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

[Zarathustra]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

development is already decentralized. hello, open source software here.

its not because you peter dont know how to code and hence never contributed to the github repo that it is centralized.

seriously, you pathetic prick.

Ah, you are one of those clowns who think that the internet or the blockchain isn't an interdisciplinary work. You seem to believe that coding children without any life experience produce such environments. The absurdity is screaming ...

[1714256045]

1714256045

[1714256045]

1714256045

[1714256045]

1714256045

[RoadTrain]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Development is decentralized by nature because it's open-source -- anyone is free to fork the code.

I believe I argued before that development focused on Core is natural as well, as it represents some kind of a natural monopoly, where it is more effective to point resources at one implementation; the 'decentralization' as you are suggesting is in fact associated with wasting resources.

The only reason these multiple implementations can exist is when Core can't deliver a particular feature for technical or ideological reasons, and thus this wasting of resources is justified. But unless the market really wants this feature, the Core will stay a monopoly, no matter how many GIFs you create, it's simply more effective resource-wise.

[Carlton Banks]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Haha fair enough.  

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Peter, do you know what "sophism" means? Humour me, provide a definition in a reply to this post

Sophism is a fallacious argument, especially when used to deceive.

In what way do you think I am trying to deceive?

No, it is defined by repeating an argument (either fallacious or not) ad infinitum to irritate the adversary into submission.

[Peter R]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Development is decentralized by nature because it's open-source -- anyone is free to fork the code.

Bitcoin XT is an example of someone freely forking the code.  Do you think XT is a positive thing for Bitcoin because it gives people choice?  Or a negative thing for Bitcoin?

[Holliday]

You deleted the phrase "(e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)." Are you opposed to multiple forkwise-compatible implementations of the Bitcoin protocol?

I am not opposed to multiple implementations (forkwise-compatible or not) of the Bitcoin client/protocol/whatever.

I think I would actually prefer a fork at this point. There are clearly irreconcilable differences between certain groups here. Let's fork already and may the best chain win.

[hdbuck]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

development is already decentralized. hello, open source software here.

its not because you peter dont know how to code and hence never contributed to the github repo that it is centralized.

seriously, you pathetic prick.

Ah, you are one of those clowns who think that the internet or the blockchain isn't an interdisciplinary work. You seem to believe that coding children without any life experience produce such environments. The absurdity is screaming ...

What dont you understand in "development"?

Does Peter qualify in software development? No.

Then what? Peters med degree consist of a field relevant to bitcoin overall? No.

[Zarathustra]

Notorious ad hominem

Notorious ad hominem

Ten anonymous heroes against Peter. Great, how you show together who is somebody and who is not.

[Zarathustra]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development?

No.

development is already decentralized. hello, open source software here.

its not because you peter dont know how to code and hence never contributed to the github repo that it is centralized.

seriously, you pathetic prick.

Ah, you are one of those clowns who think that the internet or the blockchain isn't an interdisciplinary work. You seem to believe that coding children without any life experience produce such environments. The absurdity is screaming ...

What dont you understand in "development"?

Does Peter qualify in software development? No.

Of course yes. His life experience in different playgrounds is on an infinite higher level than that of some core devs and mods who left school some months ago.

[RoadTrain]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Development is decentralized by nature because it's open-source -- anyone is free to fork the code.

Bitcoin XT is an example of someone freely forking the code.  Do you think XT is a positive thing for Bitcoin because it gives people choice?  Or a negative thing for Bitcoin?

Choice is usually good, when it allows for informed decisions. In this regard, I can even consider XT good. But overall I consider XT bad for numerous technical and ideological reasons, as I have repeatedly argued.

Anyway, XT never gained traction, and I believe it has no future under current circumstances. People have made their decision.

[Zarathustra]

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

Development is decentralized by nature because it's open-source -- anyone is free to fork the code.

Bitcoin XT is an example of someone freely forking the code.  Do you think XT is a positive thing for Bitcoin because it gives people choice?  Or a negative thing for Bitcoin?

Choice is usually good, when it allows for informed decisions. In this regard, I can even consider XT good. But overall I consider XT bad for numerous technical and ideological reasons, as I have repeatedly argued.

Anyway, XT never gained traction, and I believe it has no future under current circumstances. People have made their decision.

Yes, under the current circumstances the blocks are just half full. But the times, they are always a changin'. Tenfold txs increase spring 12 - spring 13.
Better to get ready than not. Not?

[Zarathustra]

notorious ad hominem clowns here

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above? 

Notorious ad hominem attackers don't deserve friendly answers. But Peter speaks friendly even to a sociopath like you. I couldn't; and I admire him.
The absurdity is screaming when people like you and brg talk about sociopathy.

