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

[RoadTrain]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

[muyuu]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

There's so much truth in BtcDrak's post I almost feel bad for Small Man Mikey. Almost.

[MbccompanyX]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

There's so much truth in BtcDrak's post I almost feel bad for Small Man Mikey. Almost.

Too bad that for our VeritasSapere all this hurts and will try to make a cover with the next thing possible, i think we should ignore he/she because always knows how to ignore the single post thing and do the fake nerd he/she is

[hdbuck]

Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child.

Bitcoin Core has absolutely every intention of addressing block size in a way which will not compromise the security properties of Bitcoin. The issue is far more complex an nuances than Mike likes to present and scalability is a very complex issue for Bitcoin with block size being the least interesting property, but one which has the potential to change the security model and properties of what Bitcoin stands for.


A Short List of Lies:

1/ Having a set flag day does not take away miner voting, miners vote by upgrading. Additionally, having an expiry mechanism is as simple as, if by flag day we don’t have 95% adoption of the hardfork, abort. It’s a line of code.

2/ Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie. Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin 3/ Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside. Huge exchanges have also stated they will not accept BIP101 outright. Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people.

3/ The Scaling Bitcoins conferences are not specifically about blocksize, but about how to scale bitcoin efficiently and without risk. Blocksize proposals were off the table at the first meeting in order to bring decorum to the debate and explain the many other aspects of scalability. The second meeting is all about specific scalability proposals which block size is a part of, but it is not the exclusive remit of the conference.

4/ The Liquid sidechain is not a competitor to Bitcoin, it will liquidity between exchanges and thus increase arbitrage. That in turn will help reduce price volatility since huge spreads wont be able to form exchanges (like right now there’s a 5–10% spread between Chinese and Western exchanges).

5/ Mike’s presentation of how things get merged in Bitcoin Core is completely wrong. Read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md

6/ Bitcoin Core is not under the control of two people, but Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not and has quite rightly said he wont merge controversial changes to consensus related code. That means, consensus changes, like CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY or blocksize must have wide technical consensus.


It’s clear Mike does not like the simple fact that the vast majority of technical experts in the Bitcoin field, contribute to Bitcoin Core and not other projects. Not only that, downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing, in the short time of it’s existence, hardly any changes have been merged, and what has been has deep technical flaws. Meanwhile Bitcoin Core has made literally hundreds of improvements.

Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field.


Mike, for the love of God, just stop with this nonsense. Stop being divisive and if you can’t, go do something constructive elsewhere. At least, stop telling lies.

https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

[marcus_of_augustus]

Mike is going to be contacted by some powerful people in the near future who can fully occupy all his energies into more productive directions.

[VeritasSapere]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

This response is mainly comprised of ad hominem and appeals to authority. The developers of Core should not be the people that decide on the future of Bitcoin. It should be the economic majority instead which is best reflected through proof of work. Saying that the miners have to upgrade is not the same as them actually voting with their hash power.

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

[Carlton Banks]

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.

So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.

[MbccompanyX]

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.

So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.

Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat, ignoring he and leave this thread only to he is the only thing we can do to calm he down and let he see who really supports XT, that by the way seems that is supported only from VeritasSapere and nobody else

[RoadTrain]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

This response is mainly comprised of ad hominem and appeals to authority. The developers of Core should not be the people that decide on the future of Bitcoin. It should be the economic majority instead which is best reflected through proof of work. Saying that the miners have to upgrade is not the same as them actually voting with their hash power.

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Which of these 6 points have ad hominem or appeal to authority that renders them invalid?

I see you still don't get it, as you're stuck in the XT-Core battle mindset. Core team does not decide on the future of Bitcoin. It offers a solution, provides arguments and expertise, and the economic majority is free to decide which way to go. The same goes for XT. The truth is that the economic majority has so far decided that XT is a no-go, and Core is delivering on its promises. Deal with it.

Mike has predicted Core won't raise the limit. Let's wait and see.

[VeritasSapere]

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.

There is another way to do this. Which is to have multiple implementations which different people are in charge off, this would decentralize development in the sense that a single person would no longer be in control of what goes into the latest version of Bitcoin that most people are using.

There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way.

In Bitcoin when there is a fundamental disagreement it can split, whether caused by a majority or minority is even irrelevant. It does not matter how much you believe consensus can be forced on people it is simply not how Bitcoin works, whether a "technical authority" agrees or not.

The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.

You do not speak for the countless more people that are reading this thread. The simple idea that I support is that I want to increase the blocksize and I do not "trust" Core to do so in time. Whether this idea has been rejected is up to each individual to decide and time will tell who is on the right side of history.

[VeritasSapere]

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.

So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.

Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat, ignoring he and leave this thread only to he is the only thing we can do to calm he down and let he see who really supports XT, that by the way seems that is supported only from VeritasSapere and nobody else

Show me one example where I have falsely denied what I have written before. Please do me the favor and show me the error in my ways, otherwise this is just a baseless accusation.

