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

[brg444]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right? 

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

adopters that will buy and hold, do so in the hopes one day everyone is doing "bitcafe transaction"

so maybe you should care?

I buy and hold and I sure hope no one will have to buy coffees on the Bitcoin blockchain. What a pain! 

I thought you had a more interesting vision for Bitcoin Adam  I'm sorry to break it to you but smart adopters are definitely not buying in hopes of mass-consumer adoption scenario.

[hdbuck]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right?  

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

adopters that will buy and hold, do so in the hopes one day everyone is doing "bitcafe transaction"

so maybe you should care?

[brg444]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right? 

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

You know what makes speculators flee away? Attacking Bitcoin's trust.

Understand that some have a different conception of Bitcoin's role in the future monetary system. The value Bitcoin offer is not in cost-effective or fast transaction and you are only fooling yourself if that is what you speculate on.

Bitcoin is the world's monetary reserve. A new gold standard. No one historically has bought and piled stacks of gold because derps were using it in transactions.  

[DooMAD]

I think I'm going to try to take a new approach at this from now on.  I honestly don't understand the abject hatred that BIP101 seems to attract and I doubt it can be remedied at this point.  But I'll point out one obvious thing here.  It was the first proposal that saw any significant attention and rather than suggesting improvements and offering constructive criticism on how to improve it, all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  So the harder people try to discredit it, the harder others try to defend it and it just keeps escalating and polarising discussion.  No one is winning anyone over and people are just digging their heels in and refusing to budge.  It's just an increasingly noisy stalemate as you find new trivial technicalities to quibble over.  

It's easily done and I've found myself getting caught up in it.  I read a proposal that sounds reasonable to me, yet someone else finds it an abomination, but rather than state why they disagree, they attack the person who came up with the proposal.  I then question the motives of why they're attacking the person and not the proposal and assume they have an agenda, so I attack them and it all goes downhill from there.  But none of that results in getting any closer to a proposal anyone is likely to agree on.  I'm getting tired of calling motives into question when no one can clearly state what the hell their goal is.  After a few posts, apparently everyone involved is either "blind", "deluded", "dishonest" or whatever other insults start flying from both sides.

If people keep spouting this "dictator" and "attack" nonsense, I don't see how they expect people on the opposing side to find some common ground to agree with them on and move forward.  Also, the very fact that there seem to be "sides" at all means we're approaching this little debate all wrong.  If you disagree with the BIP101 proposal, or any of the proposals for that matter, fair enough, but do it in a less hostile way.  At least state your reasoning in a fashion that doesn't make you sound like you're deliberately trying to troll, like this stupid #rekt meme.  Then you'll find when people come to defend the proposal, they won't be as hostile towards you and there might actually be a hint of a sensible discussion.  If all you're going to do is keep slinging the same mud back and forth, how do you honestly expect things to progress?  This thread was destined to be a shitstorm from the start.

Stop the "XT vs Core" crap
Stop the "1mb vs 8mb" crap
Stop the "Blockstream vs Gavincoin" crap

It shouldn't be "anything vs anything" because that's not helping.  It should be "here's option A, these are the pros and cons.  Here's option B, pros/cons.  Option C, etc.  Clear and analytical discussion.  Can we try that just for a change?  

[knight22]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right? 

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

You know what makes speculators flee away? Attacking Bitcoin's trust.

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

Understand that some have a different conception of Bitcoin's role in the future monetary system. The value Bitcoin offer is not in cost-effective or fast transaction and you are only fooling yourself if that is what you speculate on.

Bitcoin is the world's monetary reserve. A new gold standard. No one historically has bought and piled stacks of gold because derps were using it in transactions.  

Actually yes. You should go back read your history books. No one will treat bitcoin as a reserve currency if it cannot be used a currency first.

[knight22]

I think I'm going to try to take a new approach at this from now on.  I honestly don't understand the abject hatred that BIP101 seems to attract and I doubt it can be remedied at this point.  But I'll point out one obvious thing here.  It was the first proposal that saw any significant attention and rather than suggesting improvements and offering constructive criticism on how to improve it, all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  So the harder people try to discredit it, the harder others try to defend it and it just keeps escalating and polarising discussion.  No one is winning anyone over and people are just digging their heels in and refusing to budge.  It's just an increasingly noisy stalemate as you find new trivial technicalities to quibble over.  