[Carlton Banks]

notorious ad hominem clowns here

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above?  

Notorious ad hominem attackers don't deserve friendly answers. But Peter speaks friendly even to a sociopath like you. I couldn't; and I admire him.
The absurdity is screaming when people like you and brg talk about sociopathy.

I've told you before: it's not ad hominem if it's true (or relevant). Everything is here in black and white, so there's no need to repeat yourself, you're not convincing anyone.

[Zarathustra]

notorious ad hominem clowns here

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above?  

Notorious ad hominem attackers don't deserve friendly answers. But Peter speaks friendly even to a sociopath like you. I couldn't; and I admire him.
The absurdity is screaming when people like you and brg talk about sociopathy.

I've told you before: it's not ad hominem if it's true (or relevant). Everything is here in black and white, so there's no need to repeat yourself, you're not convincing anyone.

The chance that notorious, sociopathic ad hominem attackers speak the truth is zero.

[Trent Russell]

Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Haha fair enough. 

Holliday, are you opposed to the decentralization of development (e.g., as depicted in this animated GIF)?

There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."

But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?

Someone against XT could  make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.

But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.

[Carlton Banks]

notorious ad hominem clowns here

Could the dictionary definition of "hyprocrisy" ever be adequate to describe the above?  

Notorious ad hominem attackers don't deserve friendly answers. But Peter speaks friendly even to a sociopath like you. I couldn't; and I admire him.
The absurdity is screaming when people like you and brg talk about sociopathy.

I've told you before: it's not ad hominem if it's true (or relevant). Everything is here in black and white, so there's no need to repeat yourself, you're not convincing anyone.

The chance that notorious, sociopathic ad hominem attackers speak the truth is zero.

Could it be that you are the first person in all history to repeat the ad hominem accusation so frequently that it constitutes an ad hominem in it's own right?

The ad hominem ad hominem (thus spake Zarasthustra)  

[Carlton Banks]

There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."

But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?

Someone against XT could  make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.

But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.

Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics.

[Zarathustra]

There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."

But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?

Someone against XT could  make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.

But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.

Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics.

Everybody knows that this graph shows an outcome that he would prefer and you fear: competition and decentralization of implementations. No ground to accuse it as misleading.

[QuestionAuthority]

I've watched paid shills change opinions on this forum for years. Some of them are quite successful. They generally argue against seemingly rational and well thought out arguments with a vigor that highlights their true purpose. The next steps in the irrational debate are name calling and doxing. This happens because someone arguing against the shill wants to invalidate, what appears to be, an unwavering irrational argument. The last step is usually the "you're stupid, I'm leaving the debate" stage. What step in the process are we at now? I think we're 2-4 pages from the last step.

[Peter R]

I think some of the "heat" regarding the block size limit and multiple-implementations comes down to the existence of two opposing visions of what Bitcoin is.  Some think Bitcoin is ultimately governed by mathematics, others think it's the market.  

My opinion is that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the market; only over the short term is it governed by mathematics (the source code).  Because this is my view point, multiple implementations are a good thing to me because they remove friction and allow the market to more easily meet its demands (e.g., a larger block size limit).  If someone has the opposing view, then I could understand why they might view multiple implementations as a danger (e.g., the rules could be changed by the market).

What's interesting is that the answer to who's vision is correct is, at least partly, testable.  If the market-governance theory is correct, then it should not be possible to drive a fee market significantly above the free-market equilibrium.  The market will tolerate a block size limit to the right of Q* (i.e., a limit serving as an anti-spam measure but not affecting the free market dynamics).  



However, the market will not tolerate a limit to the left of Q* (a limit that results in a deadweight loss of economic activity).  



If the market wants to be at Q*, how can that same market force it to be at Qmax instead?  

If the market theory is correct, then the total miner fees should never significantly exceed the total coins lost to orphaning over a sustained period of time.  This would be one way to refute the market-governance hypothesis.  Since Q* is now very close to bumping into Qmax, perhaps we'll have our answer within a year or so.


Cross posted: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/block-space-as-a-commodity-a-transaction-fee-market-exists-without-a-block-size-limit.58/page-6#post-1944

[sgbett]

I've watched paid shills change opinions on this forum for years. Some of them are quite successful. They generally argue against seemingly rational and well thought out arguments with a vigor that highlights their true purpose. The next steps in the irrational debate are name calling and doxing. This happens because someone arguing against the shill wants to invalidate, what appears to be, an unwavering irrational argument. The last step is usually the "you're stupid, I'm leaving the debate" stage. What step in the process are we at now? I think we're 2-4 pages from the last step.

Unlikely, the ice'n'berg show must go on! Ego's are at stake!