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

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Sure, altcoin, govcoin, whatever "so-smart-and-loving-the-herd-blockchain-technology-10.0", you name it.

May you enjoy the comfort and freedom being agglutinated with the sheeple on a single centralized ledger.

Meanwhile, I (and other people) stick with Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will stick as is.

Until you realize that good enough decentralization is good enough and bitcoin is being left behind because it is unnecessary over decentralized to a point it cannot scale and cannot keep on the race.

Yes, well, plenty of time for reassessing bitcoin's capabilities.

But if in the meantime you sheeple could fork off to some socialist altcoin and enjoy your on-chain-free-spamming delusions, that would give Bitcoin even more time before reaching any critical parameter.


edit: and seriously: "realize that good enough decentralization is good enough" lol how old are you again?

[1714260579]

1714260579

[1714260579]

1714260579

[1714260579]

1714260579

[1714260579]

1714260579

[1714260579]

1714260579

[adamstgBit]

I want bigger blooooocks!

Bigger blocks would require a good deal of adoption, which has yet to happen. Whether you want the limit raised or not.

I WANT I WANT I WAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Zarathustra]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Sure, altcoin, govcoin, whatever "so-smart-and-loving-the-herd-blockchain-technology-10.0", you name it.

May you enjoy the comfort and freedom being agglutinated with the sheeple on a single centralized ledger.

Meanwhile, I (and other people) stick with Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will stick as is.

Until you realize that good enough decentralization is good enough and bitcoin is being left behind because it is unnecessary over decentralized to a point it cannot scale and cannot keep on the race.

Yes, well, plenty of time for reassessing bitcoin's capabilities.

But if in the meantime you sheeple could fork off to some socialist altcoin and enjoy your on-chain-free-spamming delusions, that would give Bitcoin even more time before reaching any critical parameter.

Well people aren't going to migrate before there is an economic pressure to do so. We are approx half way there before that pressure begins to take effects.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty:

You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.

Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust.

Get used to that now.

Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off.

Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant.

Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant.

Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.

I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin.

As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.

Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO).

Sure, altcoin, govcoin, whatever "so-smart-and-loving-the-herd-blockchain-technology-10.0", you name it.

May you enjoy the comfort and freedom being agglutinated with the sheeple on a single centralized ledger.

Meanwhile, I (and other people) stick with Bitcoin, and Bitcoin will stick as is.

Until you realize that good enough decentralization is good enough and bitcoin is being left behind because it is unnecessary over decentralized to a point it cannot scale and cannot keep on the race.

Yes, well, plenty of time for reassessing bitcoin's capabilities.

But if in the meantime you sheeple could fork off to some socialist altcoin and enjoy your on-chain-free-spamming delusions, that would give Bitcoin even more time before reaching any critical parameter.

Well people aren't going to migrate before there is an economic pressure to do so. We are approx half way there before that pressure begins to take effects.

Ah, well just gimme a "half-approx" ring by then.

[knight22]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Them website does not even function properly.

And btw, MtGOX was a way better "market maker" than they will ever be.


edit: I'm done here, wasted enough time on you poor irrelevant sheeps, hope you find the altcoin that would fill your noobish fantasies tho. bye.

[Zarathustra]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

Another notorious ad hominem 'Bitcoiner' who calls other users sheeps and sheeples. Are there some normal small blockers anywhere who don't work against their own position?

[Zarathustra]

edit: I'm done here, wasted enough time on you poor irrelevant sheeps, hope you find the altcoin that would fill your noobish fantasies tho. bye.

q.e.d.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12616609#msg12616609

[brg444]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

 

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 

[tl121]

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

[QuestionAuthority]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Them website does not even function properly.

And btw, MtGOX was a way better "market maker" than they will ever be.


edit: I'm done here, wasted enough time on you poor irrelevant sheeps, hope you find the altcoin that would fill your noobish fantasies tho. bye.

That took exactly two pages. lol

[Zarathustra]

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 

You mean stream blocking inc.?

[brg444]

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

[brg444]

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue

[knight22]

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue

How does sidechains solve the block size again?

[bambou]

...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?

None.

Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.

Big market (makers?!) here..

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Them website does not even function properly.

And btw, MtGOX was a way better "market maker" than they will ever be.


edit: I'm done here, wasted enough time on you poor irrelevant sheeps, hope you find the altcoin that would fill your noobish fantasies tho. bye.

That took exactly two pages. lol

I'm making it three just for you, although I'm still loosing my time.

Just do Bitcoin and its decent - authentic - community a favor and fork off with your alikes.

Altcoin Paradise is wide open.