The biggest XT shills and their true motives

[GODLIKE]

The fun thing is, when XT will fail, there will be a sudden bump back to Bitcoin that could invite dubious investors 

[knight22]

The fun thing is, when XT will fail, there will be a sudden bump back to Bitcoin that could invite dubious investors 

XT can be around for a loooooong time before going bust you know?

[Hakkane]

The fun thing is, when XT will fail, there will be a sudden bump back to Bitcoin that could invite dubious investors 

XT can be around for a loooooong time before going bust you know?

Besides, even if the adoption is slow and takes months or years, there is no reason for XT adopters to return to the core code or mining pools: both clients use the same blockchain and the same Bitcoin. It makes no difference right now.

Personally I don't think core devs will accept BIP101 or a block size increase, so probably when the 1MB limit is reached (and we are close, some blocks are 900kb right now) and increased fees become necessary, many people will adopt XT immediately.

[knight22]

The fun thing is, when XT will fail, there will be a sudden bump back to Bitcoin that could invite dubious investors 

XT can be around for a loooooong time before going bust you know?

Besides, even if the adoption is slow and takes months or years, there is no reason for XT adopters to return to the core code or mining pools: both clients use the same blockchain and the same Bitcoin. It makes no difference right now.

Personally I don't think core devs will accept BIP101 or a block size increase, so probably when the 1MB limit is reached (and we are close, some blocks are 900kb right now) and increased fees become necessary, many people will adopt XT immediately.

In addition, XT guarantees its users to be on the longuest chain no matter the outcome. Core does not. 

[tvbcof]

In addition, XT guarantees its users to be on the longuest chain no matter the outcome. Core does not. 

The 'longest chain' is a misnomer.  The correct terminology is 'longest valid chain'.  Bloatblocks are invalid to Core so a chain which contains any is simply ignored.

[ChetnotAtkins]

Updated: Cryddit

[meono]

Proud to be in this list.

This list will be the list of heroes. I hope these stupid XT bashers will stick around

[quakefiend420]

So, now you made a whole thread about personal attacking people.

That makes me mad, since I am not on that list. I really put a lot of effort here in the last few days. Just look at my posting history. I think, I deserve to be on that list.

Same here.  Care to speculate on my motives, OP?

[tupelo]

Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.

This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.

This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.

Reddit it worse! Im shaddowbanned by IP from /r/bitocoin.  It's such a circle jerk over there

[BitProdigy]

meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts
sAt0sHiFanClub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT
Cryddit - altcoin developer; profits from alienating Bitcoin's userbase towards alternative crypto currencies
BitProdigy - is invested in Bitcoin; believes that the block size must be increased for the good of bitcoin; wants bitcoin to succeed and be mass adopted; thinks XT is the best current solution and so supports it until a practical alternative arrises such as increasing the block size on Core; in which case he would support Core and no longer support XT; but for now he's a XT shill which is his evil plan to support bitcoin by destroying it somehow; all I know is whoever supports XT is evil and wants to destroy Bitcoin so even though his reasoning for supporting XT is because he wants Bitcoin to succeed and feels that XT is the best way currently proposed for that to happen, still he must want to destroy bitcoin because by default supporting XT means you want to destroy bitcoin as a direct result of the laws of physics; therefore he is evil and is on the wall of shame

[ChetnotAtkins]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

[BitProdigy]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

[Biomech]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.

It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.

There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.

[meono]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.

It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.

There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.

I cant believe you agree to this nonsense. Did you even bother checking my posts to see if it fits the OP's thought?

I stood up against misleading info, FUD and just pure lies from turtlehuricane. Go to the FUD thread made by turtlehuricane regarding bitcoinXT "blacklist" coins, and read for yourself.

The OP also is hypocrite. He asked core devs to block malicious nodes just a month ago. But joint Turtlehuricance's to bash Mike for "blacklisting" eventhough they're both wrong, have no clues what the codes do, and still make bogus claim.

[Sourgummies]

Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.

[Biomech]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.

It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.

There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.

I cant believe you agree to this nonsense. Did you even bother checking my posts to see if it fits the OP's thought?

I stood up against misleading info, FUD and just pure lies from turtlehuricane. Go to the FUD thread made by turtlehuricane regarding bitcoinXT "blacklist" coins, and read for yourself.

The OP also is hypocrite. He asked core devs to block malicious nodes just a month ago. But joint Turtlehuricance's to bash Mike for "blacklisting" eventhough they're both wrong, have no clues what the codes do, and still make bogus claim.

