history, is at least a source of entertaining lulz and cautionary precedent.   

[iCEBREAKER]

[casuistic sophistry]

The Gavinista assclown Peter R hypothesized a daemon who could kill Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new Bitcoin implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.

 

_#R3KT

[iCEBREAKER]

Haha ok well time will tell.

Will I be seeing you in Montreal this coming weekend?

I was hoping theymos would give me his tickets he said he'd giveaway to btctalk users but I think he's afraid I'd attack Gavin  

Gavin is going as Hearn's "proxy" so I'm afraid he'll just have to put up with being the object of some well-deserved beatings.   

Just kidding, it's a good thing Hearn@sigint.google.mil isn't attending, because (according to laanwj) everything he touches turns into an energy draining toxic cesspool of controversy which detracts from getting day-to-day work done.

[tvbcof]

Haha ok well time will tell.

Will I be seeing you in Montreal this coming weekend?

I was hoping theymos would give me his tickets he said he'd giveaway to btctalk users but I think he's afraid I'd attack Gavin  

Gavin is going as Hearn's "proxy" so I'm afraid he'll just have to put up with being the object of some well-deserved beatings.   

Just kidding, it's a good thing Hearn@sigint.google.mil isn't attending, because (according to laanwj) everything he touches turns into an energy draining toxic cesspool of controversy which detracts from getting day-to-day work done.

It will be interesting to find out how durable Gavin's sinecure at MIT will be given the dismal failure of the XT/BIP101 attack and his part in it.

[iCEBREAKER]

It will be interesting to find out how durable Gavin's sinecure at MIT will be given the dismal failure of the XT/BIP101 attack and his part in it.

Academic eggheads like Galvin wear real-world failures as badges of honor.

MIT will probably give him a raise.   

Meanwhile, /r/bitcoinxt is complaining to itself about how much it sucks!

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jutr8/meta_lets_talk_about_bots_on_this_subreddit/

the repetition is getting a little ridiculous, and frankly, unless it's a link to a site, then it simply siphons the user back to the sub that we are actively trying to avoid.

 

You cannot claim there is no brigading of /r/bitcoin when your FP is full of direct links to posts there and even individual comments there. That practice will end up getting attention from the admins.

For XT (as a community) to have a bit more credibility between those of us who are firmly in the Core side of things right now, this would be one good step. Then this wouldn't be an even bigger circlejerk that other related subs.

Admin attention to XT brigading would be most welcome.  Having to click through the downvotes to see Adam and gmax's comments is annoying [/firstworldproblem].

[wxa7115]

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Myself I'd be interested to know why you apparently feel mass adoption of retail consumer is the only way leading to success for Bitcoin?

You do understand we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up?

We are at the historic crossroads predicted by Chaum, a binary choice between unprecedented freedom and eternal authoritarianism.

I don't think the XTurds in thrall to Gavin are capable of understanding we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up.  That limitation is fully intentional:

Aldous Huxley, speaking at U.C. Berkeley in 1962, outlines his vision for the ‘ultimate revolution’, a scientific dictatorship where people will be conditioned to enjoy their servitude, and will pose little opposition to the ‘ruling oligarchy’, as he puts it. He also takes a moment to compare his book, “Brave New World,” to George Orwell’s “1984” and considers the technique in the latter too outdated for actual implementation.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears…they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

About that last quote, I haven’t read Huxley “Brave New World” but, I have read 1984 and it’s a brutal book, is BNW really that bad?

[iCEBREAKER]

May I ask where you stand on the underlying issue of what Bitcoin's design goal should be? Do you have an opinion on whether it (on-chain transactions) should be an expensive-to-use settlement network or a cheap-to-use payment network? Personally I feel the latter case - direct mass adoption - would be better if it can be technically supported, which I'm not sure about. If mass adoption is not possible I'm left doubting a settlement network alone is viable. That's my current feel on the matter, I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Myself I'd be interested to know why you apparently feel mass adoption of retail consumer is the only way leading to success for Bitcoin?

You do understand we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up?

We are at the historic crossroads predicted by Chaum, a binary choice between unprecedented freedom and eternal authoritarianism.

I don't think the XTurds in thrall to Gavin are capable of understanding we're trying to build an economy and not the next big start-up.  That limitation is fully intentional:

Aldous Huxley, speaking at U.C. Berkeley in 1962, outlines his vision for the ‘ultimate revolution’, a scientific dictatorship where people will be conditioned to enjoy their servitude, and will pose little opposition to the ‘ruling oligarchy’, as he puts it. He also takes a moment to compare his book, “Brave New World,” to George Orwell’s “1984” and considers the technique in the latter too outdated for actual implementation.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears…they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

About that last quote, I haven’t read Huxley “Brave New World” but, I have read 1984 and it’s a brutal book, is BNW really that bad?

1984 is just heavy-handed satire.  BNW is worse.

More dreadful than Orwell's "boot stamping on a human face - forever" is Huxley's world where humans no longer require facial boot stampings to keep them inline, because they are by nature and nurture ideal slaves.

[Zarathustra]

[casuistic sophistry]

The Gavinista assclown Peter R hypothesized a daemon who could kill Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new Bitcoin implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.

 

_#R3KT

The warriors with their vulgar language can never win this competition. Next year we will have big blocks.
You are fighting XT while several solutions to replace core are presented. Keep fighting your proxy war!

[iCEBREAKER]

[casuistic sophistry]

The Gavinista assclown Peter R hypothesized a daemon who could kill Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new Bitcoin implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.

The warriors with their vulgar language can never win this competition. Next year we will have big blocks.
You are fighting XT while several solutions to replace core are presented. Keep fighting your proxy war!

Silly n00b, BIPs don't "replace core" and XT is dead, so we are done fighting it (the rest is just milking lolcows for comedy).

Since when is "assclown" vulgar?  It just means a clown who acts like an ass (ie a donkey).

Your term "cripplecoin" is far more vulgar and offensive, as it stigmatizes the disabled (eg Hal Finney) with a dehumanizing slur.

[rebuilder]

Bitcoin began as a cheap payment network, but its destiny is gradual transition via marginalism to expensive (relative to ~free) high-value settlements and storage of value.  IOW, as blocks fill up, Layer 2 (payments) must be separated from Layer 1 (settlements) if Bitcoin is to scale rather than simply bloat until something breaks.

You edited out my topical response, leaving only the introductory color commentary.  I'll replace it (in bold), so everyone can admire your skill at misleading the public, which is after all the favorite activity of Gavinistas everywhere.   

Bitcoin tx fees must be sufficient to replace declining block subsidies.  That can only happen with full blocks, as davout demonstates in BIP000.

Tx fees should be "expensive" in that sense, and eventually should be much higher than the sub-trivial currently ~free subsidized prices.

Full nodes must be "cheap-to-use" so ~everyone has the option to 1) be their own financial institution and 2) contribute to a diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network (especially during the inevitable crackdown(s) by the desperate dying Fiat Empire).

Mass adoption by currently enfranchised/banked consumers (who can just use their iphone paypal app instead) is not nearly as important as System D penetration.  As Justus famously declared, "only black markets matter; if you aren't helping build them you are wasting your time."

All of the above considerations' practical degrees of freedom are constrained by Nash's NSA Conjecture:

Why is Nash’s “NSA” Conjecture Significant?

The relevance and significance here is that from the view I have described there is a conjecture that although bitcoin’s core principles THEORETICALLY can be changed, that the actuality of it is they cannot.

Ossification at 1MB (and 21e6 coins, and 10 minute blocks, and SHA256 PoW) is a feature, not a bug.   

I don't think we really have different design goals in mind here. I agree that there's no point to Bitcoin without censorship-resistance.

Some points:

Blocksize vs. miner rewards. I don't see the link here as strongly as you do. It seems to me it's demand that will drive miner fees, not supply, whatever the blocksize. With an infinite maximum blocksize, anyone mining for profit would simply set their fee requirement to the whatever level they see fit. The differences between full blocks enforced by design and blocks with room to spare seem to me to be:

- resource usage, with the accompanying repercussions. To me, Blockchain bloat is more of an issue than the resources it takes to transmit a single block.
-transaction rate, obviously. Directly related to maximum potential userbase for direct on-chain transactions. Full blocks sets an arbitrary cap on this, and 1 mb was chosen pretty much at random.
-full blocks push out miners not motivated by direct profit. Potentially, those with large stakes in BTC success might see fit to mine even at a loss to secure the network, allowing for a larger amount of transactions. We won't know if there's no space for those transactions.

Total miner fees absent subsidies = (average TX fee) * (# of TX), right?

Full blocks caps # of TX in hopes the fee will rise. Non-full blocks hopes number of #TX will rise so fee doesn't have to.
I don't think you can say offhand that one of these clearly cannot happen.

Incidentally, and this is a bit of a digression but it worries me:
Absent block subsidies, Total miner fees = cost to secure network.

Cost to secure network / x =  cost to profitably attack network.

What is the optimal "x" for network security? How much should we be spending on securing the network? Currently the cost is pretty high thanks to the block subsidy. I'll admit to illiteracy here, an estimate for optimal network maintenance cost as % of market cap must have been hashed out at some point. I don't think aiming for current levels is desirable. Actually, if it turns out the security cost can't be lowered I think I'll have to take a much dimmer view of Bitcoin's prospects.

As for why I think mass adoption is necessary,  I should probably qualify that a bit. I think it's important that the network not consolidate into the hands of a few large players very early on. I'd prefer it never did but that's likely a pipe dream.  Currently, the hypothetical big players of crypto in the future are still small, because they require crypto to build the businesses that will make them big. Big players right now, in turn, are not likely to do anything very interesting at all with crypto, because they're already successful even without it, and are too entrenched in the financial system to risk upsetting it. So in a nutshell, my worry is that capping userbase too low too early will lead to a situation where the only parties with the clout to use the system are those with no interest in running it.

Finally, 2nd layer transactions - in principle I have no problem with these, it's the accompanying reduction in trust that worries me. Not trustworthiness when it comes to single transactions, I worry about cascading failures. The risk would depend on the particular off-chain solution used, but overall I worry that for convenience's sake, pushin most users off the blockchain will result in them choosing convenient, centralized options. I worry we'll end up with most users of crypto actually transacting in IOUs or other nontransparent assets. I worry about linchpins in such systems - what if mt gox had been the Paypal of BTC?

With on-chain transactions, you can prove holdings. It's not done enough but at least it can be done. IMO we need to increase the real trustworthiness of payments in BTC, not decrease them. Otherwise we risk cascading defaults, with people accepting as payment, and passing on again, assets whose backing they're not able to assess.

Solve that for off-chain transactions, I'm all for them. However then I'd ask what we need Bitcoin for if this problem can be solved for a lower resource cost.

[Zarathustra]

[casuistic sophistry]

The Gavinista assclown Peter R hypothesized a daemon who could kill Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new Bitcoin implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.

The warriors with their vulgar language can never win this competition. Next year we will have big blocks.
You are fighting XT while several solutions to replace core are presented. Keep fighting your proxy war!

Silly n00b, BIPs don't "replace core" and XT is dead, so we are done fighting it (the rest is just milking lolcows for comedy).

q.e.d.

You are not done with it. You keep fighting the proxy war against XT because you fear that you'll get big blocks next year.
Whether it will be this or that implementation(s) is not relevant. XT just triggered the turning tide.

[iCEBREAKER]

The Gavinista assclown Peter R hypothesized a daemon who could kill Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new Bitcoin implementations to grow from its fertile ashes.

The warriors with their vulgar language can never win this competition. Next year we will have big blocks.
You are fighting XT while several solutions to replace core are presented. Keep fighting your proxy war!

Silly n00b, BIPs don't "replace core" and XT is dead, so we are done fighting it (the rest is just milking lolcows for comedy).

Since when is "assclown" vulgar?  It just means a clown who acts like an ass (ie a donkey).

Your term "cripplecoin" is far more vulgar and offensive, as it stigmatizes the disabled (eg Hal Finney) with a dehumanizing slur.

You are not done with it. You keep fighting the proxy war against XT because you fear that you'll get big blocks next year.
Whether it will be this or that implementation(s) is not relevant. XT just triggered the turning tide.

XT is making negative progress.  It has regressed from the "fight you" stage back to the previous "laugh at you" phase.   

I note you have no response to being called out for presuming to scold my non-obscene language as "vulgar" while simultaneously using the highly offensive term "cripplecoin."

You were smart to drop that thread of the conversation; it wasn't making you look very authoritative or wise (to put it nicely).