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

[Zarathustra]

Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.

Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase?

As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better.

Consult a professional, you've turned full retard.

Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement 

Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented.

[brg444]

Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.

Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase?

As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better.

Consult a professional, you've turned full retard.

Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement 

Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented.

Indeed, repo is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

Anyone is free to contribute but don't expect to be welcomed warmly if you attempt to insert blacklists and blockchain bloating code 

[Carlton Banks]

Maybe it would be wiser to acknowledge that the price has nothing to do with the blocksize debate.

Which was the way in which it was brought up. Do wise people always announce the quality of their wisdom as it is delivered?

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain  

[brg444]

Maybe it would be wiser to acknowledge that the price has nothing to do with the blocksize debate.

Which was the way in which it was brought up. Do wise people always announce the quality of their wisdom as it is delivered?

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain  

Pretend "it's just another implementation" when it has clear intent to diverge from existing consensus rules.

Fortunately it has been all too easy to see through their lies and manipulation

[Carlton Banks]

Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented.

It's ironic that you unconsciously use these epithets (dare I say it, ad ho.....  oh why bother) against Blockstream, when they're taking the opposite approach when expressing their intent with their software engineering. You know, doing something positive.

They're developing new ways of writing the transaction signatures such that they occupy less space per additional signature. Making better use of the blockchain resource, instead of pushing that (soon to be) redundant data onto the blockchain. It's genuine, thought-through computer science innovation like that that's going to improve access to the Bitcoin network, not just ceaselessly repeating a simplistic and pernicious non-solution.

[VeritasSapere]

The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

Everyone should read this.

[brg444]

The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

Everyone should read this.

Why don't you join the phorkers forum and leave us alone already?

https://bitco.in/forum/

No one cares about you opinion. Sorry 

[VeritasSapere]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

[brg444]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies 

Do you understand open-source software  Apparently you don't.

[VeritasSapere]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies 

Do you understand open-source software  Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

[hdbuck]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

zomg!!1 dictat0rship and cens0rship!

time for you to leave bitcoin!

infinite coffee tips waiting @ ripple for you n00b!

[brg444]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

Yes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.

Would you rather have Mike?

[VeritasSapere]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

Yes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.

Do you prefer for it to be Mike?

Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

[Zarathustra]

Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.

Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase?

As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better.

Consult a professional, you've turned full retard.

Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement 

Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented.

Indeed, repo is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

Anyone is free to contribute but don't expect to be welcomed warmly...

Yes, that's why the central authority got competition.

[brg444]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

Yes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.

Do you prefer for it to be Mike?

Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

There's no problem with different implementations. The issue with XT is it is run by incompetents who attempt to insert damaging and poorly-reviewed code to a very fragile consensus critical system.

[VeritasSapere]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

Yes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.

Do you prefer for it to be Mike?

Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

There's no problem with different implementations. The issue with XT is it is run by incompetents who attempt to insert damaging and poorly-reviewed code to a very fragile consensus critical system.

The consensus system is not fragile. I choose to support BIP101, you do not. Agree to disagree but we both do and should have the choice.

If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.

[hdbuck]

I am happy that we have a choice of implementations, I am also looking forward to their being more alternatives for us to choose from. Thinking that there should only be one implementation of Bitcoin is indeed a totalitarian mentality.

It most certainly is, and the reason, yet again, is that the peer-to-peer network needs to follow common consensus rules to make sure that the blockchain data remains consensual between nodes.

Is it just me, or am I only just recognising the subtlety of this approach at killing bitcoin decentralisation: propose 1 client fork, fail. propose (+ promote) multiple blockchain forks. Like that's supposed to be a better idea than just 1 fork of the main chain.

This does not change the simple truth that having only predominant implementation which is effectively controlled by one person is the equivalent of totalitarianism for Bitcoin. Having multiple implementations equals having multiple choices. Only having a single choice decided by a small group of technocrats is not the type of freedom I signed up for. Consensus is not an excuse for totalitarianism, Bitcoin is not as fragile as you think it is, it will survive multiple forks.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies  

Do you understand open-source software   Apparently you don't.

Wladamir does have the final say on what gets merged or not

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

Yes, a maintainer, that's how every successful FOSS projects work.

Do you prefer for it to be Mike?

Multiple implementations means multiple development teams, in this way both Mike and Core can contribute if that is what people choose. An election where there is only one party is totalitarianism. I am saying that there should be multiple alternatives for people to choose from.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

There's no problem with different implementations. The issue with XT is it is run by incompetents who attempt to insert damaging and poorly-reviewed code to a very fragile consensus critical system.

The consensus system is not fragile. I choose to support BIP101, you do not. Agree to disagree but we both do and should have the choice.

If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.

yes you have a choice, now what? i chose to use bitcoin as it is running, you dont want it fine, so consider gtfo already..

i mean, the core devs, the miners and the nodes also are running bitcoin as is, sooo.. well gtfo. again.


even better please be my guest and create that coin of your dream (tho i think you and your alikes do lack the technical competences)..
you might even ipo or premined some them 'retard'coinz

[Zarathustra]

There's no problem with different implementations.

Exactly. The prolem is:

Some people believe otherwise: that all Bitcoin code must emanate from Bitcoin Core. For them the idea of providing alternatives and allowing the free market to decide is threatening. Hence the smear campaign to brand XT as an “altcoin” and forbid discussion of it in various public fora — nevermind the screaming irony of trying to censor discussion of a censorship-resistant piece of software. Hence the outright DDoS attacks against miners who mine on XT and the pools that permit them.

We are told by these people that Bitcoin is too fragile to permit alternative clients — in other words, miners may “vote with their CPUs,” but they must have the option of voting only for one Party. We know what an election with only one choice is called: Totalitarianism.

If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.

Some people argue that the block size will be raised, but only after it reaches a certain pain threshold. Here I personally side with Mike: you don’t smear alternatives, break apart online communities, and outright DDoS your competitors because you agree on everything except for timing. Those are the actions of people who perceive a threat.

https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11

[Zarathustra]

The greatest moderator of all time:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/11554...rship-in-focus-as-30-ceos-join-roger-vers-ama
 

[Patel]

The one behind the curtain of all this XT promo is Andreesen Horowitz (A16Z)

Mike Hearn is an advisor for A16Z

Recently Coinbase, (Mostly funded by A16Z), CEO Brian Armstrong said he prefers Bitcoin XT.

You can bet A16Z is the one lobbying for XT.

The bad thing is, XT in my opinion, won't incorporate privacy enhancing things which Bitcoin Core developers.

XT/A16Z comes off to me as do whatever to make profit, while Core actually adds privacy enhancing features and does true scalability work besides just blocksize crying.

My 2 cents.