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

[danielW]

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

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

 

[Carlton Banks]

VeritasSapere. I am attacking what you are saying, not anything inherent to you.


And you REPEATEDLY alter what I do say to something that serves your argument, then stand back acting all  , as if you're not aware of what you're doing.


Subverting my argument for your own ends.

It's pathetic, and transparent, and I have no need to handle ANY OTHER PERSON like this, except you. So, please. Do us all a favour.

[danielW]

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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

[danielW]

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.

I am pretty sure he holds BlockStream people in very high regard also.

btw, credit to Gavin and Mike is that they made big contributions to Bitcoin. I dont agree with a lot of their opinions tho. I also think some of what Mike does and says, can be poisonous to debate and divisive. He misrepresents people and cherry picks arguments to suit his agenda. Also his doomsaying that even Gavin does not agree with.

Gavin has been more level-headed and trying to calm down some of the extreme opinions of his followers, credit to him for that.

[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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

[brg444]

after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin.

Seriously?

[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

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

I have a background in political philosophy and to me 75% consensus already seems very high, 95% percent to me seems impossible especially when it comes to contentious issues. Considering that the problem of tyranny of the majority has been solved in Bitcoin, 75% consensus does seem reasonable to me in order to initiate a contentious hard fork. After all 5% of the miners should not be able to forestall and block any change to the Bitcoin protocol.

[danielW]

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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

 

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

[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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

 
I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

[danielW]

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

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

But we dont have to speculate about intent. Gavin stated the intent clearly. You are right and I disagree with Gavin. I told him so. I believe that if it comes to it there will be a split and two chains will emerge.

Gavin does not think that that will happen and his intent as he states is for that not to happen.


As an aside, I think it is inevitable, that at some point Bitcoin will split when visions for its future (about any issue) are split and incompatible. This does not have to happen now tho.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

chalk you up as just another small blockist then

[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

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

But we dont have to speculate about intent. Gavin stated the intent clearly. You are right and I disagree with Gavin. I told him so. I believe that if it comes to it there will be a split and two chains will emerge.

Gavin does not think that that will happen and his intent as he states is for that not to happen.


As an aside, I think it is inevitable, that at some point Bitcoin will split when visions for its future (about any issue) are split and incompatible. This does not have to happen now tho.

I actually agree with you that a split is inevitable, in the future. I also agree with you that this does not need to happen now. However I do think that if that is what the economic majority desires and there is a fundamental difference of believe in a significantly large enough group of people then a split would be justified, I hope that is not the case.

[VeritasSapere]

I entirely agree.

I would support BIP100, BIP102, BIP103 or maybe even BIP106 when implemented as a compromise instead of BIP101 in the interests of reaching consensus, regardless of who does the implementation.

chalk you up as just another small blockist then

Definitely not. lol

However compromise in the interest of reaching consensus can be healthy. There is a funny quote the origins of it somewhat unknown but I will attribute it to Larry David anyway:

A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied

[Carlton Banks]

A good compromise is when both parties are equally unhappy

Fixed. Good quote. (car pool episode, an all time classic).

I'm not sure whether we should be drawing from nihilistic comedy as a way of informing software engineering decisions.

[VeritasSapere]

A good compromise is when both parties are equally unhappy

Fixed. Good quote. (car pool episode, an all time classic).

I'm not sure whether we should be drawing from nihilistic comedy as a way of informing software engineering decisions.

One thing that we can agree on at least, which is that the car pool episode was an all time classic. Larry David uniting the Bitcoin community! lol

[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

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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

 

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

hmm no. these fuckwits deserve every incivilities they had.

this toxic so called community have no technical argument to raise the blocksize as of now, they spread fud about bitcoin's demises from the very begining, they practically wanted to brute fork bitcoin at 75%, they brigaded all over reddit, acted like stupid little kids, insulted all the core devs, ruined the dev mailing list with their sophisms and blatant misconceptions... Plus all the whining about ad homs, censorship, the bitching about blockstream, all the bullshit about how life is unfair, bitcoin is unfair, decentralize development, big blocks for them corporations, blablabla...

so what now we should have a compromise? lmao, the only compromise is them forking off in january with hearndresssen.

and good friggin riddance.  

[Zarathustra]

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.

XT people are the ones who believe in Hearns fear mongering about a hard landing off the capacity cliff from which Bitcoin will not recover.

Look at XT reddit, they are talking like its some doomsday in about 3 months where Bitcoin will fail. They even have pictures with bombs lol.

I think that both sides are guilty of this, after all some small blockists think that increasing the blocksize whatsoever would lead to centralization to the point of destroying Bitcoin. I think it is fair to say that on either end of this extreme spectrum there are people saying that the other side will destroy or irrevocable undermine the fundamental principles of Bitcoin.

 

I agree. Both sides need to be more civil towards each other and try to work towards compromise. It can be done.

hmm no. these fuckwits deserve every incivilities they had.

this toxic so called community surely have no technological argument to raise the blocksize as of now, they spread fud about bitcoin's demises from the very begining, they practically wanted to brute fork bitcoin at 75%, they brigaded all over reddit, acted like stupid little kids, insulted all the core devs, ruined the dev mailing list with their sophisms and blatant misconceptions... Plus all the whining about ad homs, censorship, the bitching about blockstream, all the bullshit about how life is unfair, bitcoin is unfair, decentralize development, big blocks for them corporations, blablabla...

so what now we should have a compromise? lmao, the only compromise is them forking off in january with hearndresssen.

and good friggin riddance.  

The limit will be raised next year. Whether the minority of the vulgar pseudo-bitcoiners will be stupid enough to stay on a miniblockchain is irrelevant. They are free to do so.

[Zarathustra]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

Yes, and that's the problem. Communist one-party systems don't work. The market will tear down this wall and enable competition.

[hdbuck]

Not sure if either side would be willing to compromise, that is in regards to Core and XT at least, maybe a third alternative implementation will provide us with such a solution.

Since when was Core just another alternative implementation? Check your rhetoric, Bitcoin Core runs the network, and it always has.

Yes, and that's the problem. Communist one-party systems don't work. The market will tear down this wall and enable competition.

communist? bitcoin a one party system? market tearing down walls?

lel, the superlatives of your ignorance are infinite, flachwichser.

[muyuu]

Ah. So many "bitcoiners" basing their decisions on charismatic leaders. A mindset so incredibly toxic for Bitcoin and so anti-cypherpunk values.