Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[Carlton Banks]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

Carlton Banks, I was expecting more from you. You even said that I was being reasonable in our previous discussion. There is no need for ad hominem. Most of us are now at least agreeing on increasing the block size, which is a great relieve to me. I still prefer BIP101 though, BIP100 is an acceptable compromise however. I would have preferred it if there was no 32meg limit in BIP100, since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split. Just letting the miners decide is fine with me since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin after all. I can trust proof of work more then any developer team lol.

on-topic, there are a large number of people still promoting this alt-client dev team takeover, and you want to invoke the moral high ground against me on the basis of the blocksize debate?

I am not sure how I am invoking any moral high ground. I do not think I am incorrect that you were using ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with morals. However I do still prefer BIP101 and I do not think that reaching 75% consensus should be considered an alt-client dev team take over. But in the interests of compromise I would support BIP100 instead, with some reservations I have already pointed out. We might end up on the same side of the fork after all Carlton! Huzzah!

cheerful avoidance of a direct accusation? check
attempt to establish the blocksize debate as the contentious issue? check (twice you've pulled the same trick, is it not just a massively cheap move to do it a second time?)

I invite those reading this to take this is they find it

[Peter R]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

[knight22]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

There are no problems and it is in fact very healthy for a decentralized system. We wanted decentralization? Now we have it hard but those emotionally attached to Core are shitting their pants for overblown fear mongered reasons.

[brg444]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place

[knight22]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

It IS a proposition. No one is being forced into it. Are you?

[VeritasSapere]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

Carlton Banks, I was expecting more from you. You even said that I was being reasonable in our previous discussion. There is no need for ad hominem. Most of us are now at least agreeing on increasing the block size, which is a great relieve to me. I still prefer BIP101 though, BIP100 is an acceptable compromise however. I would have preferred it if there was no 32meg limit in BIP100, since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split. Just letting the miners decide is fine with me since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin after all. I can trust proof of work more then any developer team lol.

on-topic, there are a large number of people still promoting this alt-client dev team takeover, and you want to invoke the moral high ground against me on the basis of the blocksize debate?

I am not sure how I am invoking any moral high ground. I do not think I am incorrect that you were using ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with morals. However I do still prefer BIP101 and I do not think that reaching 75% consensus should be considered an alt-client dev team take over. But in the interests of compromise I would support BIP100 instead, with some reservations I have already pointed out. We might end up on the same side of the fork after all Carlton! Huzzah!

cheerful avoidance of a direct accusation? check
attempt to establish the blocksize debate as the contentious issue? check (twice you've pulled the same trick, is it not just a massively cheap move to do it a second time?)

I invite those reading this to take this is they find it

I have a background in philosophy so I do take such an accusation seriously. I was specifically referring to you saying this:

"Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client. Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?"

So you are accusing me of taking the moral high ground, because of what I said in response to this quote. This quote is ad hominem because you are not making an argument and you are just attacking the people that are making the argument instead. Because I said this you are now saying that I am avoiding a direct accusation, and taking the moral high ground? Since I have done no such thing, I do not even use morals in argumentation, I use ethics and I have certainly not invoked them here. I challenge you to point out to me specifically where I invoke the moral high ground against you on the basis of the blocksize debate? I do not even understand what you are trying to do here? I thought we where being civil after that last discussion we had?

[VeritasSapere]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

There are no problems and it is in fact very healthy for a decentralized system. We wanted decentralization? Now we have it hard but those emotionally attached to Core are shitting their pants for overblown fear mongered reasons.

I absolutly agree with this! Having more options for alternative clients increases decentralization. This is a political necessity for the reosons of decentralization and freedom, whether you agree with Bitcoin XT or not.

[HostFat]

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

From the other part of view we have a group of people that want to hijacking the consensus by forcing users/market on going only on something new and untested (as lightening networks) and it is behind financial motives. 

[brg444]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

It IS a proposition. No one is being forced into it. Are you?

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

[HostFat]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin.

Sure.

[brg444]

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

From the other part of view we have a group of people that want to hijacking the consensus by forcing users/market on going only on something new and untested (as lightening networks) and it is behind financial motives. 

I wonder who that would be  

Are you trolls not tired of resorting to the ol' Blockstream boggeyman to justify your arguments?

Has it not been made clear enough that they stand to lose absolutely nothing by increasing the block size?

I know disingenuity is par for the course for XT supporters but don't you have anything better than conjecture and ignorance to back up your position?

[Peter R]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place

#1.  I disagree.  What I see is demand building for bigger blocks, Gavin and Mike providing a solution, and people moving towards that solution.  This is the free market at work.  If we had several more competing implementations this "consensus process" would be more efficient.  

#2.  The only talking point the small block side has left is "big blocks = centralization" (which I disagree with but can't prove it).  What I find ironic is that they simultaneously fight hard to keep centralization in the most heavily centralized aspect of Bitcoin: development!

If we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized then we've already lost.  

Let's increase the block size and decrease centralization by showing our support for a wider variety of Bitcoin implementations!  

[brg444]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin.

Sure.

Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money.

It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds.

[VeritasSapere]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

It IS a proposition. No one is being forced into it. Are you?

