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

[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.

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?

It is of my opinion that they should have done this differently, what toomim says does not change that. I am also my own master whether you believe that or not.

[1714224626]

1714224626

[1714224626]

1714224626

[1714224626]

1714224626

[brg444]

It is of my opinion that they should have done this differently

No one asked you.

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

In fact it was stillborn child right from the beginning

Miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January anyway, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen till then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

[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.

In fact it was stillborn child right from the beginning

Miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January anyway, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen till then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

25% of the mining power are strongly against BIP101 and will never implement it so spare us your nonsense.

Thank you.

Now fork off

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

In fact it was stillborn child right from the beginning

Miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January anyway, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen till then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

25% of the mining power are strongly against BIP101 and will never implement it so spare us your nonsense.

Thank you.

Now fork off

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize presently.

[Carlton Banks]

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize today.

More than ~95% of the userbase support blocksize increases (when needed). Just not your favoured plan. The one that you keep trying to push on everyone, day after day, month after month.

It's not much of a free choice when no-one gets to hear anything else, ever, is it?

[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.

In fact it was stillborn child right from the beginning

Miners tend to be highly risk adverse, what I suspect is happening is that they are giving Core the chance to increase the blocksize before January. If this does not happen before then we might see an exodus of the hashing power towards BIP101. Since the fork can not be activated before January anyway, therefore it does make sense that the miners are holding back in order to see what will happen till then, time will tell. One thing that I am sure of however is that Core will not be able to keep the blocksize at one megabyte forever without causing a split in Bitcoin.

25% of the mining power are strongly against BIP101 and will never implement it so spare us your nonsense.

Thank you.

Now fork off

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize today.

Possibly, but they're waiting for Core's due diligence process and not buying the expedited, half-baked, XT "solution".

Core will likely prevail and ain't a god damn thing you can do about it. (Remains to be seen whether MP and his half-million BTC will buy their fork)

[VeritasSapere]

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize today.

More than ~95% of the userbase support blocksize increases (when needed). Just not your favoured plan. The one that you keep trying to push on everyone, day after day, month after month.

Just to be clear BIP101 is not necessarily my favorite proposal, it is just the only proposal which has been implemented so far. I would support BIP100 or BIP103 as well when implemented, especially if that means we can reach a higher level of consensus. I know you like to depict me as being some sort of XT fanatic but that is simply just not true. I support an increase in the blocksize and I support having multiple implementations so that the community can decide for themselves what they think is the best solution, which would be better then just blindly accepting whatever Core hands down to us.

[Carlton Banks]

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize today.

More than ~95% of the userbase support blocksize increases (when needed). Just not your favoured plan. The one that you keep trying to push on everyone, day after day, month after month.

Just to be clear BIP101 is not necessarily my favorite proposal, it is just the only proposal which has been implemented so far. I would support BIP100 or BIP103 as well when implemented, especially if that means we can reach a higher level of consensus. I know you like to depict me as being some sort of XT fanatic but that is simply just not true. I support an increase in the blocksize and I support having multiple implementations so that the community can decide for themselves what they think is the best solution, which would be better then just blindly accepting whatever Core hands down to us.

I depict you as an XT subversive, which is very different to "fanatic". Conveniently for my argument, you proved the subversive component when you used subversion to misrepresent my position. The irony.

Despite the fact that you claim support of other scaling solutions, why do you only ever talk about using the blocksize to achieve it, and despite all this, why do you so frequently end up using the expression "...and that's why I support XT"? It's like your catchphrase.

[bronan]

Its insane that this has become a us bip100 fanatics versus the enemy bip101 fanatics.
So sad to see only a few keep it civil
 

[Carlton Banks]

Its insane that this has become a us bip100 fanatics versus the enemy bip101 fanatics.
So sad to see only a few keep it civil
 

Who are the BIP100 fanatics in this scenario?

[notbatman]

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.

A bit off topic but I think it's funny that jtoomin got his BA miners mid 2014 while they didn't send send me a god damn thing and kept my money. Some of his posts here and on the BA forum also made him seem like a bit of BA shill too. Now he's come out singing praises of XT and acting like we're indebted to him because his data center (full of BA miners?) mined two XT blocks for us on p2pool.

I could just be misjudging things here but something seems a bit off with this cat.

[VeritasSapere]

More then 75% of the mining power supports an increase in the blocksize today.

More than ~95% of the userbase support blocksize increases (when needed). Just not your favoured plan. The one that you keep trying to push on everyone, day after day, month after month.

Just to be clear BIP101 is not necessarily my favorite proposal, it is just the only proposal which has been implemented so far. I would support BIP100 or BIP103 as well when implemented, especially if that means we can reach a higher level of consensus. I know you like to depict me as being some sort of XT fanatic but that is simply just not true. I support an increase in the blocksize and I support having multiple implementations so that the community can decide for themselves what they think is the best solution, which would be better then just blindly accepting whatever Core hands down to us.

I depict you as an XT subversive, which is very different to "fanatic". Conveniently for my argument, you proved the subversive component when you used subversion to misrepresent my position. The irony.

Despite the fact that you claim support of other scaling solutions, why do you only ever talk about using the blocksize to achieve it, and despite all this, why do you so frequently end up using the expression "...and that's why I support XT"? It's like your catchphrase.

I do not consider the lighting network and side chains to be an alternative to increasing the blocksize. Since transacting on these type of third parties does not have the same advantages as transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain directly, we have already discussed this however so you should already know this about my position.

Furthermore to correct you I often state that I support BIP101, not XT. I do run XT nodes myself however though it is worth pointing out that supporting BIP101 is not the same as supporting XT, since it is possible to run Core with a BIP101 patch. Soon we will also have Bitcoin unlimited as well which will be supporting both BIP100 and BIP101 depending on how the miners vote approaching January.

[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.

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?

It is of my opinion that they should have done this differently, what toomim says does not change that. I am also my own master whether you believe that or not.

So you deliberately excised the part where Toomim admits he is ignorant of the reasons behind the version bits change? To present it as Toomin levelling accusations at the Core team? Oh dear. I wonder how Toomim himself feels about your misrepresentation of his post?

[brg444]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

[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.

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?

It is of my opinion that they should have done this differently, what toomim says does not change that. I am also my own master whether you believe that or not.

So you deliberately excised the part where Toomim admits he is ignorant of the reasons behind the version bits change? To present it as Toomin levelling accusations at the Core team? Oh dear. I wonder how Toomim himself feels about your misrepresentation of his post?

I was not misrepresenting anyone. I quoted toomim stating a fact, not his opinion, it is true that he himself does not have a strong opinion on this matter but I do, I do not see what is wrong with this. You seemed pretty determined attacking me today, calling me subversive and accusing me of misrepresentation.

[VeritasSapere]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

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

[brg444]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

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

That was back in May, when it wasn't all that clear Gavin was a fraud.

[VeritasSapere]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

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

That was back in May, when it wasn't all that clear Gavin was a fraud.

I actually talked to Andreas relatively recently, it seemed like he held both Gavin and Mike in high regard. Furthermore it is irrelevant what we think of Gavin, the merit of increasing the blocksize stands on its own regardless of the personalities involved.

[Carlton Banks]

Looks like another one of your masters is supporting Core squad  

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

That was back in May, when it wasn't all that clear Gavin was a fraud.

I actually talked to Andreas relatively recently, it seemed like he held both Gavin and Mike in high regard. Furthermore it is irrelevant what we think of Gavin, the merit of increasing the blocksize stands on its own regardless of the personalities involved.

You often find yourself moving the goalposts, don't you?