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

[Carlton Banks]

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

things that VeritasSapere did not say originally

FTFY

You are correct in saying that “What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.”.

I know.

This is true but this is only because you asked me to make the argument when you said “I'd like to see you follow your advice to others and flesh this out beyond simply asserting it.”. That is why the argument came later because you asked me to flesh it out so to speak. I do not think it is possible to straw man myself in terms of it being a logical fallacy at least.

Your original argument bore no relevance to the text it addressed. As you say, you invented the connection between them after I requested it. It would have remained the same incongruent non-sense if I had not, and someone uninformed might have accepted the words you put in the BitFury spokesperson's mouth. You're absolutely full of it, essentially.

This is funny, we are not even talking about the blocksize anymore, this has become pure epistemology, which is good.

No it isn't, your going into a seemingly infinite loop of strawman arguments! Done here....

[1715037203]

1715037203

[1715037203]

1715037203

[1715037203]

1715037203

[1715037203]

1715037203

[Zarathustra]

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.

And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

Yes.

"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."

Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177
 

Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose.

The small blockers will be the losers:

Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans."

[brg444]

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.

And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

Yes.

"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."

Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177
 

Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose.

The small blockers will be the losers:

Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans."

The cognitive dissonance is strong amongst the Frap.Doc followers 

To be quite honest, aside from Mike & Gavin who obviously have no more legitimacy or future at all in this community, we will all come out of this as winners.

[VeritasSapere]

http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/1-bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase/bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase.pdf

This is the mark of true industry leaders.

Nothing the clowns at Circle, BitPay, Bitgo, Blockchain.info could hope to deliver.

I respectfully disagree with the good people at Bitfury. I am surprised to see that they think that it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team. There are very good reasons for why this is not the case, which we have already discussed on this thread. This white paper does not prove anything in terms of this question. Furthermore them just saying this, I do not find convincing, an argument for why this is the case would be better. Or if you really believe this brg444 then why don’t you rebuttal my arguments instead of just posting the opinion of Bitfury. If Core does not implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, I am sure that Bitfury would change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

Above are the original statements you claim I never made.

"Your original argument bore no relevance to the text it addressed." It most certainly does, burden of proof is on your end for this claim.

"As you say, you invented the connection between them after I requested it." I did not invent the connection afterwards, I have already developed these thoughts in my own research.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

[hdbuck]

http://bitfury.com/content/5-white-papers-research/1-bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase/bitfury-report-on-block-size-increase.pdf

This is the mark of true industry leaders.

Nothing the clowns at Circle, BitPay, Bitgo, Blockchain.info could hope to deliver.

I respectfully disagree with the good people at Bitfury. I am surprised to see that they think that it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team. There are very good reasons for why this is not the case, which we have already discussed on this thread. This white paper does not prove anything in terms of this question. Furthermore them just saying this, I do not find convincing, an argument for why this is the case would be better. Or if you really believe this brg444 then why don’t you rebuttal my arguments instead of just posting the opinion of Bitfury. If Core does not implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, I am sure that Bitfury would change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

Above are the original statements you claim I never made.

"Your original argument bore no relevance to the text it addressed." It most certainly does, burden of proof is on your end for this claim.

"As you say, you invented the connection between them after I requested it." I did not invent the connection afterwards, I have already developed these thoughts in my own research.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

keep diggin plz.



cant wait for you and your ignorant pals to fork off.

[tvbcof]

Gavin and his BIP101 meets the  rest of the devs:

No substance post have no substance.

Something went wrong with your edit and the gif got lost.  I fixed it for you.

I also should have said something about the exponential growth that Gavin seemingly almost alone among the more technically inclined tried to push forward.  That is probably why he got 'the finger' from pretty much everyone except Hearn who's corp/gov 'full spectrum domination' plans for Bitcoin are only tenable with such a construct.

[hdbuck]

Gavin and his BIP101 meets the  rest of the devs:

No substance post have no substance.

Something went wrong with your edit and the gif got lost.  I fixed it for you.

I also should have said something about the exponential growth that Gavin seemingly almost alone among the more technically inclined tried to push forward.  That is probably why he got 'the finger' from pretty much everyone except Hearn who's corp/gov 'full spectrum domination' plans for Bitcoin are only tenable with such a construct.

funny tho how the gov agenda switched to include this socialist belief that bitcoin is meant for everyone.. after trying so hard at denouncing the exact opposite with their subsidized newspapers.

when you can fight it, embrace it? ^^

lol try again...

[hdbuck]

Upon a Crunchbase investigation of the companies attached to the open letter (text) published on Blockchain.info's blog supporting BIP-101, a correlation arose that indicates these companies have most likely been compromised for some time. All of these companies who have been known to employ heavy KYC terms, are heavily funded by fiat institutions that want to pervert Bitcoin.