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

A dictator does not rule through a 75% consensus, and because we have the ability to fork away from any developers now and into the future, we do not ever need to worry about there being a dictator of Bitcoin, this is literally impossible. It should not matter what kind of people the developers are, it does not even matter what their motivations are. All that matters is what is in the open source code and we will never be forced to use a client that we do not want to. So to compare the developers of Bitcoin XT to a dictator is actually very inaccurate, and is really just bad rhetoric and hyperbole.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335

[HostFat]

Has it not been made clear enough that they stand to lose absolutely nothing by increasing the block size?

There are days that Adam on twitter is saying that if blocks need to be bigger it needs to be done as slow as possible to give space to the develop of the lightning network technology (so paying his salary)  

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633157354515664896

@joe_ekine a sensible & safe proposal. my money's on flexcap or pragmatic 2MB step then 4, 8MB over 4 years to have space for lightning r&d

[knight22]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place

#1.  I disagree.  What I see is demand building for bigger blocks, Gavin and Mike providing a solution, and people moving towards that solution.  This is the free market at work.  If we had several more competing implementations this "consensus process" would be more efficient.  

#2.  The only talking point the small block side has left is "big blocks = centralization" (which I disagree with but can't prove it).  What I find ironic is that they simultaneously fight hard to keep centralization in the most heavily centralized aspect of Bitcoin: development!

If we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized then we've already lost.  

Let's increase the block size and decrease centralization by showing our support for a wider variety of Bitcoin implementations!  

Thank you good sir for highlighting what bitcoin is supposed to meant at its core.

[meono]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin.

Sure.

Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money.

It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds.

Are you seriously trying to beat turtlehuricane for his champion position?

You're doing a good job so far. Except you missed one key part: while you're repeating like a parrot, you need to keep reflect any counter points by telling them to look in the code. Its hundreds thousands lines of code. Pretend like you're actually a kickass coder and you read the code yourself.

Seriously, you will make all these "shills" so focusing in on what line of codes they're supposed to look at, while the noobs would just take your statement as facts.

Thats the only way you can go for 2x pages until everyone agrees you're just a waste of bandwidth.

[brg444]

What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?

Nothing, but that is absolutely not what is happening. I know this is your new talking point (a very tired strawman btw) Peter but it doesn't reflect on the situation at hand:

A totalitarian power grab for the governance of Bitcoin. Not the proposition of a new implementation but an attempt a hijacking the consensus code behind political motives

Please don't turn into Stolfi you are a valuable asset to this community when your head is in the right place

#1.  I disagree.  What I see is demand building for bigger blocks, Gavin and Mike providing a solution, and people moving towards that solution.  This is the free market at work.  If we had several more competing implementations this "consensus process" would be more efficient.  

#2.  The only talking point the small block side has left is "big blocks = centralization" (which I disagree with but can't prove it).  What I find ironic is that they simultaneously fight hard to keep centralization in the most heavily centralized aspect of Bitcoin: development!

If we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized then we've already lost.  

Let's increase the block size and decrease centralization by showing our support for a wider variety of Bitcoin implementations!  

1. The very fact that practically no one is actually moving towards that solution should tell you all you need to know about the morality and quality of it. A very bad solution is not much better than no solution at all. Especially as it creates dissent and enormous loss of productive time within the developer community.

2. You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[brg444]

Has it not been made clear enough that they stand to lose absolutely nothing by increasing the block size?

There are days that Adam on twitter is saying that if blocks need to be bigger it needs to be done as slow as possible to give space to the develop of the lightning network technology (so paying his salary)  

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/633157354515664896

@joe_ekine a sensible & safe proposal. my money's on flexcap or pragmatic 2MB step then 4, 8MB over 4 years to have space for lightning r&d

Well obviously you can try to spin Adam's word to support your own agenda here but what he says is clearly : let's increase block size so that we have room before Lightning is ready.

So essentially he supports block size increase... I'm sorry your point was?

[brg444]

Of course not. But in typical dictator fashion they have managed to use their authority, PR & industry relations to instill false expectations into more simple users and steer the masses to get behind them against a "common enemy" on the premise of "inclusion" and general abuse of the sever misunderstanding of your typical redditor.

They absolutely have a right to release different code but it should stand on its own and not require a complete propaganda campaign.

Thank you, now we know that the multimillionaire industry of Bitcoin is full of idiots that are diverted thanks to Gavin.

Sure.

Idiots? No, they'll just listen to the only thing they ever understood which is money.

It doesn't take much to steer the opinion of a gang of VC-tit sucking entrepreneurs: promise them MOAR users because MOAR transactions and they'll buy whatever you are selling if they can flip it for more VC funding rounds.

Are you seriously trying to beat turtlehuricane for his champion position?

You're doing a good job so far. Except you missed one key part: while you're repeating like a parrot, you need to keep reflect any counter points by telling them to look in the code. Its hundreds thousands lines of code. Pretend like you're actually a kickass coder and you read the code yourself.

Seriously, you will make all these "shills" so focusing in on what line of codes they're supposed to look at, while the noobs would just take your statement as facts.

Thats the only way you can go for 2x pages until everyone agrees you're just a waste of bandwidth.

 

Sorry I have fed enough trolls for today. Ignored.