BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[knight22]

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

What makes you so impassioned about Core itself and what makes you think the Core devs will always pursue your own goal? What makes you think bitcoin has been made for you and not the collective? And if bitcoin has been made for the collective than why being so against it to have a choice? If you believe the economic incentive works as it should be and we are no longer in an experimental phase then you should no worry that the incentive will work out just fine for the collective to come up with a final comprise and move forward. Don't you think?

[Krona Rev]

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.

Attacking an axiom is definitely not forbidden. It's the only reasonable way to reject the conclusion of a correct argument. That's why I said:

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You seem to have picked "some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor" as an axiom to question. I can first say that I'm aware that the announced intention of the code is to counter a DDOS attack. I can even concede that is the reason for the code and that nothing nefarious is intended. (I don't know, of course.) Nevertheless, it's clear that under some conditions nodes will begin dropping connections to nodes behind Tor. This will make it difficult to run Bitcoin behind Tor, at least during those times. In the axiom I used the phrase "safely behind Tor," but I haven't justified "safely." I don't really need to since my original argument wouldn't depend on "safely." I could weaken the axiom by dropping "safely" and still make an argument concluding XT should be opposed. Nevertheless, it seems that if a user running Bitcoin XT behind Tor isn't careful, the code might make certain calls that reveal the user's true IP. That's how I would justify "safely" if it became necessary.

... as a "logician" you should know that.

I hope the scare quotes aren't a sign of logophobia. I mean, it's the 21st century. We're here. We're clear. Get used to it.

Edit: The last line was just for fun. I thought I made up the word "logophobia" meaning "fear of logic." It turns out "logophobia" is already a word that means "fear of words." So it turns out it doesn't even make sense.

[BNO]

Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

[gentlemand]

Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

That's written by the geezer who created XT. Not the most balanced of correspondents.

[Carlton Banks]

Ars Technica reveals the cleary shady motivations of people AGAINST XT:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/08/op-ed-why-is-bitcoin-forking/

What, the same Arstechnica that were found to be accepting bribes from industry for favourable coverage last year? That'll be them.

[slaveforanunnak1]

[BNO]

This articles argues with satoshis vision for bitcoin and carefully talks about the arguments of opponents of XT. Do you have to say something to the arguments presented in it, or is it just the typical "framing game" as fox news...

[hdbuck]

Lmao awsome!!! Im saving this one! For posterity prosperity.

[BitProdigy]

I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous.

How fortunate that a real life logician should appear! I look forward to a very PRECISE and CLEAR discourse! Indeed, I am willing to have a structured debate on Debate.org which allows voting on the winner and constrains the discussion between the two parties. Let me know if you like the idea.

I feel doing nothing about the block size limit is very dangerous for Bitcoin. If nothing else, Bitcoin XT is forcing us to have this hard discussion before the problem becomes real and derails Bitcoin from the path of mass adoption.

It seems clear to me that the reason "a significant portion of the community [is] against it" is because there is not a consensus among the developers. And it seems clear to me that the reason that there is not a consensus among the developers is because there are many developers who are heavily invested in BlockStream and other such solutions to the problem and thus have large financial incentive to appose a block size increase which would essentially undermine the work they have been doing as a solution to the scalability issue of a 1 MB block limit. I am not opposed to their solutions, I am opposed to the notion that we should depend ONLY on these solutions and not also increase the block size. I think we should do both and all.

I am in agreement with you that the threat of a fork with a significant portion of the community against it is dangerous, and I don't want to see bitcoin split into two different chains, that is the LAST thing I want. But as you see the problem as the proposal by Gavin and Hearn, I see the problem as the developers who dogmatically oppose block size increase because they are financially incentivized to keep the 1 MB block limit.

It is like how cops actually require crime, though you'd think their goal should be to eliminate crime. In the same way the developers of BlockStream require a low block size, though you'd think they'd support the elimination of the block size problem. If we had consensus with the developers, we would not have this large portion of the community that opposes it so religiously.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?

I am not against BlockStream. I am fine with their idea. I think we should increase the block size, and I think we should also have BlockStream and Lightening and other innovations. Those of us who want to increase the Blocksize are not saying we should not have Blockstream, but those of you who want Blockstream are saying we should not have a block size increase. It is you who are doing the censoring.

I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. 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. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

In order for me to accept these axioms I require more information. What about XT exactly "makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor"? Why is it vital that it can be safely run behind Tor? (is this the core argument against XT?)