Saying that BIP101 is only supported by myself is obviously false.

[MbccompanyX]

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Yep, there is no other sensible way of doing it. I'm happy with Wladimir, you seem to think Mike Hearn would be a good alternative. You're entitled to your opinion, but both the miners and the users have rejected that.

So please stop labouring the point, portraying yourself as an oppressed minority. If your views of cryptocurrency are so successful, allow them to stand on their own. There cannot be two competing designs within the same single piece of software, it simply does not work that way. The idea you're trying so hard not to explicitly support for months now has been rejected. Roundly. Help us all out and do something productive instead of yet more of your shamelessly bizarre double-think-as-an-argument output ad nauseum. You're not saying anything new, or anything that's gaining an audience.

Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat, ignoring he and leave this thread only to he is the only thing we can do to calm he down and let he see who really supports XT, that by the way seems that is supported only from VeritasSapere and nobody else

Show me one example where I have falsely denied what I have written before. Please do me the favor and show me the error in my ways, otherwise this is just a baseless accusation.

Saying that BIP101 is only supported by myself is obviously false.

Dude, stop playing the victim game as i told and then i can believe you. As you can see you are making only lols for everybody and not something that makes sense because you always get around the topics i raise on this thread and yours are baseless accusation because if you could know me in real life you could see that i don't believe on this over 1Mb blocks crap because if you even try to think if bitcoin itself started with those kind of blocks bitcoin could be a reality for few people.

And with this i close any future checks on this thread because seriously i'm getting tired to tell the same thing while you still makes only lols for the entire community

[VeritasSapere]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

A reply by BtcDrak: https://medium.com/@btcdrak/full-of-lies-and-desperation-of-someone-who-risked-his-entire-reputation-on-something-and-lost-and-6c206e68d0cf#.9vi6d25is

This response is mainly comprised of ad hominem and appeals to authority. The developers of Core should not be the people that decide on the future of Bitcoin. It should be the economic majority instead which is best reflected through proof of work. Saying that the miners have to upgrade is not the same as them actually voting with their hash power.

Furthermore Bitcoin Core is under the control of a single person, Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not after all.

Which of these 6 points have ad hominem or appeal to authority that renders them invalid?

There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.

Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child."
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie."
"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people."

Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside."
"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing"
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."

Core team does not decide on the future of Bitcoin. It offers a solution, provides arguments and expertise, and the economic majority is free to decide which way to go. The same goes for XT. The truth is that the economic majority has so far decided that XT is a no-go, and Core is delivering on its promises. Deal with it.

I actually agree with this.

Mike has predicted Core won't raise the limit. Let's wait and see.

I agree with this as well. Time will tell which is in part why I am confident this situation will resolve it self. Most people do want the blocksize to be increased after all, which means that if Core does fail to do so in good time then the economic majority will fork instead, one way or another.

[brg444]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

Great article by Mike Hearn, everyone should read this.

Jesus christ....are you cypherdoc's little brother by any chance?

You realize you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us?

[MbccompanyX]

On block sizes
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.366dmgcto

Great article by Mike Hearn, everyone should read this.

Jesus christ....are you cypherdoc's little brother by any chance?

You realize you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us?

He refuses to admit defeat brg444, he is like some people i know from other forums that doesn't give up on their ideas even if are for fools, just ignore he/she and will stop

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Jesus Christ, you have absolutely no credibility left and only serve to amuse us.

No nuns for you.

[RoadTrain]

There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.

Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child."
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem? he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation
"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusion

Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing"
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."

I have struck out parts that were not among these 6 points (I have specifically asked for fallacies among these points).

[VeritasSapere]

There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.

Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child."

This certainly is ad hominem.

"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem? he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation

It is ad hominem because he is saying that Mike is lying, how does he know that? He could believe that what he is saying is true even if it is wrong, this is why proving that someone has lied is not always that easy because it depends on a persons motivations and intention.

"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusion

It is still attacking the person and again it is related to a persons motivations.

Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently

First of all this is a list of "lies", according to the article. This article goes on to imply that this will be true for the future as well by saying "Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesn’t release a block size increase, this is a complete lie. Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core..." So in context the truth that is being claimed is that Mike is lying about about the miners switching to BIP101 in the future because of "appeal to authority/"where the vast majority of technical experts reside".

"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing"
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field."

I have struck out parts that were not among these 6 points (I have specifically asked for fallacies among these points).

I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.

[RoadTrain]

I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.

Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid, as they are not used as premises of arguments, rather as conclusions. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.

I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.

[hdbuck]

I never specifically stated that it was for these six points, I was referring to the article as a whole. I just do not think it is productive calling someone a petulant child and a liar in terms of having a productive discourse.

Strictly speaking, it's irrelevant, as these offensive words do not render the arguments he presented invalid. That's why I asked if these 6 points (actual arguments/statements) contained fallacies.

I think the ad hominem term is used too loosely these days, and is being applied where it really shouldn't be.

as it goes with cens0rshiiiiip ^^