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

[brg444]

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It won't. In fact it's dead already.

[1714302505]

1714302505

[1714302505]

1714302505

[1714302505]

1714302505

[1714302505]

1714302505

[1714302505]

1714302505

[1714302505]

1714302505

[hdbuck]

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there

[VeritasSapere]

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible, people will not always be able to agree on everything, unless we had a point of centralized control and authority. Which it seems like some people here think should be Core.

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

They should have introduced BIP65 using a hard fork, since introducing it as a soft fork allows them to circumvent the processes of consensus that a hard fork would have necessitated.

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

[VeritasSapere]

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/605156118109818881

The block size debate is healthy and necessary. The doomsayers and fatalists are, as usual, wrong.

oh hello there

A reminder here, you are the one who thinks that Bitcoin is to fragile to handle multiple competing implementations, or multiple options for people to choose from. You think we should be free to choose from a single option which is Core, which I think is the equivalent of totalitarianism.

[pogress]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

It sucks how anybody who openly support increasing blocksize limit as a priority is called corporate/government shill by few loudest members on discussion forums - simply witch hunt.

[Lauda]

oh hello there

You have probably missed the date (I almost did as well) of the tweet. This was posted at end of May, when the discussion was still healthy. However, that is not the case anymore, unless you want to discuss papers from certain people that are based on fairytales.

[Carlton Banks]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

It sucks how anybody who openly support increasing blocksize limit as a priority is called corporate/government shill by few loudest members on discussion forums - simply witch hunt.

Who said that? Examine what I said: at no point did that accusation come from me. Who's hunting witches here, exactly?

[hdbuck]

oh hello there

You have probably missed the date (I almost did as well) of the tweet. This was posted at end of May, when the discussion was still healthy. However, that is not the case anymore, unless you want to discuss papers from certain people that are based on fairytales.

yea no, i have not missed it, but im not going to argue further with this mofo.

but its interesting that antonpouloskis seems to finally connect some dots on the matter considering his latest interview.
surely he might be a little bit more cautious about that blocksize thing now.

anyway, irrelevant.

bitcoin is fiiiiine

[brg444]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

[hdbuck]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

besides its a soft fork, and with a 95% threshold..

them 75% (well not even 1% in practice) xtard are so desperate. ^^

[Carlton Banks]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

Notice XT developer jtoomin's response below, lol.

Veritas Sapere, how aware were you of how poorly your accusation corresponded with the facts, before you made your accusation?

[pogress]

http://insidebitcoins.com/news/andreas-antonopoulos-trolls-are-disrupting-bitcoin-development/35829

According to Antonopoulos, the possible fracturing of the Bitcoin community as a whole could be partially due to paid trolls who work for various government agencies around the world.

for once he does not completely deludes himself with that socialist soup he drinks as ouzo.

"creating a toxic user community"

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/595601619581964289

Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon

If that's what Antonopoulos believes, then his opinion is not good for much. The idea that the Core supporters are the corporate/government shills is a joke, Antonopoulos is going to lose any credibility he had if he follows that line.

It sucks how anybody who openly support increasing blocksize limit as a priority is called corporate/government shill by few loudest members on discussion forums - simply witch hunt.

Who said that? Examine what I said: at no point did that accusation come from me. Who's hunting witches here, exactly?

hdbuck as one of the loudests. And you really believe none of the main Core developers have own interests to make Bitcoin insignificant coin in future by defending 1MB blocks  

[VeritasSapere]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

Notice XT developer jtoomin's response below, lol.

Veritas Sapere, how aware were you of how poorly your accusation corresponded with the facts, before you made your accusation?

BIP 9 is for version flags support, which is designed to allow for multiple forks to be deployed in parallel without running into interference issues like what we have with BIP101 and BIP65. When Core decided to implement BIP65, they chose to do it without version bits support and to just use v4 for the blocks.

Rather than use the old version bits, Core decided to not use any version bits, or something like that. Yes, it was a deliberate choice.

[hdbuck]

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It won't. In fact it's dead already.

stillborn.

edit: one more thought, if XT is so much needed, solves everything and is supported by so many, why not already proceed with the fork?
what now, they want to leech bitcoin's nodes and mining power?
come on, seems to me even litecoin had more balls.

fork! fork! fork! fork! noooobs!

[Carlton Banks]

And you really believe none of the main Core developers have own interests to make Bitcoin insignificant coin in future by defending 1MB blocks  

Do you believe this?

Pieter Wuille recently merged his secp256k library into Bitcoin Core, AFTER OVER 3 YEARS OF EXTENSIVE CODING AND TESTING.

Are you really trying to tell me that one of the world's most accomplished computer scientists has spent over 3 years working on highly esoteric code to speed up transaction verifying, all just to destroy the system? Please. Come on now.

[grant27]

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It won't. In fact it's dead already.

In fact it was stillborn child right from the beginning

[Carlton Banks]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

Notice XT developer jtoomin's response below, lol.

Veritas Sapere, how aware were you of how poorly your accusation corresponded with the facts, before you made your accusation?

BIP 9 is for version flags support, which is designed to allow for multiple forks to be deployed in parallel without running into interference issues like what we have with BIP101 and BIP65. When Core decided to implement BIP65, they chose to do it without version bits support and to just use v4 for the blocks.

Rather than use the old version bits, Core decided to not use any version bits, or something like that. Yes, it was a deliberate choice.

Not what he was saying on reddit though, is it? Can we have the link to these jtoomin quotes so we can tell when he wrote them, it's difficult to tell with you whether you're getting things wrong due to incompetence or conceit (it can only be one or the other).

[iCEBREAKER]

  What Core did is disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101.  

Gee, that's too bad.  U mad?  

[brg444]

What Core did with the recent hard fork is also rather disgusting, they used the same version number for the blocks as BIP101, they did this on purpose in order to undermine BIP101. This represents a deliberate move by Core in order to circumvent the legitimate decision making process of proof of work.

Fork off you worthless disingenuous troll

Notice XT developer jtoomin's response below, lol.

Veritas Sapere, how aware were you of how poorly your accusation corresponded with the facts, before you made your accusation?

BIP 9 is for version flags support, which is designed to allow for multiple forks to be deployed in parallel without running into interference issues like what we have with BIP101 and BIP65. When Core decided to implement BIP65, they chose to do it without version bits support and to just use v4 for the blocks.

Rather than use the old version bits, Core decided to not use any version bits, or something like that. Yes, it was a deliberate choice.

More shameless misconstruction of facts.

Purposefully omitting to include the part where toomim clearly indicates he is unaware of the details and "technicalities" that went into Core's decision



Listen to your master now would ya?

[brg444]

Can we have the link to these jtoomin quotes so we can tell when he wrote them, it's difficult to tell with you whether you're getting things wrong due to incompetence or conceit (it can only be one or the other).

See above.