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

[erik777]

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

Having the requirement in place that 75% of the miners have to agree with this change first is in fact giving the choice to the market, considering that the miners would most likely not implement such a change without the economic majority also being on board as well. Hayek also defined totalitarianism as the desire to organise the whole of society and attain a definite social goal, this is also certainly not the case with XT.

You completely and conveniently ignore what I'm saying.  This is a POSSIBLE PATH that could come about IN THE FUTURE.  So, saying that it isn't in XT today doesn't counter anything.  You are arguing with yourself.  Here, I'll agree with you...  "what could become the future is not true in the present."

What is factual is the relationship between these possibilities and the XT creator's past proposals.  In other words, it is based on what the "benevolent dictator" could do if he had enough control over Bitcoin clients and miner code. 

The question isn't whether you have free choice today to not install XT.  If you didn't, I wouldn't spend my time typing this.  It is whether you can lose that free choice by trusting future releases of XT loaded with its patches (e.g., blacklisting) and other protocol changes.

As a crude comparison, since you are hooked on the tyranny concept, Hitler didn't start out his political campaign with a proposal to exterminate people.  He started it with proposals the people wanted to hear... to restore Germany to its former glory and prosperity.  Those who trusted him in the beginning began a journey that years later seemed regrettably unstoppable until Germany lost the war.  Tyrants can be very benevolent and seemingly benign in the beginning.  In 1933, Germany had a choice. 

How can we loose that free choice if anyone is free to release an alternate client the same way XT would have. If it get enough support it will simply be adopted.

Hitler political campaign was not an open source project... Or are you are saying that bitcoin can be controlled with the same kind of propaganda tactics?

You are oversimplifying and presuming that the current state of Bitcoin will always be true.  Think of XT nodes as an army.  If acquire a majority of miners and full nodes, and they change the protocol to have anti-forking measures, your freedom dissipates. 

For instance, checkpoints could be used to make fork attempts more difficult, while rogue (non-XT) nodes could be thwarted with blacklists. Who do you know proposed using checkpoints and blacklists? 

Of course, this depends on XT obtaining critical mass, and people trusting it long enough to be blindsided before they realize it is too late to turn back the clock. And, this hasn't happened, yet.  Let's hope it doesn't.

 

[knight22]

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

Having the requirement in place that 75% of the miners have to agree with this change first is in fact giving the choice to the market, considering that the miners would most likely not implement such a change without the economic majority also being on board as well. Hayek also defined totalitarianism as the desire to organise the whole of society and attain a definite social goal, this is also certainly not the case with XT.

You completely and conveniently ignore what I'm saying.  This is a POSSIBLE PATH that could come about IN THE FUTURE.  So, saying that it isn't in XT today doesn't counter anything.  You are arguing with yourself.  Here, I'll agree with you...  "what could become the future is not true in the present."

What is factual is the relationship between these possibilities and the XT creator's past proposals.  In other words, it is based on what the "benevolent dictator" could do if he had enough control over Bitcoin clients and miner code. 

The question isn't whether you have free choice today to not install XT.  If you didn't, I wouldn't spend my time typing this.  It is whether you can lose that free choice by trusting future releases of XT loaded with its patches (e.g., blacklisting) and other protocol changes.

As a crude comparison, since you are hooked on the tyranny concept, Hitler didn't start out his political campaign with a proposal to exterminate people.  He started it with proposals the people wanted to hear... to restore Germany to its former glory and prosperity.  Those who trusted him in the beginning began a journey that years later seemed regrettably unstoppable until Germany lost the war.  Tyrants can be very benevolent and seemingly benign in the beginning.  In 1933, Germany had a choice. 

How can we loose that free choice if anyone is free to release an alternate client the same way XT would have. If it get enough support it will simply be adopted.

Hitler political campaign was not an open source project... Or are you are saying that bitcoin can be controlled with the same kind of propaganda tactics?

You are oversimplifying and presuming that the current state of Bitcoin will always be true.  Think of XT nodes as an army.  If acquire a majority of miners and full nodes, and they change the protocol to have anti-forking measures, your freedom dissipates. 

For instance, checkpoints could be used to make fork attempts more difficult, while rogue (non-XT) nodes could be thwarted with blacklists. Who do you know proposed using checkpoints and blacklists? 

Of course, this depends on XT obtaining critical mass, and people trusting it long enough to be blindsided before they realize it is too late to turn back the clock. And, this hasn't happened, yet.  Let's hope it doesn't.

And why do you assume all of this would not be possible to do within Core?

[VeritasSapere]

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

Having the requirement in place that 75% of the miners have to agree with this change first is in fact giving the choice to the market, considering that the miners would most likely not implement such a change without the economic majority also being on board as well. Hayek also defined totalitarianism as the desire to organise the whole of society and attain a definite social goal, this is also certainly not the case with XT.

You completely and conveniently ignore what I'm saying.  This is a POSSIBLE PATH that could come about IN THE FUTURE.  So, saying that it isn't in XT today doesn't counter anything.  You are arguing with yourself.  Here, I'll agree with you...  "what could become the future is not true in the present."

What is factual is the relationship between these possibilities and the XT creator's past proposals.  In other words, it is based on what the "benevolent dictator" could do if he had enough control over Bitcoin clients and miner code.  

The question isn't whether you have free choice today to not install XT.  If you didn't, I wouldn't spend my time typing this. It is whether you can lose that free choice by trusting future releases of XT loaded with its patches (e.g., blacklisting) and other protocol changes.

As a crude comparison, since you are hooked on the tyranny concept, Hitler didn't start out his political campaign with a proposal to exterminate people.  He started it with proposals the people wanted to hear... to restore Germany to its former glory and prosperity.  Those who trusted him in the beginning began a journey that years later seemed regrettably unstoppable until Germany lost the war.  Tyrants can be very benevolent and seemingly benign in the beginning.  In 1933, Germany had a choice.  

How can we loose that free choice if anyone is free to release an alternate client the same way XT would have. If it get enough support it will simply be adopted.

Hitler political campaign was not an open source project... Or are you are saying that bitcoin can be controlled with the same kind of propaganda tactics?

You are oversimplifying and presuming that the current state of Bitcoin will always be true.  Think of XT nodes as an army.  If acquire a majority of miners and full nodes, and they change the protocol to have anti-forking measures, your freedom dissipates.  

For instance, checkpoints could be used to make fork attempts more difficult, while rogue (non-XT) nodes could be thwarted with blacklists. Who do you know proposed using checkpoints and blacklists?  

Of course, this depends on XT obtaining critical mass, and people trusting it long enough to be blindsided before they realize it is too late to turn back the clock. And, this hasn't happened, yet.  Let's hope it doesn't.

You are either extremely uninformed or you do not understand Bitcoin, or you are intentionally spreading disinformation. Either way this type of propaganda tactic does seem more inline with the tyranny you claim to be arguing against. What you are claiming here is simply not true and it has no basis in fact.

If XT where to add such features than people would still need to choose to download and install the new implementation that has these changes. People can not be blindsided in this case and it will never be to late to turn back the clock so to speak. It seems like you might not understand the mechanism that prevents such tyranny from forming within Bitcoin in the first place. Which in part is actually the ability to hard fork away from any development team be it XT or Core. It would be better to learn to love the fork.

[VeritasSapere]

Oh but a market it serves young padawan. We didn't get here without one!

Luckily Bitcoin holders in general are a stubborn bunch who recognize the benefits of delayed gratification and do not consider Bitcoin as another tool to facilitate mainstream consumerism. They are not much concerned by transaction throughput as they understand the value of scarcity and exclusivity. Real Bitcoiners are intelligent enough to anticipate the healthy ecosystem that shall be built on top of Bitcoin and enable their frivolous spending. Of course none of them would be foolish enough to part ways with their Bitcoin at this stage of the game. This is a marathon, not a run!

All of this to say that you will be hard pressed to convince the economic majority that there is a pressing need to accomodate more transactions of the blockchain because as they look around their peers and other economically-able relatives all they see is dormant bitcoins resting in cold storage and apparently not close to get out of hibernation.

Just read this http://www.contravex.com/2014/02/25/matters-of-bitcoin-merchant-adoption/ and this http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ until your head hurt and maybe, one day, the force shall also awaken inside you!

Transaction throughput should not be a feature of scarcity, this makes no economic sense to attach such a concept to transaction throughput. Bitcoin is indeed the Devils way to teach geeks economics. Scarcity in the Bitcoin supply is very important, scarcity in transaction throughput on the other hand has no economic advantages only disadvantages. It decreases the utility of Bitcoin. You keep repeating the false dichotomy of payment system vs store of value, what you fail to grasp is that these two features of Bitcoin actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. It does not need to be a choice between these two concepts since Bitcoin can do both. Being a better payment system gives Bitcoin more utility which in turn makes it a better store of value, and being a better store of value in turn also makes it a better payment system. You also say that Bitcoin is meant to be exclusive, I wholeheartedly disagree, it should be inclusive instead, this has always been a part of the original Bitcoin ethos.

[Carlton Banks]

Again, it doesn't matter what "the market" wants, Bitcoin is not governed by free-market but by rules enforced by a consensus of its peers so as to keep every network actors' incentives aligned.

How soon we forget the peer-to-peer network is useless and worthless if it doesn't serve a market...

It's tiered. 3 tiers.

(welcome to Bitcoin by the way, I understand you're new to the subject)


Tier 1 is the development team writing rules for the consensus algorithm. This happens in the first instance (i.e. Satoshi etc)

That's how Bitcoin has been since day one.

Until it changed. It's the same with all Open Source Projects. 'In the first instance', there is the team. Later, there are the teams (competition).

"Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks [and communists] economics."

We all know you simultaneously believe that Bitcoin already has the users at Tier 1 and also that the users should be promoted to tier 1. My advice to you and Peter and the rest of you cohort; go and do it if you believe in it so much. But don't keep implying your preferred model is the reality, or to alter the bitcoin system into that model; the model is as stated above.

Take some more advice: if you wish to make meaningful replies in any debate, it helps to establish your credibility as a participant if you can demonstrate that you comprehend any points you seek to reply to. If you cannot do this, the literal context for the argument cannot even take place, i.e. discourse, but not an argument

Notorious ad hominem users are not in a position to give advice about credibility.

Let them do their ad hominem. This is just a natural reaction of defenceless people with no solid arguments. It only hence points of those with real arguments at the end of the day.

It's difficult to know what to do with you two, as you consistently make non-meaningful replies in this debate. It can only be either ineptitude or willful distortion, and you reject both when presented to you publicly. I wonder if the rest of the reading humans can identify "defenceless people with no solid arguments" as they choose for themselves.

[knight22]

Again, it doesn't matter what "the market" wants, Bitcoin is not governed by free-market but by rules enforced by a consensus of its peers so as to keep every network actors' incentives aligned.

How soon we forget the peer-to-peer network is useless and worthless if it doesn't serve a market...

It's tiered. 3 tiers.

(welcome to Bitcoin by the way, I understand you're new to the subject)


Tier 1 is the development team writing rules for the consensus algorithm. This happens in the first instance (i.e. Satoshi etc)

That's how Bitcoin has been since day one.

Until it changed. It's the same with all Open Source Projects. 'In the first instance', there is the team. Later, there are the teams (competition).

"Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks [and communists] economics."

We all know you simultaneously believe that Bitcoin already has the users at Tier 1 and also that the users should be promoted to tier 1. My advice to you and Peter and the rest of you cohort; go and do it if you believe in it so much. But don't keep implying your preferred model is the reality, or to alter the bitcoin system into that model; the model is as stated above.

Take some more advice: if you wish to make meaningful replies in any debate, it helps to establish your credibility as a participant if you can demonstrate that you comprehend any points you seek to reply to. If you cannot do this, the literal context for the argument cannot even take place, i.e. discourse, but not an argument

Notorious ad hominem users are not in a position to give advice about credibility.

Let them do their ad hominem. This is just a natural reaction of defenceless people with no solid arguments. It only hence points of those with real arguments at the end of the day.

It's difficult to know what to do with you two, as you consistently make non-meaningful replies in this debate. It can only be either ineptitude or willful distortion, and you reject both when presented to you publicly. I wonder if the rest of the reading humans can identify "defenceless people with no solid arguments" as they choose for themselves.

Well then you should just continue with your ad hominem which you are very good at. Now you should also cross you fingers in hope that it will adds up to your credibility (I wouldn't bet on that though).

[Peter R]

I'm not asking what scaling solution is best.  I'm asking the question: if the market wants to be at Q* but the production quota forces it to be at Qmax, who exactly will enforce the quota (especially over the long term as forking pressure builds)?  

Normally, the answer is "the government" (or some powerful organization).  But something like Bitcoin is governed by the market itself, is it not?  How can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want?  Well, I don't think it can.    

There's a subtlety here: is the "thing" that will enforce the quota necessarily the same "thing" that wants to break the quota?  The answer is not completely clear to me...

The code Peter, the code! Bitcoin is not governed by the market!...

Good; I sort of agree.  Bitcoin is indeed governed by the code that people run.  But is it not these same people who choose which code to run?  And are not these the same people who, in aggregate, become "the market"?  

I would argue then, that in the final analysis, it is the will of the market that controls the code and thus it is the will of the market that governs Bitcoin.

The Bitcoin market is a curious one full of very different actors whose incentives are not all particularly aligned. Assuming I play along with your characterization, then I shall specify that the demand you speak of does not currently comes from "the market" but mainly from consumers & merchants…

To be quite honest, I'm not exactly sure what "the market" even means in this context.  I said earlier, "how can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want?" But what's not clear to me is if the "market" that wants the increase is the same "market" that needs to enforce the quota. 

Anyways, I suspect by this time next year we shall have our answer.  My hunch is that, yes, there is only one market and if that market wants an increase (i.e., Qmax is to the left of Q*) then it shall find a way to fork the protocol. 

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year. 

