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

[Carlton Banks]

I always said that core will be forced to raise the limit next year. To prolong the stalemate by talking about different 'proposals' will not work anymore into the halving period. Furthermore they will be forced to raise that limit as much that it will not block the stream. The community (market) will not tolerate a cap that is small enough to enforce the stream artificially into sidechains. As soon as that happens another fork will be enforced by the market.

You're the only person who maintains that the Core devs will be forced to change the blocksize next year,


You're the only person who constantly tacks "...so says the totalitarian" onto anything that anyone says that you disagree with.


Are you sure that it's totalitarianism that you dislike? Because you seem to be quite keen on forcing your solitary view on everyone else. Massive hypocrite, no?

Isn't it worse than hypocrisy when it is only the accuser that is guilty of their own accusation, and not even the accused?

[AMVM]

Guys can you quit the EGO wars already?


@Zarathustra
Man don't you get tired of quoting yourself?  

[VeritasSapere]

I will say it again because it seems like some people still do not understand. Even though theymos had the right to exercise censorship on his own forum it still does make it right or justified, it was the wrong thing to do even though he had the right to do it. In the same sense that freedom of speech gives us the right to say anything, however to say anything is not always justified or the right thing to do, I could put out hate speech for example, I would have the right to do this under free speech but again it is the wrong thing to do and certainly not justified. This distinction has nuance and subtlety to it. Supporting censorship is at least consistent with totalitarianism and being opposed to the freedom of choice.

[Carlton Banks]

Guys can you quit the EGO wars already?


@Zarathustra
Man don't you get tired of quoting yourself?  

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, I've not once acted on the urge to say it out loud. We've got a surfeit of "holier than thou" up in here already  

[AMVM]

Zarathustra is not entirely wrong C.Banks he's right when he says the size issue will need to be revisited/addressed.

THAT SAID, this doesn't mean that XT was the way to do it which is what most ppl are trying to say to Zarathustra.

[iCEBREAKER]

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"

The marketplace of ideas has spoken loudly and clearly:

Bitcoin interprets XT and Gavinista governance coups as damage and routes around them.

[VeritasSapere]

I suppose some of you have not realized this yet but it is not about XT anymore. It is about the freedom of choice and whether the economic majority chooses to have an increased blocksize or not. BTCD for example is another alternative implementation of the Bitcoin protocol which will also soon support an increased blocksize.

We are in favor of a block size increase. Obviously we would prefer the community come to a consensus about the mechanism to enable it, but failing that we will most likely provide a flag to enable all parties involved to make a choice about which rule set they want to use. Clearly such a flag, once enabled, would mean changing back to a different incompatible rule set would require redownloading the chain against the active rule set.

We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy. Naturally, when there are technical issues at play, developers are generally better positioned to discuss the technical aspects of such changes so it generally makes sense to carefully consider their input as they will typically have a greater insight into the issues at play versus an average random user, however, when it comes down to it, all stakeholders will have to make the choice that is right for them.

Perhaps of note, we've been in favor of bigger blocks for quite some time. We even wrote a simulation test tool back in Oct of 2014 to stress the limits and even back then, before many of the recent performance enhancements, the results clearly showed it is capable of handling larger blocks.

Soon we will have three alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol which will support increasing the blocksize, further enabling people to have the freedom of choice.

[Carlton Banks]

Zarathustra is not entirely wrong C.Banks he's right when he says the size issue will need to be revisited/addressed.

THAT SAID, this doesn't mean that XT was the way to do it which is what most ppl are trying to say to Zarathustra.

I agree, not everything Zarathustra said was wrong. But you're clearly new to this.


When you're dealing with dishonest debaters, like Zarathustra and company, their strategy for "winning" is to present 95% cogent arguments, carefully chosen to be associated with the 5% falsehoods that are the intended view to be propagated.

So, any apparent honesty from dishonest people is only a part of the conceit. I hope you've found some value in this introduction to the techniques of these sophists.

[Lauda]

Soon we will have three alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol which will support increasing the blocksize, further enabling people to have the freedom of choice.

Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 300, it doesn't change the fact that most of them are (will be) risky at best. Increasing the size to random amounts is never the right answer, neither is removing the limit. On the other hand, I was thinking of also offering my own implementation of the protocol to the public. I have evidence of my extensive research that supports 500 GB blocks at the moment. Trust me, I might even publish a paper about it.

[VeritasSapere]

Soon we will have three alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol which will support increasing the blocksize, further enabling people to have the freedom of choice.

Doesn't matter if it's 3 or 300, it doesn't change the fact that most of them are (will be) risky at best. Increasing the size to random amounts is never the right answer, neither is removing the limit. On the other hand, I was thinking of also offering my own implementation of the protocol to the public. I have evidence of my extensive research that supports 500 GB blocks, right now. Trust me.

You are welcome to release this implementation of yours, though I very much doubt that it would gain much support.

I think that you are opposed to giving people the freedom of choice. If we did only have one implementation of the Bitcoin protocol making consensus critical changes, how do you suppose that the will of the economic majority should then be reflected? Since having only one option for people to choose from in an election is the very definition of totalitarianism.

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

[Zarathustra]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[brg444]

this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority.

Here we go, only a couple of days after joining the bitco.in circlejerk he's already regurgitating Peter R's propaganda, word for word.

[brg444]

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!  

[Zarathustra]

Guys can you quit the EGO wars already?


@Zarathustra
Man don't you get tired of quoting yourself?  

When they're lying about my predictions, I like to quote myself. But maybe I'll soon get tired to entertain this ad hominem thread.
Do you know bitco.in? Another level of discussion. No warriors, no ad hominems against each other, no censorship lovers, no Front National, no Bullshit.

[VeritasSapere]

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!

A single implementation made sense for the early days, now Bitcoin needs to grow up, it needs to evolve. This is also the process of the Bitcoin community starting to realize and understand the governance and body politic of Bitcoin, a political awakening is taking place. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin doesn't threaten Bitcoin, just those who think they're in charge of it.

[iCEBREAKER]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?   

[brg444]

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!

A single implementation made sense for the early days, now Bitcoin needs to grow up, it needs to evolve. This is also the process of the Bitcoin community starting to realize and understand the governance and body politic of Bitcoin, a political awakening is taking place. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin doesn't threaten Bitcoin, just those who think they're in charge of it.

Why did it make sense then and not now?

Did we somehow manage to attract dozens of ready teams of programmers willing to maintain a number of different implementations absent of financial rewards?

As far as I can see there is still only one team competent enough to not only maintain a stable and secure implementation but also innovate and port significant software improvement validated under extensive peer-view.

[hdbuck]

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!

A single implementation made sense for the early days, now Bitcoin needs to grow up, it needs to evolve. This is also the process of the Bitcoin community starting to realize and understand the governance and body politic of Bitcoin, a political awakening is taking place. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin doesn't threaten Bitcoin, just those who think they're in charge of it.

various implementations = altcoins.

nothing new, its already all before your eyes to witness.
some gets a much meme community, others airdrop their coins, some ahve larger blocksize, etc...

still, gavincoin failed, bitcoinxt failed, what's next again? ah bitcoin unlimituuuurd.

[Zarathustra]

Update:
XT propaganda folk doesn't know the definition of  freedom of speech. "Freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship." This is obviously the case here since theymos is the government.  

BS. Everybody knows what censorship is:


Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Are you really going to start moaning about 'teh sensor ships' again?   

[VeritasSapere]

For the future of Bitcoin to be decided on by a small group of technical experts is a concept that I outright reject, this would represent top down control, as opposed to consensus being an emergent phenomena with grass roots which would be more in line with the concept of bottom up control of the protocol by the economic majority. Which aligns better with the ethos of Bitcoin, maximizing freedom and decentralization.

Might as well scrap the whole Bitcoin project then... How totalitarian of Satoshi to impose on us the source code for his project!

How dare he not consult "the community" and act in such a top down manner?

Releasing Bitcoin under a single implementation is clearly the work of a dictator!

A single implementation made sense for the early days, now Bitcoin needs to grow up, it needs to evolve. This is also the process of the Bitcoin community starting to realize and understand the governance and body politic of Bitcoin, a political awakening is taking place. Bitcoin cannot be divorced from pre-existing political theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin doesn't threaten Bitcoin, just those who think they're in charge of it.

Why did it make sense then and not now?

Did we somehow manage to attract dozens of ready teams of programmers willing to maintain a number of different implementations absent of financial rewards?

As far as I can see there is still only one team competent enough to not only maintain a stable and secure implementation but also innovate and port significant software improvement validated under extensive peer-view.

I disagree, I think that Bitcoin is ready for the world now, we should not hold it back any further. It started with one person and it has grown, this is just continuing the evolution of this process of further distributing development.

What are you actually disagreeing with here? My freedom of choice to choose an implementation that best aligns with my beliefs? That this freedom further extends to all people, what could you be possibly be opposed to here? Unless you are concerned that the majority will not choose your preferred choice? I think that this is something that you should accept if you accept this conception of freedom within Bitcoin, which it does seem like you are opposed to. I do not understand what else you could possibly be arguing against otherwise.

If you do believe that we should have top down control, and the economic majority should not decide on the freedom of Bitcoin and that the five or so people within Bitcoin Core should decide on the future of Bitcoin for us instead, then that is fine. I can even respectfully debate with fascist, totalitarians and communists.

However if we could just agree that everyone has the freedom of choice, then it would just be live or let live right? Who cares what protocol implementation people choose? It is their freedom of choice, unless you do not believe in the wisdom of the crowd and that people should not have this freedom of choice. It is fine if that is what you believe but it would make you fundamentally opposed to some of the founding and central tenets of Bitcoin.

Whether you can convince the majority to follow such a path is also up to you, but I do also on this forum at least have the ability to express my opposing point of view. Having such places where this can be freely discussed is critical for us as a community to reach my favored outcome at least, which does align with the older enlightenment philosophies of freedom and self determination.