Nah, I don't know any of the people he named. I meant it more generically. I should have clarified that. The personal attacks are pointless. I agree that it should be discussed, and not in the manner it has been. This thread seemed like it would attract attention.

[meono]

BitProdigy, this list is solely about shills with obvious alterior motives (e.g. altcoin investment, shorting BTC, etc.). And I think even if you support XT it is interesting to see just how many dubious characters also have an agenda that might not even be directly related to XT but to the damage of a hardfork. These people would probably support any other hard forking proposal should it gain public traction.

While I think it is outrageous that somebody sane could even think about supporting XT, I am also a proponent of reasonable discussion and you present your arguments in a respectable way.

The only real benefit of this XT fiasco could be the increased need for core devs to consider increasing the blocksize (in a sensible fashion, not the XT way) and the public realisation of having some core devs in the same company.
But overlooking potentially threating code segments, risking the damage of a hardfork, giving control of the code base to just two people and risking to alianate a large part of Bitcoin's userbase all make supporting XT highly questionable.

rumor has it I admitted to being a shill for XT on a different thread, doesn't that earn me a spot on your list?

P.S. I agree with what you say about the "real benefit" of this XT debacle.

I chose to participate in this thread because I agree with the OP's thought that some people, and some of them rather powerful in the crypto sphere, are deliberately stifling debate. As to whether XT is a good idea, I'm solidly on the fence. Increasing the block size is definitely a good idea. Or at least one possible way to increase tx throughput. Another would be shorter block times with an appropriately smaller block reward to maintain the pace of production while increasing the speed of transactions.

It's not so much that one side is better than the other. The Bitcoin Foundation and core developers have shown a great deal of animosity towards new ideas, and have frankly been far too cooperative with the very people that stand to lose the most if bitcoin does become mainstream. OTOH, forcing the issue like this is pretty much like playing russian roulette with an autoloader.

There are things I like about the XT proposal. It's release, as it was done, is just plain irresponsible. Those that claim otherwise in a reasonable manner, and respond in such a manner when called to account, I've got no problem with. Those who respond with overt censorship, ad-hominem attacks, histrionics, etc clearly do not believe in the merits of their argument. But they believe in something unseen, or else they'd let the thing stand or fall on it's merits.

I cant believe you agree to this nonsense. Did you even bother checking my posts to see if it fits the OP's thought?

I stood up against misleading info, FUD and just pure lies from turtlehuricane. Go to the FUD thread made by turtlehuricane regarding bitcoinXT "blacklist" coins, and read for yourself.

The OP also is hypocrite. He asked core devs to block malicious nodes just a month ago. But joint Turtlehuricance's to bash Mike for "blacklisting" eventhough they're both wrong, have no clues what the codes do, and still make bogus claim.

Nah, I don't know any of the people he named. I meant it more generically. I should have clarified that. The personal attacks are pointless. I agree that it should be discussed, and not in the manner it has been. This thread seemed like it would attract attention.

Because thats the whole point of this thread, you dont figure it out by the tittle?

[Biomech]

Nah, I don't know any of the people he named. I meant it more generically. I should have clarified that. The personal attacks are pointless. I agree that it should be discussed, and not in the manner it has been. This thread seemed like it would attract attention.

Because thats the whole point of this thread, you dont figure it out by the tittle?

Yes.

It seems to me that the debate needs a bit of a jolt, because frankly, it's largely a bunch of horseshit. Both in the XT camp and the Core camp. Block sizes need to increase, but it don't need to happen RIGHT NOW. That being said, the core devs have been dragging their feet, and the Bitcoin Foundation would be a joke if it were funny. They all poo-pooh the altcoins, but the simple fact is that alts address most, if not all, of the technical deficiencies of Bitcoin. If the core team does NOT stop resting on first mover advantage and actually step up their game, BTC will be remembered as the one that started it all. Historically.

That being said, forcing the issue in this manner is purely political. Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen should have known better. I'm pretty sure Mike did know better. To further exacerbate a bad situation, posts are being deleted left and right on reddit, to the point that even I notice. I don't go on reddit much because I think it's general interface was designed to drive business elsewhere. Anywhere else, frankly. But with both sides willing to use censorship and lies regarding the other, I smell fish. Thus a polemic thread seems a good place to catch the fallout. It is an unfortunate truth that headlines are never accurate, but they shape opinion and draw attention.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.

This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.

I think you really need to have a look at /r/buttcoin on reddit.  When you've finished having a chuftie of that, come back and we can talk.