I agree that if "it is vital" that Bitcoin can be safely run behind Tor, and Bitcoin XT "makes running behind Tor impossible" then it would logically follow that "XT should be opposed." However you did not say that XT makes running behind Tor impossible, you said it just makes it "more difficult", and as I know not a single person who even has thought about the reasons for running behind Tor, I find that the benefits of XT outweigh the difficulties it may cause to run behind Tor, considering that running behind Tor would still be possible and thus not eliminated. The people who want to run behind Tor will find a way to do so, even if it is difficult to do. This, as you say, "vital" ability remains preserved under XT and therefore "XT should not be opposed". Even though it makes it "more difficult."

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

You are correct that I harbor axioms of my own, but you project them falsely. My axioms have little to do with "opposing BlockStream" as you have suggested. My axioms have much to do with "supporting Bitcoin." I am heavily invested in bitcoin, and I believe that bitcoin is perhaps the greatest single innovation in technology that the world has ever seen. I want to protect bitcoin as much as I want to protect this planet and my own life. An axiom I might have is that Bitcoin cannot achieve mass adoption with the arbitrary block limit of 1 MB. I can conceive of a world wide event that might insight a large leap into bitcoin, suddenly flooding the network with new traffic and transactions, in such an event, with the current block limit, I submit that new users would experience extremely looong confirmation times, high network latency on the magnitude of several hours, transactions may never be confirmed, fees may become unbelievably high, and such a situation would lose all confidence in the Bitcoin project, and we might see a new alt coin arise to replace Bitcoin as the dominant crypto currency. As I am in support of bitcoin, I want to see Bitcoin succeed in the event of mass adoption, and thus I support XT or any method for increasing block size as quickly as possible, as we may only have a few months to prepare for such an event.

I am not opposed to Blockstream or any of the other solutions, but I don't want to risk their not working or not being ready in the event they become our only hope, and so I support the implementation of an increase in the block size just as gavin and hearn are suggesting. And I agree that this should be brought up and discussed and debated NOW before it becomes too late.

As it stands I have no reason to oppose XT, and every reason to support it. But perhaps you can lead a breadcrumb trail of logic that I may follow towards the light and arrive at the conclusion, "XT should be opposed." I am open to being wrong. It may just be that I lack necessary information with which to arrive at the correct conclusion. If indeed I lack information, please inform me so I may arrive at the correct solution. 

[Krona Rev]

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one. There are also logical arguments for supporting XT. Both Gavin and Mike are good at writing articles outlining such arguments (e.g., read Hearn's Crash Landing post). Ultimately, as I've already said, the difference is in the axioms -- the assumptions about what Bitcoin is or should be -- assumptions about what might occur in the future. This becomes clear if one reads the actual arguments both sides make (when it's not just ad hominem). Most people who've followed the block size issue for a while are aware of the arguments on both sides.

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

[BitProdigy]

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I am sorry to report but it seems you misunderstood my critique of your Tor argument. It would be a straw man if I had strengthened your argument and then defeated the new version I created of your argument, and then claimed victory over your original argument. That is not what I did and I would expect you to more thorough than to miss that.

What I did was strengthen your argument and then show that if your argument were thus strengthened it would be true, and I would accept your argument, but however, the point of strengthening your argument was to contrast it with your original argument, which is not true, and I do not accept. The point of presenting the strengthened version of your argument was to demonstrate the reason for my rejecting your original argument.

The strengthened argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I agree and accept this argument as true because if running behind Tor is vital and Bitcoin XT eliminates running behind Tor it would destroy bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin XT should be opposed. But it is not the argument you gave. I present the above strengthened argument only to demonstrate why the below original argument is not true, and I do not accept and do not agree with.

The original argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT makes running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I do not agree and do not accept this argument as true because Bitcoin XT still allows the vital function of being able to run behind Tor, it only makes it more difficult to do so. Making it more difficult does not result in the destruction of Bitcoin, and therefore the benefits of Bitcoin XT outweigh the negative aspect of making running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore not be opposed for this reason alone.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1159043.0

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

This makes me sad. You gave a logical argument but refused to defend it beyond falsely accusing me of presenting a straw man argument. The spirit behind the accusation a make that there are no logical arguments is that there are no convincing logical arguments being given. I have not been convinced by your Tor argument, and yours is the only logical argument I have been presented with. Until I am presented with a logical argument that is truly defended and is at least somewhat convincing, I will stand by my claim the the opposition to XT is purely a fear based emotional one, and not a logical opposition.

[Krona Rev]

Regarding Tor, my axiom was that XT makes running Bitcoin behind Tor difficult, not impossible. You strengthened my axiom in order to attack it more easily. It's not a valid logical technique, but it's one commonly employed: Strawman.

I am sorry to report but it seems you misunderstood my critique of your Tor argument. It would be a straw man if I had strengthened your argument and then defeated the new version I created of your argument, and then claimed victory over your original argument. That is not what I did and I would expect you to more thorough than to miss that.

