BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[ChetnotAtkins]

No, not all developers who oppose XT are employed by Blockstream. The choice you sublty try to place users in is created by your manipulative phrasing.

So please tell us, why are you spreading lies? What is your motive to encourage XT by telling blatant lies?

[LiteCoinGuy]

A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple. (and this is very dangerous for bitcoin)

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into Blockstream on the false assumption that block sizes would never be raised. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (money making) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining unnecessarily low.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream, and the lack of consensus of the developers is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" who have a financial interest in keeping the blocks low are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not Gavin and Hearn.

A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change well before it becomes an issue to avoid the kinds of consequences that would cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses.

Then XT. Following Satoshis vision.

[knight22]

Did Satoshi followed Gavin when Cia came on-board?

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

[Carlton Banks]

Did Satoshi followed Gavin when Cia came on-board?

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

Well, I don't know about "on-board". But the CIA have a tendency to, well, kill people that espouse world changing views that they dislike. Turns out Gavin didn't offend them as such.

[knight22]

Did Satoshi followed Gavin when Cia came on-board?

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

Well, I don't know about "on-board". But the CIA have a tendency to, well, kill people that espouse world changing views that they dislike. Turns out Gavin didn't offend them as such.

Probably because killing him wouldn't solves any of their problems over a decentralized system. No?

[turvarya]

Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor.

First of all, I don't agree with OP. There are more choices. But, even if you make a good point, this is the worst axiom you could choose. You have to proof(or make a logical argument, if you prefer that terminology) , that there is code, that makes it hard to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. An axiom should be something, that can't be proven, not something, you are just too lazy to proof.
Also attacking an axiom is nothing that is somehow forbidden(otherwise I could just take absurd axioms like "the sky is red") as a "logician" you should know that.

[BNO]

Quote from: sardokan on Today at 03:12:27 PM
Did Satoshi followed Gavin when Cia came on-board?

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

This is so typicall for people opposing Bitcoin XT just fear mongering with no substance. Most of the time its as bad as Fox news...

The Cia asked if he would do an 2 hour presentation about bitcoin to them. You might like it or not but government agencies are curious (I don't like it by the way). But this has nothing to do with andresen. Every other person who would have been in his position as core lead would have gotten the same call. And then would the have reacted in the same perfect way he did? He was the one who made publicly known - before the presentation. He even made the presentation available in the Internet. He did this to prevent conspiracy theories...

Just ask yourself: If he was a cia agent with a secret agenda would he then tell everybody that they invited him for a 2 hour presentation that he explains bitcoin to them?

It was just the smart move to deal with a difficult situation: not even holding the presentation would give the impression that Bitcoin has to hide something and would give agencies justification to do something against it. On the other side you don't want to be in bed with them. So he did it just perfect: go there tell them 2 hours long that its a decentralized peer2peer network and so on, but do not cooperate in any way with them and go home. Problem solved.

By the way Bitcoin is open source so what should be hidden in it?

Most people against XT are just taking some stupid stuff and try to frame persons or XT just with no substance its really like Fox news... 75% of the code of Bitcoin has been rewritten over time (ironically mostly by andresen himself), but now he asks for an open debate and public vote on a really minimal change (1MB to 8MB) and that is the incarnation of the devil...

[Carlton Banks]

Did Satoshi followed Gavin when Cia came on-board?

Presenting bitcoin to the CIA makes you on board? How so?

Well, I don't know about "on-board". But the CIA have a tendency to, well, kill people that espouse world changing views that they dislike. Turns out Gavin didn't offend them as such.

Probably because killing him wouldn't solves any of their problems over a decentralized system. No?

If they didn't want to promote Gavin's system, then inviting him to present on it seems like an unlikely move. Better to choose a computer scientist they could rely on to present the views they wish to be associated with. The organisation (and it's counterparts) is essentially a public relations firm with an undeclared mission statement (propagandising citizens) and extraordinary resources. They don't make mistakes like that, not when they have the opportunity to prepare.

[BitUsher]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

This is misleading... most developers are in favor of increasing the blocksize above 1MB, They just want to have more realistic and conservative approaches that are thoroughly tested first.

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/634475022212460545

[LiteCoinGuy]

but they are talking about it since 2 years. a decision has to be made in the next 3-4 months.

and BIP 103 is a joke in my view...2MB blocks in 2021 

[Carlton Banks]

but they are talking about it since 2 years. a decision has to be made in the next 3-4 months.

and BIP 103 is a joke in my view...2MB blocks in 2021 

If that's your logic, then why aren't you arguing for even bigger blocks? If bigger automatically equals better, why not pick infinity as the limit?

[BitUsher]

but they are talking about it since 2 years. a decision has to be made in the next 3-4 months.

and BIP 103 is a joke in my view...2MB blocks in 2021 

There has been a lot of work done to prepare for availability in the last 2 years that already has been implemented.

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

[Carlton Banks]

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

Indeed. I wonder who will be in favour of running experiments on the various proposed solutions? It seems like the XT plan is to run an experimental solution on the live network. Where is Mike and Gavin's testbed data?

[LiteCoinGuy]

but they are talking about it since 2 years. a decision has to be made in the next 3-4 months.

and BIP 103 is a joke in my view...2MB blocks in 2021  

There has been a lot of work done to prepare for availability in the last 2 years that already has been implemented.

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

100%. i would like to stay with core if this is possible.


@ Carlton

blocks size should be increased with demand / technical progress.

[Carlton Banks]

@ Carlton

blocks size should be increased with demand / technical progress.

I think you might be a little confused then. Schedules cannot determine demand, that's the opposite of dynamic response. You clearly don't favour either BIP 101 or XT, if demand is involved in your preferred solution.

[hdbuck]

[knight22]

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

Indeed. I wonder who will be in favour of running experiments on the various proposed solutions? It seems like the XT plan is to run an experimental solution on the live network. Where is Mike and Gavin's testbed data?

As far as I'm concerned bitcoin is still an experiment in a lot of levels. XT is showing just this from a social and free market level.

[Carlton Banks]

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

Indeed. I wonder who will be in favour of running experiments on the various proposed solutions? It seems like the XT plan is to run an experimental solution on the live network. Where is Mike and Gavin's testbed data?

As far as I'm concerned bitcoin is still an experiment in a lot of levels. XT is showing just this from a social and free market level.

That's not a very inspired reply. Was Satoshi going to kick the system off by referring to it as the replacement financial system? There will be no discernible stage at which bitcoin can be objectively determined "not an experiment anymore", and it should be clear to anyone who is attempting to hold an honest debate that the question is entirely subjective, and could be argued about ad infinitum.

You did think that through before you put fingers to keyboard just now, didn't you? You are trying to have an honest debate, aren't you? Because the alternative possibilities also don't look so good for you. Either you didn't think it through, or you're being dishonest, or you're just trying to score any cheap points you can manage. Man up, please.

[knight22]

Do you at least support testing BIP 101 on a testnet as Peter Todd has been requesting for some time?

Indeed. I wonder who will be in favour of running experiments on the various proposed solutions? It seems like the XT plan is to run an experimental solution on the live network. Where is Mike and Gavin's testbed data?

As far as I'm concerned bitcoin is still an experiment in a lot of levels. XT is showing just this from a social and free market level.

That's not a very inspired reply. Was Satoshi going to kick the system off by referring to it as the replacement financial system? There will be no discernible stage at which bitcoin can be objectively determined "not an experiment anymore", and it should be clear to anyone who is attempting to hold an honest debate that the question is entirely subjective, and could be argued about ad infinitum.

Indeed the "experimental phase" is somehow subjective but this situation was absolutely inevitable from the whole beginning as a SOCIAL experiment as the system grows and views are diverging. We are now crossing this point and the outcome (no matter which one) will clear out a lot of ambiguities. You should try to accept this instead fighting the inevitable.

You did think that through before you put fingers to keyboard just now, didn't you? You are trying to have an honest debate, aren't you? Because the alternative possibilities also don't look so good for you. Either you didn't think it through, or you're being dishonest, or you're just trying to score any cheap points you can manage. Man up, please.

I'm not the one being emotionally attached to either Core or XT. So why would I be dishonest? What would be my motives?

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not the one being emotionally attached to either Core or XT. So why would I be dishonest? What would be my motives?

I think you might be mistaking impassioned defence as emotional attachment, and your suggestion that caring about the outcome equates to dishonesty is in itself dishonest. not really interested in your motives, or in your discourse, you've proven to me you're worth ignoring