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

[brg444]

You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.

Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong?

One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen.

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 

They can fork it. So, they would need someone with deeper understanding of the technology to make a profit out of that.
I am not saying, that they are really doing that, but that would not be something unusual.

There are people outside of Blockstream with deep understanding of the technology (those who actually created it) who are also working on it. If Blockstream can share their expertise to help develop it then who are we to complain?

Have a look at the dev mailing list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-August/thread.html

[brg444]

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 

Have you ever heard about the network effect? 

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. 

Have you ever heard about the network effect? 

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 

[brg444]

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  

Have you ever heard about the network effect?  

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  

Have you ever heard about the network effect?  

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb like the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be.

Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there.

[brg444]

Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.  

Have you ever heard about the network effect?  

Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted.

brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big.

You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.

 

There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb like the XT team was pushing for.

I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care.

No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be.

Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there.

For your argument to make any sense you'd have to present actual proofs that the developers were ever against increasing the block size and keeping 1mb.

If you really want to turn this into a partisan thing I'd argue this is a win for team Blockstream

[RoadStress]

brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!

[brg444]

brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!

No they should resign because of sheer incompetence and for misleading Bitcoin users to get behind a potentially dangerous fork for political reasons.

[Carlton Banks]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

[RoadStress]

brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?

5 pages for a retard subject...good job!

No they should resign because of sheer incompetence and for misleading Bitcoin users to get behind a potentially dangerous fork for political reasons.

Care to back up the "sheer incompetence" statement with facts? Or do you usually like to pull stuff out of your ass?

Misleading? Again pulling statements our of your ass because in my view a "misleading" move would be to say that they blocks will grow to 8MB, but instead they grow to 100MB. That is misleading! But good thing that we have the open source and that everyone can check on the code so the misleading statement is impossible!

Dangerous? Who are you to decide what's the best interest of other people?

[knight22]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

In comparison to the Core guys being ultra paranoiac, conservative, fear mongering characters  

[brg444]

Care to back up the "sheer incompetence" statement with facts? Or do you usually like to pull stuff out of your ass?

Bitcoin XT being DOA is proof enough of their incompetence.

Misleading? Again pulling statements our of your ass because in my view a "misleading" move would be to say that they blocks will grow to 8MB, but instead they grow to 100MB. That is misleading! But good thing that we have the open source and that everyone can check on the code so the misleading statement is impossible!

Misleading is creating false urgency and engineering spam attacks in the background.

Dangerous? Who are you to decide what's the best interest of other people?

Dangerous : Bitcoin XT

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

[VeritasSapere]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

Carlton Banks, I was expecting more from you. You even said that I was being reasonable in our previous discussion. There is no need for ad hominem. Most of us are now at least agreeing on increasing the block size, which is a great relieve to me. I still prefer BIP101 though, BIP100 is an acceptable compromise however. I would have preferred it if there was no 32meg limit in BIP100, since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split. Just letting the miners decide is fine with me since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin after all. I can trust proof of work more then any developer team lol.

[madjules007]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

In comparison to the Core guys being ultra paranoiac, conservative, fear mongering characters  

I'd say there are some pretty fair criticisms of the XT client that wouldn't constitute paranoia or fear-mongering. I am not a "Core guy". But I don't support XT.

I also think there is nothing wrong with taking a conservative approach when there is so much damn money on the line. People have this absurd idea that this will be the last fork ever for bitcoin -- that's a joke. We will no doubt encounter problems in the future that have not even been fathomed. Let alone the potential problems that different solutions to scalability present.

[VeritasSapere]

Even if Bitcoin XT does not reach consensus it was still a good thing for Bitcoin. Since it has so far been a catalyst for change, in response to a Core development team which has reached a stalemate who have so far been unwilling to increase the block size. Since forking away from the Core development team should never be considered intrinsically wrong. Since It is the political mechanism that exist within Bitcoin that truly ensures its freedom and decentralization, otherwise the development team would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin, this would most certainly not be in line with the principles of decentralization and freedom.

