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

[Holliday]

Everyone wants the blocksize to increase. The mini-blockers are a loud, vocal minority that are already on the wrong side of history.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

[brg444]

Your amazon example is a marginal situation. Sure you might enjoy the benefits of jumping through these hoops but please don't pretend it is in anyway convenient for anyone other than determined Bitcoiners.

There is a very large group of people who waste a bit of time comparison shopping and cutting out coupons as well. The amount of effort to use foldapp and purse isn't any more.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Your argument that a certain marginal section of consumers has adopted dubious behaviours does not support the assertion that others will do the same..

[BitUsher]

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

LOL, Very true, but than again do you know of any developers at the momment who don't support a blocksize increase? Even Peter Todd is favorable to increasing the blocksize (segwitt) where before he wasn't.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Perhaps you should stick to addressing my arguments directly instead of assuming positions that I don't have. Of course bitcoin cannot replace Visa now, that would be an insane position to take with its 3-7tps.

[VeritasSapere]

They also don't understand what politics is and how everything human is also political.

Hint: It isn't what you see on CNBC and Fox News

Now, now Veritas, no need to create suckpuppet accounts to spam the thread 

I thought about doing that, I really did since I am so strict in my reasoning under this name, it would be a relieve to sometimes just throw around insults and attacks like you often do, I decided that this would have been unethical though. That is not me, though obviously I do agree, I will quote Aristotle again for your enlightenment.

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal.

[VeritasSapere]

Your amazon example is a marginal situation. Sure you might enjoy the benefits of jumping through these hoops but please don't pretend it is in anyway convenient for anyone other than determined Bitcoiners.

There is a very large group of people who waste a bit of time comparison shopping and cutting out coupons as well. The amount of effort to use foldapp and purse isn't any more.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Your argument that a certain marginal section of consumers has adopted dubious behaviours does not support the assertion that others will do the same..

If we increase the blocksize then Bitcoin will be capable of competing with traditional payment systems, It is very simply really.

[RoadTrain]

If we increase the blocksize then Bitcoin will be capable of competing with traditional payment systems, It is very simply really.

That's not even funny anymore.

[brg444]

Your amazon example is a marginal situation. Sure you might enjoy the benefits of jumping through these hoops but please don't pretend it is in anyway convenient for anyone other than determined Bitcoiners.

There is a very large group of people who waste a bit of time comparison shopping and cutting out coupons as well. The amount of effort to use foldapp and purse isn't any more.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Your argument that a certain marginal section of consumers has adopted dubious behaviours does not support the assertion that others will do the same..

If we increase the blocksize then Bitcoin will be capable of competing with traditional payment systems, It is very simply really.

Yes, maybe, eventually, in 10 years maybe.

By then most people will be transacting using Lightning though.

Raising the block size does not solve consumers issues relating to non-reversible transactions, security and general consumer protection.

More transaction throughput doesn't provide any more incentive for merchants to accept & HOLD bitcoins.

Raising the block size is NOT a panacea.

[brg444]

They also don't understand what politics is and how everything human is also political.

Hint: It isn't what you see on CNBC and Fox News

Now, now Veritas, no need to create suckpuppet accounts to spam the thread 

Yeah, an account created 33 months ago with an obviously different writing style and 600 posts is definitely a sock puppet of Veritas. Such an astute observation, nice one =)

Jesus christ you ph0rkers are dense  

[BitUsher]

Jesus christ you ph0rkers are dense  

Are you against all forks including the last one - CLTV? If you must get emotional and attack with ad hominems than at least pick better insults.

[VeritasSapere]

Your amazon example is a marginal situation. Sure you might enjoy the benefits of jumping through these hoops but please don't pretend it is in anyway convenient for anyone other than determined Bitcoiners.

There is a very large group of people who waste a bit of time comparison shopping and cutting out coupons as well. The amount of effort to use foldapp and purse isn't any more.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Your argument that a certain marginal section of consumers has adopted dubious behaviours does not support the assertion that others will do the same..

If we increase the blocksize then Bitcoin will be capable of competing with traditional payment systems, It is very simply really.

Yes, maybe, eventually, in 10 years maybe.

By then most people will be transacting using Lightning though.

Raising the block size does not solve consumers issues relating to non-reversible transactions, security and general consumer protection.

More transaction throughput doesn't provide any more incentive for merchants to accept & HOLD bitcoins.

Raising the block size is NOT a panacea.

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

[Holliday]

Everyone wants the blocksize to increase. The mini-blockers are a loud, vocal minority that are already on the wrong side of history.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

Did you read the list in the post that I linked to? Those people are not part of that forum... they are the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem.

I did. It looks mostly like a list of companies which use the Bitcoin ecosystem to earn fiat.

[brg444]

Everyone wants the blocksize to increase. The mini-blockers are a loud, vocal minority that are already on the wrong side of history.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

Did you read the list in the post that I linked to? Those people are not part of that forum... they are the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem.

They're major banking parasites freeloaders indeed.

Coinbase. Banking puppets
Xapo. Wences IMO is one of the few legit bloke in the industry. Most likely was lied to by Gavin and Mike and urged to show "unity" with the "industry"
BitGo. Web Wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Circle. Goldman Sachs puppets
Blockchain.info Broken Web wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
ItBit. Banking puppets

Miners are rallying behind Core.

I guess that sums it up.

So which side are you on? The zionist banking incumbents or the cypherpunks?

I know where my allegiance lies.

[VeritasSapere]

That is a lot of ad hominem for just one post, followed by a false dichotomy.

"zionist banking incumbents"? I suppose I can add antisemitism to the list as well...

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

[brg444]

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer  

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

[brg444]

That is a lot of ad hominem for just one post, followed by a false dichotomy.

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

They also unanimously condemn BIP101's pipedream projections. 

[BitUsher]

They also unanimously condemn BIP101's pipedream projections.  

As do I.

They're major banking parasites freeloaders indeed.

Coinbase. Banking puppets
Xapo. Wences IMO is one of the few legit bloke in the industry. Most likely was lied to by Gavin and Mike and urged to show "unity" with the "industry"
BitGo. Web Wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Circle. Goldman Sachs puppets
Blockchain.info Broken Web wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
ItBit. Banking puppets

Miners are rallying behind Core.

I guess that sums it up.

So which side are you on? The zionist banking incumbents or the cypherpunks?

I know where my allegiance lies.

Wow, at first I assumed better of you and just thought you were a little excitable and emotional. Too much ad hominem without critical reasoning in one post for me; time to walk away from the conversation.

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

... and developers. Basically, almost all of the bitcoin ecosystem supports increasing the blocksize... just not with 101 or XT. Not even the creator anymore apparently.

[VeritasSapere]

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer  

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

[brg444]

 

I pity the family members who'll be hosting you people during upcoming Christmas family reunions. What a bunch of boring stuck-up children  

You all need to realize this is bitcointalk not the fucking senate. Maybe check the thread title again?

[brg444]

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer  

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

No we can't.

Do you really think a meager 8x increase can have us compete with VISA or Paypal!?

[VeritasSapere]

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer  

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

No we can't.

Do you really think a meager 8x increase can have us compete with VISA or Paypal!?

As long as blocks do not become consistently full we can, this of course does depend on the rate of adoption. Combined with off chain transactions I think this is perfectly viable.