What I did was strengthen your argument and then show that if your argument were thus strengthened it would be true, and I would accept your argument, but however, the point of strengthening your argument was to contrast it with your original argument, which is not true, and I do not accept. The point of presenting the strengthened version of your argument was to demonstrate the reason for my rejecting your original argument.

The strengthened argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

I agree and accept this argument as true because if running behind Tor is vital and Bitcoin XT eliminates running behind Tor it would destroy bitcoin, and therefore Bitcoin XT should be opposed. But it is not the argument you gave. I present the above strengthened argument only to demonstrate why the below original argument is not true, and I do not accept and do not agree with.

The original argument:

Running behind Tor is vital to Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT makes running behind Tor more difficult. Bitcoin XT should therefore be opposed.

Strengthening an assumption actually weakens the argument. This is probably obvious to everyone, so no need to elaborate.

I have not been convinced by your Tor argument ...

Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.

[BitProdigy]

Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.

My good sir, you want me to have created a straw man argument very badly but it is just not the case. This is probably obvious to everyone, but it is obviously not obvious to you, so I will elaborate:

I changed one of the axioms of your argument and then said, "if the axiom were this, then I would agree, but since your axiom was not this, I do not agree."

Your rebuttal is, "You changed one of my axioms, and challenged that modified axiom."

My response is, "No good sir, I changed one of your axioms and agreed with that modified axiom. I did not challenge the modified axiom, I agreed with it. I then challenged your axioms directly." (which you have failed to acknowledge in any way, let alone attempt to rebut)

[Krona Rev]

Actually, you never challenged my argument. You changed one of the axioms and then challenged that modified axiom. Again, this is probably obvious to everyone, so there's no need to elaborate.

My good sir, you want me to have created a straw man argument very badly but it is just not the case. This is probably obvious to everyone, but it is obviously not obvious to you, so I will elaborate:

I changed one of the axioms of your argument and then said, "if the axiom were this, then I would agree, but since your axiom was not this, I do not agree."

Your rebuttal is, "You changed one of my axioms, and challenged that modified axiom."

My response is, "No good sir, I changed one of your axioms and agreed with that modified axiom. I did not challenge the modified axiom, I agreed with it. I then challenged your axioms directly." (which you have failed to acknowledge in any way, let alone attempt to rebut)

Your modified version of my axiom was: "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor."

You are now saying (bold above) you "agree" with this axiom. (I think you mean you believe the axiom is true, since I never introduced the statement or suggested it was true.) However, it's also clear from your previous posts that you clearly don't believe "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor." Is it possible you're confused about what you're really trying to say?

[da2ce7]

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin.

I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?

I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!

I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. 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. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

Thank you! That was one of the most enjoyable posts I have read on this forum for quite a long time.

[Carlton Banks]

I personnaliy don't think in terms of favoring lightning or blockstream.

I think we should keep layer 1 agile and resilient, like he is today.

Find good layer 2 solutions that can help solve scaling issues.

Adapt a little bit blocksize in layer 1 if it's needed to support good technical improvement on layer 2 that would be discovered at the time.

So ok to raise, but knowing what we are doing, not saying visa do billions of transactions a day, we need gigabytes blocks.

Bitcoin layer 1 is not visa, it's world ledger. Visa would be layer 2

Exactly. Framing this debate as XT vs Blockstream is highly manipulative; I reserve my right to reject their ideas for Bitcoin also. Blockstream might not succeed as the sidechain extension to Bitcoin, but something better could. But that's a completely different issue to the Hearn gang coup d'etats.

[Zarathustra]

I personnaliy don't think in terms of favoring lightning or blockstream.

I think we should keep layer 1 agile and resilient, like he is today.

Find good layer 2 solutions that can help solve scaling issues.

Adapt a little bit blocksize in layer 1 if it's needed to support good technical improvement on layer 2 that would be discovered at the time.

So ok to raise, but knowing what we are doing, not saying visa do billions of transactions a day, we need gigabytes blocks.

Bitcoin layer 1 is not visa, it's world ledger. Visa would be layer 2

Exactly. Framing this debate as XT vs Blockstream is highly manipulative; I reserve my right to reject their ideas for Bitcoin also. Blockstream might not succeed as the sidechain extension to Bitcoin, but something better could. But that's a completely different issue to the Hearn gang coup d'etats.

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

[Carlton Banks]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

[Zarathustra]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

The Blockstream coin will not be a coin on the Blockchain. It will be an altcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

The Blockstream coin will not be a coin on the Blockchain. It will be an altcoin.

Lol what coin. You people are beginning to sound really desperate, it's not very dignified.