BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[Carlton Banks]

Why not bigger blocks without XT?  

As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization...

Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it.

I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core).

4 dev is better than 2.

besides you'll never run anything. noob.

might as well sell the few satoshi you have you retard little scumbag.

gtfo of bitcoin.

And also, 4 devs is actually better than having the entire bitcoin community as a "backseat driver". The users should define the outcome, but not the implementation. That's the job of the engineers, and it is a centralised task. And it will be centralised under whoever the development team is, we can't all do it.



@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

[hdbuck]

...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

[Carlton Banks]

...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

[hdbuck]

...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

alrite, pardon me if it is a bit harsh sometime, i am a civilized irl.
i surely wish i did not have to do this.
but thats internet and you gotta fight with the same weapons these people are using.

[Carlton Banks]

alrite, pardon me if it is a bit harsh sometime, i am a civilized irl.
i surely wish i did not have to do this.
but thats internet and you gotta fight with the same weapons these people are using.

This is real life, and it's easier to be more restrained here. In real life, you don't think what to say, look at it again, edit it a bit and then hit send (then edit again, or heaven forbid, delete!).

You can do it.

[Viscera]

edited for clarity

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.

Yes they have found a way to solve the problem without forking Bitcoin but they are the bad guys because I don't like them

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into solving the problem of small block sizes on the false assumption that Bitcoin would never be forked. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (problem solving) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT because they work for nothing and don't care about Bitcoin at all, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining in it's current working form.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream not those who've forked Bitcoin, and the lack of consensus (ie faith that we should all think exactly the same) with Gavin and Hearn is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" (the unimportant minority) who have a financial interest in keeping the Bitcoin the way it is are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not those who are forking Bitcoin.

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 as a preemptive strike that will cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses now instead of waiting for Bitcoin to do it on it's own.

We have to act early to create 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 and we all (yes ALL of us) love democrazy and how voting produces such wonderful presidents. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable. That's why I keep starting new threads about XT because it's inevitable and I need to sell it to all those minority who have not chance of stopping us anyway, because, well because I'm right about all this stuff.

I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the "illusion" in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different, when really it's "Exactly" the same. (like black is white if you change it's name.) Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level.

If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxsWjeiQ76s it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, that's why I state the logical arguments so clearly. The arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And that's why I tell you to be afraid, emotional and worried about the dangers for bitcoin!

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in not frightening people with a change of block size, not those with a deep interest in frightening people about small block sizes. I think this split is very dangerous and you should be afraid and emotional, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I wil follow my heart and support Bitcoin XT (,By logical, I mean if favor of XT). The BlockSize increase is necessary to destroy our enemies and a good thing for bitcoinXT! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I keep asking for a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT to convince myself that I'm actually interested in logical arguments. I am yet to find a logical one because listening to logical arguments would fry my small minded brain!

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill

[VeritasSapere]

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a moron XT shill

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

[VeritasSapere]

...
@hdbuck please stop being abusive, you are sinking below their level, you are much better contributing when you are not venting. won't mention it again.

i'll try i'll try, but i mean its hard, these people are professionnal shills/trolls, and they just wont let it be that easily. you just cant argue with them. they have their agenda of ruining bitcoin.

so i figured the only way to counter their lies is to insult them, so at least the few innocent people around dont fall for their bs.

and besides, my money, and hopes for a better world are on the line here too.

so rage is on.

I'm not happy about the situation either, as my money and future hopes are being jeopardized also. I also believe that even if XT succeeded, it's not over. I will plan for it, and others will too, and so the spirit of Bitcoin will continue in some different project, however that comes about. You will have a good community to re-join if that worst case happens, and it wouldn't really be so terrible. Any successor to Bitcoin would inevitably account for the mistakes of the original, and so we would end up better off.

This system is still worth advocating strongly for, don't mistake what I say. But my guiding principle is that I will not give up on the overall objective, even if that meant walking away from a conquered Bitcoin in 2016.

Now, I've just spent 10 minutes writing this, please don't let that go to waste! Remain calm.

That is funny, I feel the same way, but the other way around again lol. I do hope we get a third option that represents a compromise between these two extreme positions. That way we would both be able to agree and we would still be united under the same Bitcoin. But yes I think that if the block size is never increased I would just move to another cryptocurrency that reflects my own beliefs better. Maybe we can not have a singular global currency, maybe we must split, maybe that is the lesson we learn from this grand experiment, don’t get me wrong I do hope that will not be how it plays out. The crypto revolution will be alive no matter what happens to Bitcoin. I am a strong believer in the philosophical dialectic so i believe that if we are rational we should be able to find the solution and the synthesis of our beliefs.

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

[Viscera]

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a moron XT shill

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much

[Carlton Banks]

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

[VeritasSapere]

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a moron XT shill

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much

I have read it all actually, I presumed that what was meant, was for me to present an argument against the spying on IP addresses within XT, I figured that the question is about BIP101, so therefore the extra features within XT (IP prioritization to prevent DDOS attacks through tor), are optional and therefore should not be a reason to not support BIP101. What was the question then which according to you I have failed to answer?