Concern was raised of the BIP-101 syndicate when many of their VCs overlapped. Each venture has at least one VC in common based on CrunchBase data. Xapo itBit and Bitnet all have funding from Blockchain Capital, of which one of the managing partners is Brock Pierce. Qntra earlier reported Pierce, replaced Vessennes' as chairman of the now defunct Bitcoin Fundation back in April, under peculiar circumstances. Pierce may be a puppet for the Fundation puppeteers, but it's likely no coincidence that Jon Matonis stepped down as the Executive Director in October of 2014 and became heavily vocal of the consequences of a block size hard fork, while Pierce is elected Chairman.

Lightspeed Venture Partners who funded Ripple is also a major shareholder of Blockchain.info. Ripple is a centralized bastardization of Bitcoin, making it suspect that it was Blockchain's blog that published the open letter.

Circle, a competitor to Coinbase, has the most damning VC behind the reigns: Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sach's a purely fiat institution is a majority shareholder of Moneygram a cash based money transfer service with astronomical fees. If Goldman Sachs is at all turning the Circle knobs, their motivation for BIP-101, is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle. It would also serve as an initial footing for fiat institutions' invasion into the protocol level of Bitcoin.

By endorsing BIP-101 this syndicate of puppets has shed light on the puppeteers attempting to pervert Bitcoin into a USG acceptable currency, where the state can ultimately control a neutered imitator of actual Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/bip-101-syndicate-shares-fiat-ties-opposition-to-actual-bitcoin/

ripple effect much? #rekt ^^

[Carlton Banks]

Upon a Crunchbase investigation of the companies attached to the open letter (text) published on Blockchain.info's blog supporting BIP-101, a correlation arose that indicates these companies have most likely been compromised for some time. All of these companies who have been known to employ heavy KYC terms, are heavily funded by fiat institutions that want to pervert Bitcoin.

Concern was raised of the BIP-101 syndicate when many of their VCs overlapped. Each venture has at least one VC in common based on CrunchBase data. Xapo itBit and Bitnet all have funding from Blockchain Capital, of which one of the managing partners is Brock Pierce. Qntra earlier reported Pierce, replaced Vessennes' as chairman of the now defunct Bitcoin Fundation back in April, under peculiar circumstances. Pierce may be a puppet for the Fundation puppeteers, but it's likely no coincidence that Jon Matonis stepped down as the Executive Director in October of 2014 and became heavily vocal of the consequences of a block size hard fork, while Pierce is elected Chairman.

Lightspeed Venture Partners who funded Ripple is also a major shareholder of Blockchain.info. Ripple is a centralized bastardization of Bitcoin, making it suspect that it was Blockchain's blog that published the open letter.

Circle, a competitor to Coinbase, has the most damning VC behind the reigns: Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sach's a purely fiat institution is a majority shareholder of Moneygram a cash based money transfer service with astronomical fees. If Goldman Sachs is at all turning the Circle knobs, their motivation for BIP-101, is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle. It would also serve as an initial footing for fiat institutions' invasion into the protocol level of Bitcoin.

By endorsing BIP-101 this syndicate of puppets has shed light on the puppeteers attempting to pervert Bitcoin into a USG acceptable currency, where the state can ultimately control a neutered imitator of actual Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/bip-101-syndicate-shares-fiat-ties-opposition-to-actual-bitcoin/

ripple effect much? #rekt ^^

Great find.

Blockstream may well be a conflict of interest for some developers, but at least it's pretty damn likely to be good for Bitcoin.

Having Goldman Sachs, Moneygram, and Ripple as your conflicted interest, and to tie it all together of course, the man who definitely has no history of possessing child pornography and being closely acquainted with convicted predatory paedophiles, Brock Pierce? Er, that's "no", "no", "no", and a "no".

If we're really supposed to be choosing between conflicts of interest, I'm gonna have to go with Blockstream, thank you very much.

[hdbuck]

Upon a Crunchbase investigation of the companies attached to the open letter (text) published on Blockchain.info's blog supporting BIP-101, a correlation arose that indicates these companies have most likely been compromised for some time. All of these companies who have been known to employ heavy KYC terms, are heavily funded by fiat institutions that want to pervert Bitcoin.

Concern was raised of the BIP-101 syndicate when many of their VCs overlapped. Each venture has at least one VC in common based on CrunchBase data. Xapo itBit and Bitnet all have funding from Blockchain Capital, of which one of the managing partners is Brock Pierce. Qntra earlier reported Pierce, replaced Vessennes' as chairman of the now defunct Bitcoin Fundation back in April, under peculiar circumstances. Pierce may be a puppet for the Fundation puppeteers, but it's likely no coincidence that Jon Matonis stepped down as the Executive Director in October of 2014 and became heavily vocal of the consequences of a block size hard fork, while Pierce is elected Chairman.

