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

[brg444]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

You don't have any arguments.

All of your posts are nothing but political opinionated "verbiage".

But please stay, you do provide comedy value

[1714287427]

1714287427

[1714287427]

1714287427

[VeritasSapere]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

suck it up!

You know he made that picture for charity right?

I can see you are now resorting to ridiculing Andreas Antonopoulos. I suspect that many of the people on this forum will not buy into this type of ad hominem especially against Andreas whom many people here respect.

[Carlton Banks]

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

It's got nothing to do with you, him, me, Andreas Antonopolous or Santa Claus. It's about the idea. Is the idea any good.

Coming from the most notorious subverter of arguments on this board, not to mention one of those who (now) complains most loudly about the subversion of arguments, I'm surprised you're still working away, paragraph after paragraph, continuing to perform what is possibly the first ever world record attempt for an unhalting subversive stream of arguments.

[VeritasSapere]

5 years later:

I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.

The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.

It is very revealing that you do not admire the work of Andreas Antonopoulos. Fortunately I suspect that most other people on this forum do. I will continue to follow the true original vision of Bitcoin founded by Satoshi Nakamoto and which is presently best expressed by Andreas Antonopoulos. This original vision of Bitcoin implies increasing the blocksize. You can disagree with this original vision, even though I do think that this disagreement would be best expressed in an alternative cryptocurrency instead of trying to force your own ideology onto Bitcoin.

Typical redditard homo-erotic fantasies of Andreas Antonopoulos and him saving poor African children with Bitcoin.

Don't you have any pride   Why do you keep bringing up "authorities" to reinforce your position?

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

You don't have any arguments.

All of your posts are nothing but political opinionated "verbiage".

But please stay, you do provide comedy value

I have plenty of arguments. This whole you have no arguments defense is weak when confronted with real arguments. You are simply just not acknowledging my arguments which is not the same as me not having any arguments.

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

[VeritasSapere]

You can not mention pride after what you just did. It is not an argument by authority, I have already made my arguments, which are separate to the position of Andreas Antonopoulos. I mentioned his name because I am being ridiculed for wanting to increase the blocksize as if I am the only person who thinks that, which is obviously not true, furthermore because of the constant ad hominem attacks, I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

It's got nothing to do with you, him, me, Andreas Antonopolous or Santa Claus. It's about the idea. Is the idea any good.

Coming from the most notorious subverter of arguments on this board, not to mention one of those who (now) complains most loudly about the subversion of arguments, I'm surprised you're still working away, paragraph after paragraph, continuing to perform what is possibly the first ever world record attempt for an unhalting subversive stream of arguments.

This on the other hand is a great example of a non argument.

I do agree with the part that I have highlighted at least. I find that we can at least agree on some things Carlton, like bandwith and latency being the primary limitation for blocksize for instance. I also do not think that you would stoop so low as to falsify my quotes, like these unethical people just did, while at the same time not even understanding why this is wrong.

[brg444]

I thought it would make sense to show you that Andreas Antonopoulos also supports increasing the blocksize. If I am wrong because I do not know what I am talking about and I am just some sort of "crazy XT fanatic" then surely you can not use these same "arguments" against Andreas Antonopoulos considering the respect and wisdom he commands within the Bitcoin community.

The only respect and wisdom he commands is from reddit derps who don't know better.

[brg444]

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

All of your posts are nothing but political opinionated "verbiage".

But please stay, you do provide comedy value

[VeritasSapere]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

I support BIP100 in part as a compromise for some of the small blockist whose positions I can respect, like Aaron van Wirdum who I do not agree with, yet I respect his opinion and thinking.

[brg444]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't  

For example you don't understand that there is no such things as "the miners" as a group.

[VeritasSapere]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't 

Fortunately it is not up to the Core developers what proposal the economic majority will adopt. If Jeff Garzik does not implement BIP100 then other people can implement this so far hypothetical BIP100 instead. I would not be surprised if Core took to long to implement this, that the miners themselves might even release and support this implementation.

[brg444]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't  

Fortunately it is not up to the Core developers what proposal the economic majority will adopt. If Jeff Garzik does not implement BIP100 then other people can implement this so far hypothetical BIP100 instead. I would not be surprised if Core took to long to implement this, that the miners themselves might even release and support this implementation.

For the millionth time, the miners don't decide what code gets run, the nodes do.

Core doesn't bother with BIP100 as it is clear its hasn't gotten near consensus acceptance from relevant actors and so it should be considered dead.

[VeritasSapere]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't 

Fortunately it is not up to the Core developers what proposal the economic majority will adopt. If Jeff Garzik does not implement BIP100 then other people can implement this so far hypothetical BIP100 instead. I would not be surprised if Core took to long to implement this, that the miners themselves might even release and support this implementation.

Again, for the millionth time, the miners don't decide what code gets run, the nodes do.

Yes the miners will decide on the proposal and implement it, forking the network. Then people as nodes can freely choose what side of the fork to support by running their full node of choice. I do not see any problems with this, unless you dislike volunteerism and free choice.

[VeritasSapere]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't  

Fortunately it is not up to the Core developers what proposal the economic majority will adopt. If Jeff Garzik does not implement BIP100 then other people can implement this so far hypothetical BIP100 instead. I would not be surprised if Core took to long to implement this, that the miners themselves might even release and support this implementation.

For the millionth time, the miners don't decide what code gets run, the nodes do.

Core doesn't bother with BIP100 as it is clear its hasn't gotten near consensus acceptance from relevant actors and so it should be considered dead.

Cores idea of developer consensus is laughable they just censor and ban anyone who does not agree with them and call that consensus. True Bitcoin consensus is superior, firstly reflected by proof of work and then by the full nodes.

[brg444]

Its a bit strange that the small blockists are so opposed to BIP100 consider that BIP100 would allow the miners to decrease the blocksize if they determined this to be to their advantage.

Jeff Garzik, originator of BIP100, has himself stated it is unlikely (read:impossible) that BIP100 gets adopted so there's really no point debating it.

We are opposed to it because we understand the game theory dynamics of Bitcoin which quite obviously you don't  

Fortunately it is not up to the Core developers what proposal the economic majority will adopt. If Jeff Garzik does not implement BIP100 then other people can implement this so far hypothetical BIP100 instead. I would not be surprised if Core took to long to implement this, that the miners themselves might even release and support this implementation.

For the millionth time, the miners don't decide what code gets run, the nodes do.

Core doesn't bother with BIP100 as it is clear its hasn't gotten near consensus acceptance from relevant actors and so it should be considered dead.

Cores idea of developer consensus is laughable they just censor and ban anyone who does not agree with them and call that consensus. True Bitcoin consensus is superior, firstly reflected by proof of work and then by the full nodes.

It has nothing to do with developer consensus and what you propose is simply disingenuous and holds absolutely no truth. Such statements simply solidify your troll status.

Miners are here to extend the longest chain deemed valid by the code run by the nodes. If miners tomorrow decide to switch their hashing power to litecoin you won't go around calling it Bitcoin will ya?

What a waste of time you are... at least the usual trolls like LambChop provide some type of challenge and lulz. You're just a dull & very boring imbecile....

[VeritasSapere]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

[brg444]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

Yes it does 

[VeritasSapere]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

Yes it does 

It sure does, which is why more then seventy percent of the miners now support bigger blocks.

[brg444]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

Yes it does 

It sure does, which is why more then seventy percent of the miners now support bigger blocks.

Which pretty much means nothing until 100% of the nodes agree. 

[VeritasSapere]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

Yes it does  

It sure does, which is why more then seventy percent of the miners now support bigger blocks.

Which pretty much means nothing until 100% of the nodes agree.  

That is impossible, 90%-100% consensus is impossible among large groups of people. Bitcoin was also never designed to be this way, Bitcoin can split with only 51% of the mining power. This is a good thing because it solves the age old problem of tyranny of the majority.

[brg444]

Truth can stand on its own, people please use wisdom and reason, measure our arguments by thinking for yourself. Decide for yourself what you think would be the best path for Bitcoin. Do not be fooled by the constant ad hominem and sophistry. Inform your self and understand what the pros and cons are and do not forget that Bitcoin will reflect the will of its participants so think carefully of what you would like Bitcoin to become.

https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.ybxg8kz61

Yes it does  

It sure does, which is why more then seventy percent of the miners now support bigger blocks.

Which pretty much means nothing until 100% of the nodes agree.  

That is impossible, 90%-100% consensus is impossible among large groups of people. Bitcoin was also never designed to be this way, Bitcoin can split with only 51% of the mining power. This is a good thing because it solves the age old problem of tyranny of the majority.

Watch it happen retard.

Still pretending a 51% miner attack is a legitimate fork of the network heh    oh well...

Do you understand what Bitcoin is? A peer-to-peer network? If you honestly believe the protocol is dictated by the mining power and not the actual peers then there's really no use wasting my time with you.

To be clear: no, Bitcoin cannot split with 51% of the hashing power.