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

[RoadStress]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

How about you tell us who the fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously.

Oh wait! You will not do that. Everything that you stated about Gavin while he was the single maintainer of the bitcoin github should be erased/ignored!

[brg444]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

How about you tell us who the fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously.

Oh wait! You will not do that. Everything that you stated about Gavin while he was the single maintainer of the bitcoin github should be erased/ignored!

Gavin has been compromised and brighter minds have long realized it. Sorry you were late to the party.

[hdbuck]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

How about you tell us who the fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously.

Oh wait! You will not do that. Everything that you stated about Gavin while he was the single maintainer of the bitcoin github should be erased/ignored!

Gavin has been compromised and brighter minds have long realized it. Sorry you were late to the party.

I dont suggest killing bitcoin core,
I dont submit any WP pretending it to be worth anything,
I dont waste identified devs time on bitcoin's mailing list,
I dont go on a bitcoin conference to lecture fellow bitcoiners..

If not for the sake of the argument, this is basic courtesy: you introduce your fuckin self.
That's how we, humble bitcoiners, know who we are dealing with.
(and so it goes for that rat that goes by the name Gavin Bell Andressen).


edit: but hey, i'll provide my id when he will.. nothing to hide here.. you should too! ^^
(and if brg does not have it by then ).

[Zarathustra]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

How about you tell us who the fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously.

Oh wait! You will not do that.

Hypocrisy at its best.

[marky89]

pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Can confirm; hellashady.

Who are you?

You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you.
If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously.

Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored

Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage.


PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you?

How about you tell us who the fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously.

Oh wait! You will not do that.

Hypocrisy at its best.

To be fair, in academic discussions and papers, it is customary to identify yourself and your credentials. It's kind of odd that he hasn't. If I had the desire to enter into academic discussions, I wouldn't scoff at the idea of identifying myself.

[tvbcof]

...
pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Occasionally I'll take a few seconds and look back at a random few of a guy's posts.  Normally it's not worth the bother.  Just now I noticed that Peter R. was the guy who met the 'little old lady' at the Bitcoin ATM and she was there because she got ripped of by the cryptolocker malware.  That story struck me as likely a bullshit psyop when I first read it.  Just sayin'

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

...
pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.

Occasionally I'll take a few seconds and look back at a random few of a guy's posts.  Normally it's not worth the bother.  Just now I noticed that Peter R. was the guy who met the 'little old lady' at the Bitcoin ATM and she was there because she got ripped of by the cryptolocker malware.  That story struck me as likely a bullshit psyop when I first read it.  Just sayin'

I know how you feel.  Sometimes when I get AKo, opp has pocket rockets.

[jonald_fyookball]

Gavin has been compromised

Blah blah... talk is cheap.  Prove it.

Why should we even listen to you when
you're saying something stupid almost
everyday?

Like this morning:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154687.msg12373243#msg12373243

[brg444]

Gavin has been compromised

Blah blah... talk is cheap.  Prove it.

Why should we even listen to you when
you're saying something stupid almost
everyday?

Like this morning:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154687.msg12373243#msg12373243

Proof is in the pudding at this point. XT coup was not enough for you?

[marky89]

If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.

[jonald_fyookball]

If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.

It might be hard to get much more than 75% given the fact that the core devs all work for blockstream and couldn't come to a consensus for scaling bitcoin on chain, even after several years of discussion.

[brg444]

If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.

It might be hard to get much more than 75% given the fact that the core devs all work for blockstream and couldn't come to a consensus for scaling bitcoin on chain, even after several years of discussion.

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

[jonald_fyookball]

If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.

It might be hard to get much more than 75% given the fact that the core devs all work for blockstream and couldn't come to a consensus for scaling bitcoin on chain, even after several years of discussion.

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

They seem to control opinions of certain posters. 

[Peter R]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  

How many time do you need it pointed out that this little chart is bullshit.

No one's stopping anyone from creating other implementations. In fact, there are multiple existing implementations and client versions.

The problem is limited resources. I don't see any hordes of developers stepping forward to support these implementation?

Be careful what you wish for though... the guys at Ethereum can probably tell you all about the "joys" of different implementations of critical consensus code.

[marky89]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  

Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  

Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.

+1

Anyone is free to submit a pull request to core, that's all that matters.

[Peter R]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  

Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.

Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol, indeed.  Presently ~85% of the network nodes run Core's implementation of that protocol.  

The block size limit debate has revealed how this sort of centralization--once thought benign--can become an impediment to progress and can be subject to capture by special interest groups.  Like you said, the code can be freely forked to create an outlet to any impediment; the XT fork is leading the way down that path.  This knowledge of "how to fork" is one positive that has come from the block size battle.  

I look forward to seeing multiple implementation of the Bitcoin protocol in a few years time.  

[brg444]

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

some valuable content here.

[jonald_fyookball]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. 
At least in my opinion.