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

[theymos]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

[1714300342]

1714300342

[1714300342]

1714300342

[1714300342]

1714300342

[1714300342]

1714300342

[hdbuck]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

[hdbuck]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

press it!

[Zarathustra]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

Won't you get off us you fucking psycho. The mad house is over there : https://bitco.in/forum/

A small blocker who is loosing control. Over and over again. It's really great how you are exposing yourself all the time in this ad hominem thread. Great job!

[brg444]

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact.

More disgusting lies  

Shame on you.

[VeritasSapere]

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

Maybe you need to read it again:

"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things."

If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals of make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered.

The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors".

As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient.

Smart investors would realize that keeping the fees low would allow for increased adoption, since smart investors would know that further mass adoption is what would be best for their investment. What you refer to as the "needers" are the users of Bitcoin, these are the people that give Bitcoin more value. Even investors will need to transact in order to exchange their Bitcoin for fiat. I rather hold on to my Bitcoin and exchange them for goods and services directly as opposed to waiting to cash out so to speak, since if that was everyone's mentality that would not be much better then a pyramid scheme, that is thankfully not the case and many people here do truly believe like myself that Bitcoin is the future of money and much more.

[Peter R]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

THE REST OF MY QUOTE: But these sorts of events are not to be feared--they are what allows Bitcoin to adapt to challenges as they arise. They would not result in bitcoins having no value as some fear, but are what prevents Bitcoin from losing its value in the face of obstacles.

This is what the Bitcoin experiment is all about! If we can't trust the market to make good decisions for the health of Bitcoin--and if we really do need people like Greg and Adam making those decisions for us--then Bitcoin has already failed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

press it!

Why?  Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous?

[hdbuck]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

press it!

Why?  Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous?

you no market, you're a charlatan.

[brg444]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

Yes, that also had me raise an eyebrow.

[muyuu]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

What is the benefit of watching a random made up pie chart pulled out of your arse?

[brg444]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

press it!

Why?  Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous?

If you truly believe so why not advocate to have the limit removed already??

[VeritasSapere]

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact.

More disgusting lies  

Shame on you.

Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting?

[Peter R]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

THE REST OF MY QUOTE: But these sorts of events are not to be feared--they are what allows Bitcoin to adapt to challenges as they arise. They would not result in bitcoins having no value as some fear, but are what prevents Bitcoin from losing its value in the face of obstacles.

This is what the Bitcoin experiment is all about! If we can't trust the market to make good decisions for the health of Bitcoin--and if we really do need people like Greg and Adam making those decisions for us--then Bitcoin has already failed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

press it!

Why?  Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous?

If you truly believe so why not advocate to have the limit removed already??

The inflation rate is already governed by the market.  The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards.  I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer.

[hdbuck]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81

Yes, that also had me raise an eyebrow.

one of them statist idiot already blogposted this kinda crap just after gavin called for the fork attack back then in august.

inb4 buncha blog posts like this one pops up once they created a social media forking precedent: https://medium.com/@twobitidiot/the-21mm-btc-soft-cap-71e14cd09946

this is a governance coup, by the state, for the state.

[brg444]

brg444,

Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.

With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?

It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.

Maybe you need to read it again:

"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things."

If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals of make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered.

The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors".

As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient.

Smart investors would realize that keeping the fees low would allow for increased adoption, since smart investors would know that further mass adoption is what would be best for their investment. What you refer to as the "needers" are the users of Bitcoin, these are the people that give Bitcoin more value. Even investors will need to transact in order to exchange their Bitcoin for fiat. I rather hold on to my Bitcoin and exchange them for goods and services directly as opposed to waiting to cash out so to speak, since if that was everyone's mentality that would not be much better then a pyramid scheme, that is thankfully not the case and many people here do truly believe like myself that Bitcoin is the future of money and much more.

I'm afraid you are not qualified to define what "smart investors" think. To fully display how abjectly wrong, no better than one of the greatest investor of our times, Warren Buffett:

http://www.contravex.com/2014/03/13/on-making-bitcoin-accessible-or-not/

[Zarathustra]

The XT supporters make their true intentions clear:

I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.

No, that makes the true opinion clear: the longest persistent chain is the valid chain, whether a minority of self declared saviors likes it or not.

[Peter R]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

What is the benefit of watching a random made up pie chart pulled out of your arse?

I dunno; ask the hundreds of people who up-voted it before it was deleted. 

[brg444]

The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality.

What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking.

The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact.

More disgusting lies  

Shame on you.

Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting?

Fork off you pathological lier.

[brg444]

Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.

I'm not posting only for your benefit.  A lot of people haven't seen them.  For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin:

What is the benefit of watching a random made up pie chart pulled out of your arse?

I dunno; ask the hundreds of people who up-voted it before it was deleted. 

I'm afraid that is not possible seeing as vote bots are not "people".

[brg444]

I rather hold on to my Bitcoin and exchange them for goods and services directly as opposed to waiting to cash out so to speak, since if that was everyone's mentality that would not be much better then a pyramid scheme, that is thankfully not the case and many people here do truly believe like myself that Bitcoin is the future of money and much more.

I think I told you already but : your economics, it's broken.