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

[VeritasSapere]

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth.

Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition.

Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance.

From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference. They are essentially the same thing, never before has an open source software project become so political. This why it is should no longer be acceptable that a single person or a small group of people have the final say over the development of Bitcoin. This power needs to be distributed and divided among multiple implementations, which most likely will also be dictatorial in their internal decision making processes. However when people do have several implementations to choose from, the freedom of choice is increased and this does solve the problem of centralized development.

[VeritasSapere]

The ultimate reality is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side.

Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here?

Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust.  

I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

Every single Bitcoin users has the choice to run whatever code he desires. Several miners and peers run different implementations & versions of the protocol­.

If they wish so they can adjust and re-compile whatever setting they desire, as long as it respects the existing consensus.

So really, when you speak of "top-down governance" and Core totalitarianism I have no fucking idea what is it you are talking about. Especially seeing as the Bitcoin Core repo is an open-source project.

It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

[brg444]

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth.

Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition.

Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance.

From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference.

A repository admin is simply a person with the ability to merge pull requests into Bitcoin Core.

Spare me your political BS it makes me sick. To be clear: Wladimir does not hold the "final call", as Mike Hearn claims it, in cases where consensus critical code is debated.

[brg444]

The ultimate reality is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side.

Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here?

Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust.  

I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

Every single Bitcoin users has the choice to run whatever code he desires. Several miners and peers run different implementations & versions of the protocol­.

If they wish so they can adjust and re-compile whatever setting they desire, as long as it respects the existing consensus.

So really, when you speak of "top-down governance" and Core totalitarianism I have no fucking idea what is it you are talking about. Especially seeing as the Bitcoin Core repo is an open-source project.

It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

Please just fork off.

I'm sure by now you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. To top it off you're a notorious liar and we don't like these types over here 

[hdbuck]

...blablabluh
 It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

i recommend cryptography, computer science and economics.

[VeritasSapere]

It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

I recommend cryptography, computer science and economics.

These are good recommendations for me, I would not be surprised if you do know more about computer science then I do, however chances are that I most likely know more about political philosophy then you do, sometimes it is good to recognize that we have different specializations in terms of our expertise, that way we can learn more from each other as well.

[hdbuck]

It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help.

I recommend cryptography, computer science and economics.

These are good recommendations for me, I would not be surprised if you do know more about computer science then I do, however chances are that I most likely know more about political philosophy then you do, sometimes it is good to recognize that we have different specializations in terms of our expertise, that way we can learn more from each other as well.

*political philosophy*

lmao.

you are a very deranged individual bot.

[VeritasSapere]

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth.

Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition.

Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance.

From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference. They are essentially the same thing, never before has an open source software project become so political. This why it is should no longer be acceptable that a single person or a small group of people have the final say over the development of Bitcoin. This power needs to be distributed and divided among multiple implementations, which most likely will also be dictatorial in their internal decision making processes. However when people do have several implementations to choose from, the freedom of choice is increased and this does solve the problem of centralized development.

A repository admin is simply a person with the ability to merge pull requests into Bitcoin Core.

Spare me your political BS it makes me sick. To be clear: Wladimir does not hold the "final call", as Mike Hearn claims it, in cases where consensus critical code is debated.

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not. It seems like Core does not want to test the consensus using proof of work and multiple implementations, therefore Core does just implement whatever they want to implement. I am saying that we should allow the economic majority to decide by allowing people to choose from multiple implementations, this is the best and really the only way to reach true and legitimate consensus.

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

 

Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work.

Also, you do realize there already are multiple implementations out in the wild?

LukeJr's, BTCd, XT, Bitcoin-assets' etc.

So what exactly are you complaining about here?

[Peter R]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

[Zarathustra]

You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.

And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core?

XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead.

Exactly.
There is choice now. That's the reason why the Politbüro and their top down cheerleading Enthusiasts are hyperventilating like crazy.
Delicious.

[Carlton Banks]

Exactly.
There is choice now. That's the reason why the Politbüro and their top down cheerleading Enthusiasts are hyperventilating like crazy.
Delicious.

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

[veryscared]

hearn should burn and gavin ? wot rhymes with gavin ?

[muyuu]

hearn should burn and gavin ? wot rhymes with gavin ?

Flaming?

[muyuu]

v4 BIP65 (CLTV) already above 25%

Would be funny if BIP101 blocks started getting orphaned. Are they crying about this yet?

[hdbuck]

funny how them shills ignores brg's and my assertion that already lots of bitcoin clients are in the wild and that core is not that of a big deal anyway.

you trolls are such delusional weirdos.

[MbccompanyX]

v4 BIP65 (CLTV) already above 25%

Would be funny if BIP101 blocks started getting orphaned. Are they crying about this yet?

Maybe they are crying from when the whole BIP101 thing started and will never end... And i hope this whole nostop debate will end with somebody shooting the final argument that shows the 100% death of both XT and BIP101

[brg444]

Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.

    Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain]

If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin.

Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems

Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes.

For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck

[VeritasSapere]

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

funny how them shills ignores brg's and my assertion that already lots of bitcoin clients are in the wild and that core is not that of a big deal anyway.

you trolls are such delusional weirdos.

I know there are lots of alternative clients in the wild, this does not change the contents of my arguments. I want there to be more options in terms of the blocksize, presently there are only two choices. I do not see what is wrong with giving people more options to choose from.

[Carlton Banks]

No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation.

I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement:

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

Er, I wasn't talking to you. Is there anything else I can help you with?