[Carlton Banks]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

Carlton Banks, I was expecting more from you. You even said that I was being reasonable in our previous discussion. There is no need for ad hominem. Most of us are now at least agreeing on increasing the block size, which is a great relieve to me. I still prefer BIP101 though, BIP100 is an acceptable compromise however. I would have preferred it if there was no 32meg limit in BIP100, since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split. Just letting the miners decide is fine with me since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin after all. I can trust proof of work more then any developer team lol.

on-topic, there are a large number of people still promoting this alt-client dev team takeover, and you want to invoke the moral high ground against me on the basis of the blocksize debate? That's a thin premise. You're either ignorant or dishonest, reveal it

[madjules007]

since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split.

This seems to be a big sticking point for XT supporters. It's completely unrealistic that the technical aspects of the bitcoin project will not be further debated in the future, or that we won't see future hard forks after this. Obviously this experience was so "painful" for many that they just don't want to experience it again. Sorry, but that's part of consensus. Forcing all questions now really doesn't mean there won't be problems in the future......

And why can't there be an even split now?

Not a very strong argument against a hard fork later but in favor of one now.....

[RoadStress]

Care to back up the "sheer incompetence" statement with facts? Or do you usually like to pull stuff out of your ass?

Bitcoin XT being DOA is proof enough of their incompetence.

What about the rest of their work? Still incompetence?

Misleading? Again pulling statements our of your ass because in my view a "misleading" move would be to say that they blocks will grow to 8MB, but instead they grow to 100MB. That is misleading! But good thing that we have the open source and that everyone can check on the code so the misleading statement is impossible!

Misleading is creating false urgency and engineering spam attacks in the background.[/quote]

Proof that they engineered spam attacks? In your ass again?

Dangerous? Who are you to decide what's the best interest of other people?

Dangerous : Bitcoin XT

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

So by your logic if there is a group of people (meaning 100+ or 1000+ or 10k+) that would like to use the XT fork they shouldn't do it? Why are you forcing everyone to use the Core fork/implementation? If they decide that they want to use the XT fork they are free to do it, no matter what someone like you says! Let's leave those that want to use the XT fork to do it! I am not forcing you to use Monero just because privacy. I would like to see that from you too, but I am sure that you are unable to do that!

[VeritasSapere]

Y'know, taking a step back from it all, these XT guys are real pushy characters. Kinda seems like they'll offer you anything really, it's just gotta be using their super-free alt-client

Where'd they train you all up, the Jehovah's Witnesses? Scientology?  

Carlton Banks, I was expecting more from you. You even said that I was being reasonable in our previous discussion. There is no need for ad hominem. Most of us are now at least agreeing on increasing the block size, which is a great relieve to me. I still prefer BIP101 though, BIP100 is an acceptable compromise however. I would have preferred it if there was no 32meg limit in BIP100, since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split. Just letting the miners decide is fine with me since they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin after all. I can trust proof of work more then any developer team lol.

on-topic, there are a large number of people still promoting this alt-client dev team takeover, and you want to invoke the moral high ground against me on the basis of the blocksize debate?

I am not sure how I am invoking any moral high ground. I do not think I am incorrect that you were using ad hominem, which is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with morals. However I do still prefer BIP101 and I do not think that reaching 75% consensus should be considered an alt-client dev team take over. But in the interests of compromise I would support BIP100 instead, with some reservations I have already pointed out. We might end up on the same side of the fork after all Carlton! Huzzah!

[VeritasSapere]

since in a few years we will have to go through all of this again, and consensus will most likely be even more difficult to reach in the future, which might even cause a split.

This seems to be a big sticking point for XT supporters. It's completely unrealistic that the technical aspects of the bitcoin project will not be further debated in the future, or that we won't see future hard forks after this. Obviously this experience was so "painful" for many that they just don't want to experience it again. Sorry, but that's part of consensus. Forcing all questions now really doesn't mean there won't be problems in the future......

And why can't there be an even split now?

Not a very strong argument against a hard fork later but in favor of one now.....

You make good points, It is true that the feasibility of hard forks in the future is definitely a sticking point for me. I have a background in political philosophy, maybe that plays a part in why I think this way. But i do agree with you in principle actually, if there is a fundamental disagreement within the Bitcoin community the best way to resolve it, would be to split Bitcoin in half or in whatever way is appropriate depending on the ideologies of its participants. That way there would be no tyranny of the majority, which is a beautiful political solution that is contained within Bitcoin. I would however prefer it if this did not happen so early in Bitcoins development especially if it is possible to come to an agreement about something like the block size which should be a relatively easy question, compared to the questions that will most likely challenge the consensus in the future.