It's easily done and I've found myself getting caught up in it.  I read a proposal that sounds reasonable to me, yet someone else finds it an abomination, but rather than state why they disagree, they attack the person who came up with the proposal.  I then question the motives of why they're attacking the person and not the proposal and assume they have an agenda, so I attack them and it all goes downhill from there.  But none of that results in getting any closer to a proposal anyone is likely to agree on.  I'm getting tired of calling motives into question when no one can clearly state what the hell their goal is.  After a few posts, apparently everyone involved is either "blind", "deluded", "dishonest" or whatever other insults start flying from both sides.

If people keep spouting this "dictator" and "attack" nonsense, I don't see how they expect people on the opposing side to find some common ground to agree with them on and move forward.  Also, the very fact that there seem to be "sides" at all means we're approaching this little debate all wrong.  If you disagree with the BIP101 proposal, or any of the proposals for that matter, fair enough, but do it in a less hostile way.  At least state your reasoning in a fashion that doesn't make you sound like you're deliberately trying to troll, like this stupid #rekt meme.  Then you'll find when people come to defend the proposal, they won't be as hostile towards you and there might actually be a hint of a sensible discussion.  If all you're going to do is keep slinging the same mud back and forth, how do you honestly expect things to progress?  This thread was destined to be a shitstorm from the start.

Stop the "XT vs Core" crap
Stop the "1mb vs 8mb" crap
Stop the "Blockstream vs Gavincoin" crap

It shouldn't be "anything vs anything" because that's not helping.  It should be "here's option A, these are the pros and cons.  Here's option B, pros/cons.  Option C, etc.  Clear and analytical discussion.  Can we try that just for a change?  

Agreed.
Maybe you should just create a new constructive thread with this approach.  

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

[poeEDgar]

Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

This deserves to be quoted for posterity.

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

[brg444]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right?  

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

You know what makes speculators flee away? Attacking Bitcoin's trust.

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

Understand that some have a different conception of Bitcoin's role in the future monetary system. The value Bitcoin offer is not in cost-effective or fast transaction and you are only fooling yourself if that is what you speculate on.

Bitcoin is the world's monetary reserve. A new gold standard. No one historically has bought and piled stacks of gold because derps were using it in transactions.  

Actually yes. You should go back read your history books. No one will treat bitcoin as a reserve currency if it cannot be used a currency first.

I suggest you find better history books.

Gold originated as a store of value in the form of collectibles, jewelry that would be gifted between different individuals of a tribe. The more they accumulated the bigger their wealth and status was. Gold was scarcely used as a transactional currency given its value. Other instrument were devised for that function.

[brg444]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

Bitcoin is not a business you idiot. It is a reserve currency for an economy.

The Knight22 formula!

[knight22]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right?  

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

You know what makes speculators flee away? Attacking Bitcoin's trust.

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

Understand that some have a different conception of Bitcoin's role in the future monetary system. The value Bitcoin offer is not in cost-effective or fast transaction and you are only fooling yourself if that is what you speculate on.

Bitcoin is the world's monetary reserve. A new gold standard. No one historically has bought and piled stacks of gold because derps were using it in transactions.  

Actually yes. You should go back read your history books. No one will treat bitcoin as a reserve currency if it cannot be used a currency first.

I suggest you find better history books.

Gold originated as a store of value in the form of collectibles, jewelry that would be gifted between different individuals of a tribe. The more they accumulated the bigger their wealth and status was. Gold was scarcely used as a transactional currency given its value. Other instrument were devised for that function.

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

Origin
The gold specie standard arose from the widespread acceptance of gold as currency.[7] Various commodities have been used as money; typically, the one that loses the least value over time becomes the accepted form.[8] The use of gold as money began thousands of years ago in Asia Minor

No more arguing with you. You are helpless.

[poeEDgar]

It was the first proposal that saw any significant attention and rather than suggesting improvements and offering constructive criticism on how to improve it, all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  

If you disagree with the BIP101 proposal, or any of the proposals for that matter, fair enough, but do it in a less hostile way.  At least state your reasoning in a fashion that doesn't make you sound like you're deliberately trying to troll, like this stupid #rekt meme. Then you'll find when people come to defend the proposal, they won't be as hostile towards you and there might actually be a hint of a sensible discussion.

Stop the "XT vs Core" crap
Stop the "1mb vs 8mb" crap
Stop the "Blockstream vs Gavincoin" crap

It shouldn't be "anything vs anything" because that's not helping.  It should be "here's option A, these are the pros and cons.  Here's option B, pros/cons.  Option C, etc.  Clear and analytical discussion.  Can we try that just for a change?  

Wouldn't that be nice?

Actually, I believe I and several others have been trying quite hard to have a constructive conversation about the merits of BIP101. The problem is assuming that respondents won't be hostile as a result. In that sense, I think your characterization is very inaccurate. Dishonest arguments are the name of the game here, unfortunately.

Populist arguments are with us because the issue is a) controversial and b) highly technical. The easiest way to defend your position, therefore, is to avoid discussing technical merit and focus on making your opponent's proposal appear to be scummier (dictators! broken consensus! not acting in a timely enough manner! blockstream shills! CIA plants!) than your own.

[knight22]

It was the first proposal that saw any significant attention and rather than suggesting improvements and offering constructive criticism on how to improve it, all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  

If you disagree with the BIP101 proposal, or any of the proposals for that matter, fair enough, but do it in a less hostile way.  At least state your reasoning in a fashion that doesn't make you sound like you're deliberately trying to troll, like this stupid #rekt meme. Then you'll find when people come to defend the proposal, they won't be as hostile towards you and there might actually be a hint of a sensible discussion.

Stop the "XT vs Core" crap
Stop the "1mb vs 8mb" crap
Stop the "Blockstream vs Gavincoin" crap

It shouldn't be "anything vs anything" because that's not helping.  It should be "here's option A, these are the pros and cons.  Here's option B, pros/cons.  Option C, etc.  Clear and analytical discussion.  Can we try that just for a change?  

Wouldn't that be nice?

Actually, I believe I and several others have been trying quite hard to have a constructive conversation about the merits of BIP101. The problem is assuming that respondents won't be hostile as a result. In that sense, I think your characterization is very inaccurate. Dishonest arguments are the name of the game here, unfortunately.

Populist arguments are with us because the issue is a) controversial and b) highly technical. The easiest way to defend your position, therefore, is to avoid discussing technical merit and focus on making your opponent's proposal appear to be scummier (dictators! broken consensus! not acting in a timely enough manner! blockstream shills! CIA plants!) than your own.

That's why it must be a self moderated thread.

[brg444]

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

Noobs will learn. That has no impact on the status of the Bitcoin network.

Actually this noob you are talking to is likely not to learn anything.

I guess this is good for adoption right?  

I could careless about some noob having its bitcafe transaction delayed.

The only adopters I care about is those that will buy and hold. This has no impact on them.

Both goes together, you should know that. No one is going to buy and hold if no one will be able to use these bitcoins at some point for either  buying a cafe or whatever else. Speculators speculate on real market movements. Crippling the block size can only cripple the market which will makes speculators fleeing away.

You know what makes speculators flee away? Attacking Bitcoin's trust.

Also, but the sole responsible is Core devs not delivering what the market asks in a timely manner.

Understand that some have a different conception of Bitcoin's role in the future monetary system. The value Bitcoin offer is not in cost-effective or fast transaction and you are only fooling yourself if that is what you speculate on.

Bitcoin is the world's monetary reserve. A new gold standard. No one historically has bought and piled stacks of gold because derps were using it in transactions.  

Actually yes. You should go back read your history books. No one will treat bitcoin as a reserve currency if it cannot be used a currency first.

I suggest you find better history books.

Gold originated as a store of value in the form of collectibles, jewelry that would be gifted between different individuals of a tribe. The more they accumulated the bigger their wealth and status was. Gold was scarcely used as a transactional currency given its value. Other instrument were devised for that function.

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

Origin
The gold specie standard arose from the widespread acceptance of gold as currency.[7] Various commodities have been used as money; typically, the one that loses the least value over time becomes the accepted form.[8] The use of gold as money began thousands of years ago in Asia Minor

No more arguing with you. You are helpless.

Please   You're quoting Wikipedia

Everyone with an ounce of knowledge of history knows damn well gold's use as a transactional currency was marginal. Gold was mainly used to store wealth, as is the case today.

It's as if you people would rather have Bitcoin replace VISA than it replace gold...

[brg444]

It was the first proposal that saw any significant attention and rather than suggesting improvements and offering constructive criticism on how to improve it, all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  

If you disagree with the BIP101 proposal, or any of the proposals for that matter, fair enough, but do it in a less hostile way.  At least state your reasoning in a fashion that doesn't make you sound like you're deliberately trying to troll, like this stupid #rekt meme. Then you'll find when people come to defend the proposal, they won't be as hostile towards you and there might actually be a hint of a sensible discussion.

Stop the "XT vs Core" crap
Stop the "1mb vs 8mb" crap
Stop the "Blockstream vs Gavincoin" crap

It shouldn't be "anything vs anything" because that's not helping.  It should be "here's option A, these are the pros and cons.  Here's option B, pros/cons.  Option C, etc.  Clear and analytical discussion.  Can we try that just for a change?  

Wouldn't that be nice?

Actually, I believe I and several others have been trying quite hard to have a constructive conversation about the merits of BIP101. The problem is assuming that respondents won't be hostile as a result. In that sense, I think your characterization is very inaccurate. Dishonest arguments are the name of the game here, unfortunately.

Populist arguments are with us because the issue is a) controversial and b) highly technical. The easiest way to defend your position, therefore, is to avoid discussing technical merit and focus on making your opponent's proposal appear to be scummier (dictators! broken consensus! not acting in a timely enough manner! blockstream shills! CIA plants!) than your own.

  What hypocrisy! Such nonsense!

The BIP101 leaders started the movement of stifling productive technical discussion in exchange for political posturing. Your intention is nice and all but you have this completely backward. The onus was always on you to provide proofs of the technical merits of BIP101. It failed. Maybe you can take a last shot at it but lemme say chances are not on your side.

[poeEDgar]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

[hdbuck]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

Bitcoin is not a business you idiot. It is a reserve currency for an economy.

The Knight22 formula!

[knight22]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about what they think but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

[brg444]

Having a clear scalability path in a clear time frame is what all of the big businesses need. Too bad you and Core are just too blind to see this but we are now facing the consequences. Now face it.

Bitcoin is about decentralized, transferable value. That's what is important. Keeping that system robust is paramount. Security and consensus come first. What a few corporate executives think should have no bearing on that.

It goes like this: adoption --> scaling. We are missing the first part.

Maybe you should understand that for big businesses it goes like this:

System that guarantees scaling  --> marketeer (which cost money)  --> adoption

Not the other way around.

That's not logical. There is no logical reason why an increased block size limit will encourage adoption. It could enable more transactions per block, sure. That has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. I can increase the size of my bed. Doesn't mean I can expect an ever-increasing number of women to get in it, simply because there is more room. (In fact, there may be unexpected problems. Someone may notice all the unused space in my ever-larger bed, and start using it for storage or other activities that =/= my original intention of getting women in my bed)

Regardless, what a few corporate executives think means nothing, particularly if their ideas threaten the robustness of bitcoin. I don't care how they want to market their products -- bitcoin will be adopted because it is a decentralized, transferable form of money, with or without them. Bitcoin is not a product. We are not dependent on companies marketing it.

The question is, to what extent does adoption warrant scaling? And how can we do that responsibly, keeping the network secure?

It might not make sense to you but from any investors perspective it makes tons of sense. You might not care about they thing but be sure that they don't care about what you think either and they have deeper pockets than you. You are delusional if you think adoption will happen by "itself" because of "decentralization". The poeple on the street doesn't give a damn about this.

And yes, bitcoin IS a product.

Only a simple mind like yours would believe Bitcoin is a product to be sold to "people on the street".

If you think a bunch of corporations and VCs rule over Bitcoin you are beyond help.

You're a clueless noob