[VeritasSapere]

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

I do think that the range of choices should be expanded, actually as soon as a third alternative comes into being which would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would personally support that instead. The way that I see it though, is that if these are the only two options we have now, I am in a position where I do have to make a choice even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

I get the feeling maybe you missed my response to your post, since I have actually already answered this question. lol

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12222488#msg12222488

[Carlton Banks]

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

I do think that the range of choices should be expanded, actually as soon as a third alternative comes into being which would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would personally support that instead. The way that I see it though, is that if these are the only two options we have now, I am in a position where I do have to make a choice even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

I get the feeling maybe you missed my response to your post, since I have actually already answered this question. lol

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12222488#msg12222488

Yep, I missed that. It's thick and fast in here still.

That's a sensible response given your situation, I can empathise as I previously did some mining too. To answer your question to me, choosing between 8 MB XT and 1 MB Bitcoin, I would choose 1 MB Bitcoin. At least that's the question I believe you meant! But of course, that decision can't be made in isolation from the resumption of reality: XT would continue on it's schedule and Bitcoin would have to change, however that is achieved.

In addition, I will outline what I believe I would have done were I still mining today. And it is nearly the same choice; stick with the Core client, but open to the idea of mining the XT chain for at least a short while, profitability would trump ideology (I think we might all be tempted to run VISA or SWIFT nodes if such a thing existed). But that would depend, so, so, so heavily on the unknown/unpredictable events that will take place between now and January, one of which is XT's demise. This drama almost certainly has a few more acts to play out, I would be surprised if not.

[VeritasSapere]

Think about responding to my question maybe. Specifically that if you do not like both options you do still have to choose if you are running a full node or if you are a miner. So if you had to choose which would you choose? Even it it was a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since I am a miner and I do run full nodes I have to choose, and I have to choose now. You do understand my position right? What would you do in my position? But take your time responding, this will not be resolved over night I suspect lol.

Ok, but contemplate this in return: there is time between now and January. Do you agree that the range of choices should be expanded?

I do think that the range of choices should be expanded, actually as soon as a third alternative comes into being which would represent a compromise between these two extreme positions, I would personally support that instead. The way that I see it though, is that if these are the only two options we have now, I am in a position where I do have to make a choice even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Since you can not run a full node or mine without casting a vote to either side.

I get the feeling maybe you missed my response to your post, since I have actually already answered this question. lol

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12222488#msg12222488

Yep, I missed that. It's thick and fast in here still.

That's a sensible response given your situation, I can empathise as I previously did some mining too. To answer your question to me, choosing between 8 MB XT and 1 MB Bitcoin, I would choose 1 MB Bitcoin. At least that's the question I believe you meant! But of course, that decision can't be made in isolation from the resumption of reality: XT would continue on it's schedule and Bitcoin would have to change, however that is achieved.

In addition, I will outline what I believe I would have done were I still mining today. And it is nearly the same choice; stick with the Core client, but open to the idea of mining the XT chain for at least a short while, profitability would trump ideology (I think we might all be tempted to run VISA or SWIFT nodes if such a thing existed). But that would depend, so, so, so heavily on the unknown/unpredictable events that will take place between now and January, one of which is XT's demise. This drama almost certainly has a few more acts to play out, I would be surprised if not.

Obviously I would choose 8MB BIP101, But I can understand your position thinking that Bitcoin Core will have to change because of the existence and schedule of XT. In that sense XT might be a good thing even if you don’t agree with it, as a catalyst for change. I do hope that this plays out in such a way that we end up being on the same side of the fork, that would be a good outcome in my opinion.

[BitProdigy]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical argument:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

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.

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.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

We are not off to a very good start I must say considering how many clarifications it took to move you off of your position that I had made a straw-man argument, and now this contradiction in claims about whether or not you have in fact actually given a logical argument at all. But nevertheless, I am always open to debate and so if you would like to fully flesh out an argument I'm all for it, though at this point in my evolution on this topic I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

[Viscera]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

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.

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.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

[BitProdigy]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

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.

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.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

Hopefully you realize that we are on the same team. WE all want Bitcoin to succeed, and so we should work together to find the best solution to the problem we currently face.

[Viscera]

Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill

There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol

You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much

I have read it all actually, I presumed that what was meant, was for me to present an argument against the spying on IP addresses within XT, I figured that the question is about BIP101, so therefore the extra features within XT (IP prioritization to prevent DDOS attacks through tor), are optional and therefore should not be a reason to not support BIP101. What was the question then which according to you I have failed to answer?

The whole thing was a parody, the point was that the choices are stupid, it's like now we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

Your statements where not an argument against IP filtering but rather for larger block sizes.

Anyway, on reflection I've edited the questions to make the stupidity more accurately reflect the OP. Thanks for your input

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

[jonald_fyookball]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

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.

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.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

[Viscera]

I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

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.

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.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"

I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click