Lightspeed Venture Partners who funded Ripple is also a major shareholder of Blockchain.info. Ripple is a centralized bastardization of Bitcoin, making it suspect that it was Blockchain's blog that published the open letter.

Circle, a competitor to Coinbase, has the most damning VC behind the reigns: Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sach's a purely fiat institution is a majority shareholder of Moneygram a cash based money transfer service with astronomical fees. If Goldman Sachs is at all turning the Circle knobs, their motivation for BIP-101, is to force users who are unable to run a full node due to the resource burdens, to use services such as Circle. It would also serve as an initial footing for fiat institutions' invasion into the protocol level of Bitcoin.

By endorsing BIP-101 this syndicate of puppets has shed light on the puppeteers attempting to pervert Bitcoin into a USG acceptable currency, where the state can ultimately control a neutered imitator of actual Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/bip-101-syndicate-shares-fiat-ties-opposition-to-actual-bitcoin/

ripple effect much? #rekt ^^

Great find.

Blockstream may well be a conflict of interest for some developers, but at least it's pretty damn likely to be good for Bitcoin.

Having Goldman Sachs, Moneygram, and Ripple as your conflicted interest, and to tie it all together of course, the man who definitely has no history of possessing child pornography and being closely acquainted with convicted predatory paedophiles, Brock Pierce? Er, that's "no", "no", "no", and a "no".

If we're really supposed to be choosing between conflicts of interest, I'm gonna have to go with Blockstream, thank you very much.

At this point any fork proposal is likely to be some power grab joke.
Otherwise why would these crippled institutions/corporations/pedopshych crave any block size increase for a start?

Seriously I'm glad the main core devs had the honesty not to fall for the state of emergency usgavin and googlhearn instigated, and even tho considering their personal interest with blockstream which would ultimately require some sort of increase, but this is way too much.

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.
Even more considering that there is actually no major problem that has thoroughly been assessed nor to that has to immediately be address!

My god people are so damned stupid.


Thx for elevating the debate tho, i think i might need to take a break from this insanity.

cheers.



ps: i just cant wrap my head upon some people here, i do suspect them as being professional trolls, drowning any bit of sense in their unstoppable flow of fallacies. so dont waste too much of that energy trying to argue with them.

[Carlton Banks]

i think i might need to take a break from this insanity.

cheers.


ps: i just cant wrap my head upon some people here, i do suspect them as being professional trolls, drowning any bit of sense in their unstoppable flow of fallacies. so dont waste too much of that energy trying to argue with them.

It is annoying sometimes, but I'm satisfied we are doing a good job of exposing the shills. When they so consistently use underhanded tactics to "win", they make it too easy. And really, they haven't got much choice but to use dirty tricks, because the technical arguments for BIP101 genuinely do not possess any merit. Not one of the Bitcoin Core supporters have been so foolish as to behave that way.

Some are bound to be professional trolls, but there will be "useful idiots" also. What I find kind of satisfying is that I know they must be human... there's no way bots would be capable of any of the BIP101 shill accounts. So they're coping with pressure as much as we are. Except they're losing. That would hurt the pride of a payrolled troll, they would probably lose any kind of bonuses and/or get harsh words from the boss  

They're unlikely to give up. I definitely won't. This will pass, and we will probably be seen as on the right side of history (in retrospect). These detrita will slink off into the shadows.

[VeritasSapere]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

[erik777]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

[knight22]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

[Zarathustra]

“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:

That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.

And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.

Yes.

"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."

Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177
 

Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose.

The small blockers will be the losers:

Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans."

The cognitive dissonance is strong amongst the Frap.Doc followers 

To be quite honest, aside from Mike & Gavin who obviously have no more legitimacy or future at all in this community, we will all come out of this as winners.

Open Competition will always have a future in an open environment. The censors and the followers on their slime trail will be the losers, since Bitcoin is not a currency for pseudo-libertarians.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166867.msg12305293#msg12305293

[IIOII]

Open Competition will always have a future in an open environment. The censors and the followers on their slime trail will be the losers, since Bitcoin is not a currency for pseudo-libertarians.

Yeah, that is why the two most notorious pseudo-libertarians started their own Altcoin. Yet parts of their worshippers seem to sense that they are on a lost path, so they still hang around in the main Bitcoin forums instead of relocating to the Hearndresencoin-headquarters or at least use the kindly provided Altcoin section of this forum.

[RoadTrain]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

The fork can happen whenever there's a divergence in consensus.

[poeEDgar]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains.

[knight22]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

[img]-nip-[img]
The fork can happen whenever there's a divergence in consensus.

That's because you don't think the "economic incentive to achieve consensus" actually works as it should be. I think the opposite.

[knight22]

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains.

These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes.