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

[MbccompanyX]

It was clear that XT was made only to make a drop on the price, i want to see if they bough some btc and now that it's value is raising are selling them

[knight22]

It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen,

This is yet to be seen if Core delivers something satisfactory in time.

How on earth giving choice to the market can be considered as dictatorship? The censorship going on on /r/bitcoin IS dictatorship.

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

Dude still don't understand how XT works. K.

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. It is politics of the worst kind.

 

Aaaaand how Core devs ignoring a large group of the market asking for scalability solution in a timely manner is not totalitarianism?

What "large group of the market"? Reddit? This forum?

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

As per example.

It's not my problem if the Core team live in an Ivory tower.

[DooMAD]

What "large group of the market"? Reddit? This forum?

How are they qualified to understand and determine what a "timely manner" ought to be? If you had read Hayek you'd realize this is exactly what he is talking about. A group of sheeps electing a totalitarian leader because they couldn't wait for due process to unfold and required actions only because they thought they knew better.

You pretending that a bunch of noise is relevant because it's noisy should not reflect on the decisions of professionals.

Speaking of "noise", your post is pretty much the standard par of oxymora perpetuated lately.

Open source software has no totalitarian leaders.  Neither the developers of core nor XT have any real "power" and there are no dictators.  Stop spouting the "it's open source but only core devs can propose code changes" oxymoron.

If the only people whose opinions mattered were self-appointed "professionals", you wouldn't be here trying so hard to convince people.  Stop spouting the "it's only consensus when I agree with it" oxymoron.

[brg444]

Do you have evidence for this?

Where have you been the last few weeks?

Here.

I, for one, never saw any core developers sponsor or condone the work of theymos or his mods, you know, the ones actually responsible for the censorship moderation

[QuestionAuthority]

Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.)  A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.

I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated.

Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it).

I defended the guy for years past his 'best before' date.  My bad.  Believe it or not I have to be pretty confident about the rottenness of someone or something before I really open up on them/it.

If Gavin planned to foster good-will in doing his early facet stuff as a PR stunt, it was one of the most brilliant moves in Bitcoin history.  I still doubt that he did and still feel it mostly likely that his elevation was one of those accidents of caprice.  And also that if Bitcoin survives him it will be one of the epic saves of all time.

I've never supported Gavin and made that clear for years. Oh, not for intellectual or philosophical reasons but because he looks like one of those kids I used to beat up in high school. lol

[chrisvl]

It was clear that XT was made only to make a drop on the price, i want to see if they bough some btc and now that it's value is raising are selling them

Xt drop the price ??

[jonald_fyookball]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

[MbccompanyX]

It was clear that XT was made only to make a drop on the price, i want to see if they bough some btc and now that it's value is raising are selling them

Xt drop the price ??

I noticed that meanwhile the xt was debated, bitcoin was always red, now that is rekt is getting value again. Anyway is what i think because drops of the size we saw for are aren't normal

[brg444]

What "large group of the market"? Reddit? This forum?

How are they qualified to understand and determine what a "timely manner" ought to be? If you had read Hayek you'd realize this is exactly what he is talking about. A group of sheeps electing a totalitarian leader because they couldn't wait for due process to unfold and required actions only because they thought they knew better.

You pretending that a bunch of noise is relevant because it's noisy should not reflect on the decisions of professionals.

Speaking of "noise", your post is pretty much the standard par of oxymora perpetuated lately.

Open source software has no totalitarian leaders.  Neither the developers of core nor XT have any real "power" and there are no dictators.  Stop spouting the "it's open source but only core devs can propose code changes" oxymoron.

If the only people whose opinions mattered were self-appointed "professionals", you wouldn't be here trying so hard to convince people.  Stop spouting the "it's only consensus when I agree with it" oxymoron.

Open source values changed based on technical merits. XT proposed changed based on a political agenda.

Stop confusing a fork for a governance coup.

[brg444]

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

As per example.

It's not my problem if the Core team live in an Ivory tower.

You managed to put the two in one post  Splendid!

Now read this again: ivory tower.

Then lookahere:
http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

[maokoto]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

[Lauda]

It would be a mistake to get rid of the alert key. And it is clear that the alert key has not been misused in the past.
Considering the necessity for miner's consensus, and considering how many miners are still using prehistoric versions of QT, we need a way to contact them.

Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event.  There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it.  If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people.

We aren't talking about removing the alert key completely, but removing the one that Gavin has acess to. This is completely different. I agree with tvbcof. Gavin has not been that active in the recent years.

[Muhammed Zakir]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

[jonald_fyookball]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

[brg444]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

[Muhammed Zakir]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

You were saying Core developers, who are also Blockstream developers, were stonewalling 1 MB limit for years and are continuing to do so. Which is a FUD/disinformation and is very different from "block size limit debate has been going on for years"! You support XT and assumes core developers are against raising block size limit especially because of Blockstream. Its okay but you are spreading your assumption and/or speculations as a "fact" everywhere. Propaganda? I don't know! You used to be a neutral diplomat and an accurate judge but its fading away!

[turvarya]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

[brg444]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source?

[BldSwtTrs]

I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.

I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.

And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.

While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong.

It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork.

Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination.

YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool.

It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys.

Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ?
Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.

Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.

Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.

As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.

They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that.

[onemorexmr]

OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.

But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.

Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.

Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts?

Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains?

They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing.
They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network.

For years? Oh, not you Jonald!

You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed!

* Edited.

You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right?
People should really stop mixing things up ...

his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions.
i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though...

LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont.