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

[brg444]

Does this guy not realize who he is surrounded by? 

[1714257199]

1714257199

[1714257199]

1714257199

[Zarathustra]

More ad hominem from the usual suspects.

A thread for children. They have pictures, memes and ad hominems. They are not older than the core devs and the core mods.

[muyuu]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

[MbccompanyX]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

yeah we can finally say that bitcoin xt or how i want to call "make a stupid excuse to buy bitcoin ownership taking his value to 0" extremely dead, and i suppose this thread doesn't have any other need to be open or is just my illusion?

[muyuu]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

yeah we can finally say that bitcoin xt or how i want to call "make a stupid excuse to buy bitcoin ownership taking his value to 0" extremely dead, and i suppose this thread doesn't have any other need to be open or is just my illusion?

They're still producing laughter material, so the thread IMO is justified. Should probably be in the altcoin section though.

[hdbuck]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

yeah we can finally say that bitcoin xt or how i want to call "make a stupid excuse to buy bitcoin ownership taking his value to 0" extremely dead, and i suppose this thread doesn't have any other need to be open or is just my illusion?

They're still producing laughter material, so the thread IMO is justified. Should probably be in the altcoin section though.

nahh, this thread should be pinned in this bitcoin section as a warning for all them forking n00bs.

[MbccompanyX]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

yeah we can finally say that bitcoin xt or how i want to call "make a stupid excuse to buy bitcoin ownership taking his value to 0" extremely dead, and i suppose this thread doesn't have any other need to be open or is just my illusion?

They're still producing laughter material, so the thread IMO is justified. Should probably be in the altcoin section though.

nahh, this thread should be pinned in this bitcoin section as a warning for all them forking n00bs.

@muyuu i see, anyway if they want to make XT a bit laugh means that they aren't professionals after all

@hdbuck on the fact that should be pinned in the top of the section is ok but remember that always there will be the n00b of the case that will try to dissolve all the bitcoin community

[hdbuck]

@hdbuck on the fact that should be pinned in the top of the section is ok but remember that always there will be the n00b of the case that will try to dissolve all the bitcoin community

hmyea, hence, pin it!

its hearndresen's legacy to bitcoin, allowing its resilience to social attacks and other shady governance coup.

[VeritasSapere]

There's no way Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto is 6 foot.
On a serious note, I still do not understand how big blockers still don't seem to get it. We already have centralized mining, im still waiting for a convincing explanation of how centralizing the nodes would be a good idea (and this is what would happen once the blocks become too big and they will). Having to rely on offchain transactions isn't ideal, but the world isn't ideal, and it's certainly better than a group of 4 or 5 private companies owning most of the nodes.

Increasing the blocksize would not make mining more centralized. The blocksize has no impact on mining centralization whatsoever. I am not advocating centralizing the nodes either. You are correct in thinking that no solution is ideal which is why I think that increasing the blocksize is the best solution which maximizes decentralization and financial freedom compared to the other alternatives. If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

[VeritasSapere]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list now. If you look at the post that has been censored it certainly does not seem justified. In my mind this is truly the end for Core, I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin. I doubt Core would ever implement BIP100 anyway, it will most likely end up being an alternative implementation that will stay true to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto instead. This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules. I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship.

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? 

[brg444]

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list now. If you look at the post that has been censored it certainly does not seem justified. In my mind this is truly the end for Core, I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin. I doubt Core would ever implement BIP100 anyway, it will most likely end up being an alternative implementation that will stay true to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto instead. This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules. I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship.

We've been waiting for you to fork off!

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? 

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

[hdbuck]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? 

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

lel 4 pages thread!

such consensus..

sry, BIP 101 is dead, dead and deader.

now let us have fun in our 100+ pages thread.

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Increased adoption != increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple truth.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

[brg444]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? 

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

lel 4 pages thread!

such consensus..

sry, BIP 101 is dead, dead and deader.

now let us have fun in our 100+ pages thread.

Because your thread has more pages it means you are right? I am not convinced, you will have to come up with a better argument then that.

[iCEBREAKER]

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list  
it certainly does not seem justified  
I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin  
This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules  
I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship  

You use the terms "censorship" and "moderation" interchangeably, but they are not equivalent.

Cite: https://xkcd.com/1357/

[VeritasSapere]

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies?  

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.