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

[brg444]

vomits his bile

Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

FTFY

While irrelevant laughing clowns are exposing their irrelevance with their laughter ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNUPhIrt24&spfreload=10


... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be.

The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant.
At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.

By whom?

By market participants that want and need bigger blocks and don't give so much interest anymore about Core implementation.

This minority, no matter how loud it is, is still a minority, therefore if you want bigger blocks better fork off into your own altcoin 

[1714824877]

1714824877

[1714824877]

1714824877

[1714824877]

1714824877

[Zarathustra]

vomits his bile

Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

FTFY

While irrelevant laughing clowns are exposing their irrelevance with their laughter ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNUPhIrt24&spfreload=10


... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be.

The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant.
At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.

By whom?

Gavin hasn't done anything significant in Bitcoin in almost two years.

Yes, unfortunately. The result is visible on the chart since the stagnators are in charge.
But then, Peter R. stepped in and told the geeks something about socionomics and the market:

good one

we sure learned a lot from his 5th grader economics 101 class !

Yes. Bitcoin requires interdisciplinary geniuses. Bitcoin cannot be brought forward alone by twenty year old children without any life experience (todd, buterin, nullc, theymos et al.).

[knight22]

vomits his bile

Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

FTFY

While irrelevant laughing clowns are exposing their irrelevance with their laughter ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNUPhIrt24&spfreload=10


... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be.

The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant.
At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.

By whom?

Gavin hasn't done anything significant in Bitcoin in almost two years.

Yes, unfortunately. The result is visible on the chart since the stagnators are in charge.
But then, Peter R. stepped in and told the geeks something about socionomics and the market:

 

good one

we sure learned a lot from his 5th grader economics 101 class !

Maybe you should start from there because you don't seem to know much about economics and markets.

[knight22]

vomits his bile

Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

FTFY

While irrelevant laughing clowns are exposing their irrelevance with their laughter ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNUPhIrt24&spfreload=10


... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be.

The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant.
At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.

By whom?

By market participants that want and need bigger blocks and don't give so much interest anymore about Core implementation.

This minority, no matter how loud it is, is still a minority, therefore if you want bigger blocks better fork off into your own altcoin 

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

[Carlton Banks]

... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

More nonsense appeals to authority.

The most authoritative organisation in the world is the United Nations. And I think the average person can agree: the UN will give a platform to some fully fledged lunatics sometimes (check out the General Assembly just past).

Gavin Andresen could speak at the UN about XT for all I care; the fact that Gavin could arrange such a platform from which to speak does not actually make what he's talking about correct.

[Zarathustra]

... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

More nonsense appeals to authority.

The most authoritative organisation in the world is the United Nations.

Complete nonsense. The UN is ruled by a majority (of authoritative and less authoritative countries). It is authoritative, but clearly not the most authoritative. Saudia Arabia, North Korea et al. are more authoritative. Thinking before posting is never a disadvantage.

[brg444]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again. 

[QuestionAuthority]

Why would someone with the background of Peter R. choose to debate with a bunch of nobodys on the most unrestricted trolling forum the interwebz has to offer. If he really is that guy, I would think his education and intelligence would keep him from ever making an account here.

I have the utmost respect for Tony Gallippi and the entire BitPay team because they stopped posting and responding on this forum years ago.

[brg444]

Why would someone with the background of Peter R. choose to debate with a bunch of nobodys on the most unrestricted trolling forum the interwebz has to offer. If he really is that guy, I would think his education and intelligence would keep him from ever making an account here.

He has a P.R. job to do 

[VeritasSapere]

Reminding people here that not everyone has the same perspective of the people that seem to be shouting the loudest on this thread. I think that Peter R's work is valuable and I respect his opinion. I support BIP101 because at this time it is still the only implementation of Bitcoin which increases the blocksize. I think that a third alternative will most likely be adopted which I would support as well instead of BIP101 as soon as it is implemented, especially if it represents a middle ground between these two extremes. I do not support censorship and I do not think that XT is a take over or a coup of Bitcoin.

Here is an article I have written on the subject explaining my perspective:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

This is why I think that leaving the block size at one megabyte would not be good for Bitcoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[Zarathustra]

vomits his bile

Everybody out there is talking laughing about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.

FTFY

While irrelevant laughing clowns are exposing their irrelevance with their laughter ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjNUPhIrt24&spfreload=10


... Peter R.'s Ledger is already mentioned in Nature.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/ledger-a-journal-about-cryptocurrency-and-blockchain-research.55/#post-1636

That's the difference between Peter R. and irrelevant clowns.

The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be.

The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant.
At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.

By whom?

By market participants that want and need bigger blocks and don't give so much interest anymore about Core implementation.

This minority, no matter how loud it is, is still a minority, therefore if you want bigger blocks better fork off into your own altcoin 

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

Yes, either that, or the stagnators are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133

[brg444]

Reminding people here that not everyone has the same perspective of the people that seem to be shouting the loudest on this thread. I think that Peter R's work is valuable and I respect his opinion. I support BIP101 because at this time it is still the only implementation of Bitcoin which increases the blocksize. I think that a third alternative will most likely be adopted which I would support as well instead of BIP101 as soon as it is implemented, especially if it represents a middle ground between these two extremes. I do not support censorship and I do not think that XT is a take over or a coup of Bitcoin.

Here is an article I have written on the subject explaining my perspective:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

This is why I think that leaving the block size at one megabyte would not be good for Bitcoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

 


I wish I could censor you outta my thread, you're so damn boring

[knight22]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive here.

[brg444]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side  Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

[Zarathustra]

Reminding people here that not everyone has the same perspective of the people that seem to be shouting the loudest on this thread. I think that Peter R's work is valuable and I respect his opinion. I support BIP101 because at this time it is still the only implementation of Bitcoin which increases the blocksize. I think that a third alternative will most likely be adopted which I would support as well instead of BIP101 as soon as it is implemented, especially if it represents a middle ground between these two extremes. I do not support censorship and I do not think that XT is a take over or a coup of Bitcoin.

Here is an article I have written on the subject explaining my perspective:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

This is why I think that leaving the block size at one megabyte would not be good for Bitcoin:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

 


I wish I could censor you outta my thread, you're so damn boring

q.e.d.
and you are also posting in his thread.
That's exactly the mentality of the censors.
O nausea! nausea! nausea!

[knight22]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side  Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

[hdbuck]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.
Again, holding the private keys is the only thing that really matters for authentic bitcoiners.

Fork off man im sick of you corporatist wannabes. Friggin parasites. 

[coalitionfor8mb]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised.

[brg444]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

We can start discussing it when you accept that the "market need" is not some half-baked VISA competitor, until then.... back to your homeworks  

[coalitionfor8mb]

Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.

I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again.  

As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there.

Sure, let's see you on the other side   Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again.

Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs?

You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously.
Again, holding the private keys is the only thing that really matters for authentic bitcoiners.

If you count "private" access to blockchain among those "keys", then yeah, it's all that matters!