[tvbcof]

To be quite honest, I'm not exactly sure what "the market" even means in this context.  I said earlier, "how can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want?" But what's not clear to me is if the "market" that wants the increase is the same "market" that needs to enforce the quota. 

Anyways, I suspect by this time next year we shall have our answer.  My hunch is that, yes, there is only one market and if that market wants an increase (i.e., Qmax is to the left of Q*) then it shall find a way to fork the protocol. 

One man's 'operational parameter' is another man's 'quota'.

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year. 

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

[knight22]

To be quite honest, I'm not exactly sure what "the market" even means in this context.  I said earlier, "how can the market enforce a quota that the market itself does not want?" But what's not clear to me is if the "market" that wants the increase is the same "market" that needs to enforce the quota.  

Anyways, I suspect by this time next year we shall have our answer.  My hunch is that, yes, there is only one market and if that market wants an increase (i.e., Qmax is to the left of Q*) then it shall find a way to fork the protocol.  

One man's 'operational parameter' is another man's 'quota'.

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

The longest chain doesn't need to be validated by any core contributors, only by the economic majority. This doesn't sound vague to me at all.

[hdbuck]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

meh peter is so predictable! Guess that's the academic method.. dismiss what's itching.

For instance, always forget the "valid" part of "the longest proof-of-work chain", you naughty boy..

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. (in fact, i already have )

Like instead of his educated farts, why not choose to stand by his beloved-once-such-energy-to-shill-it BitcoinXT?


But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^

[knight22]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

meh peter is so predictable! Guess that's the academic method.. dismiss what's itching.

For instance, always forget the "valid" part of "the longest proof-of-work chain", you naughty boy..

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. (in fact, i already have )

Like instead of his educated farts, why not choose to stand by his beloved-once-such-energy-to-shill-it BitcoinXT?


But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^

Your bet is about XT while Peter's is about the longest valid chain. No matter if it’s XT, Core or any other implementation. In other word, he is betting on bigger blocks. Not XT per se. Will you take that bet?

[tvbcof]

meh peter is so predictable! Guess that's the academic method.. dismiss what's itching.

I've noticed and increasing trend of completely ignoring inconvenient points that an adversary brings to an argument and simply re-stating one's case over and over again.  It seems to be society wide.  It's an interesting observation and I don't believe it is a figment of my imagination.

Until relatively recently it seems like it was 'honorable' (or something) to consider and answer point made by another before moving forward.  Obviously this balloons and is not sustainable so if one is trying to be honest one spends some effort trying to abandon the least salient elements of a conversation first and focuses on the most difficult and valid ones.  The exact opposite seems to be the norm now, but it could be an artifact of degradation of participant quality on this particular forum which is the one I follow most closely.

For instance, always forget the "valid" part of "the longest proof-of-work chain", you naughty boy..

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet. (in fact, i already have )

Like instead of his educated farts, why not choose to stand by his beloved-once-such-energy-to-shill-it BitcoinXT?

But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^

LOL!

[figmentofmyass]

But then what? cypherdoc as the escrow?! ^^

i've just spit coffee out all over my monitor.

[Peter R]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

[figmentofmyass]

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions. 

if Lebron James cypherdoc is off the table, might i suggest Quickseller?

sounds fun but too drawn out for my taste. i prefer a quick fix, like day trading.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Hey, guys, it's simple!

Bitcoin needs to have sufficient presence (of blockchain-validators or full-nodes) in medium-bandwidth home networks in order to maintain its definition. There are other payment systems that don't poses such quality (VISA and the like), but they are not Bitcoin! So there is no point in going in that particular direction as that market (of processing high volumes of transactions) is already well served and even saturated.

What Bitcoin needs to do is periodically (but not too often) jump out of itself to become itself again in order to keep filling the bandwidth that becomes available at home over time as technology advances, otherwise competing blockchains will consume that bandwidth and provide cheaper and more convenient service. That's the only market where Bitcoin needs to excel in order to keep its core value proposition intact.

To put it in really simple terms, Bitcoin needs to oscillate (or rather "Vibrate") around a particular bandwidth-target (of home networks) which slowly grows over time as technology improves.

[hdbuck]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

where my VALID again PIETRRRRRE?!

"greater cumulative difficulty" does not make whatever long chain VALID.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

lmao, teh deathscrows! XD

i only trust the wot.

[Zarathustra]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.

[hdbuck]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Whatever you offer, they refuse.
q.e.d.

lol, nice try, but no.

im just waiting he finally and "validly" formulates his bet, taking into consideration the only relevant parameter the original idea of "the longest blockchain" thing he keeps on invoking and instead of twisting it to fit his bs.

[brg444]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Well would you look at that, even people within your own little circle jerk are calling you out on your myopic conceptualization of the economy.



Don't you think maybe it's time you exit the vacuum and see if your economic theories apply in the real world?