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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

and 5% in nodes... only 345

That might change if Core takes to long to increase the blocksize. We should be thankful that XT has given us an alternative. The freedom of choice should be embraced.

According to the Gavinista Manifesto (*snicker*), Core has ALREADY taken too long to increase the blocksize (and blacklist TOR, etc).

But their putsch failed, so now you're lowering the bar for XT all the way down to the ground.  First XT was a revolution against Blockstream and Thermos, but now it's just a handy motivational poster?  Give me a break...you are spinning like a pulsar!  

Hundreds of other altcoins existed before XT.  And some of them (eg Monero) have adaptive block sizes.  Where have you been?

If XT is the first alternative to Bitcoin you've ever encountered, you really should get out more.  

When will the MPfags just give up and accept that bigger blocks are coming? Not if, it's when...

Its over for you due to fail and AIDS.

[1714779141]

1714779141

[1714779141]

1714779141

[1714779141]

1714779141

[1714779141]

1714779141

[1714779141]

1714779141

[1714779141]

1714779141

[jonald_fyookball]

and 5% in nodes... only 345

That might change if Core takes to long to increase the blocksize. We should be thankful that XT has given us an alternative. The freedom of choice should be embraced.

According to the Gavinista Manifesto (*snicker*), Core has ALREADY taken too long to increase the blocksize (and blacklist TOR, etc).

But their putsch failed, so now you're lowering the bar for XT all the way down to the ground.  First XT was a revolution against Blockstream and Thermos, but now it's just a handy motivational poster?  Give me a break...you are spinning like a pulsar!  

Hundreds of other altcoins existed before XT.  And some of them (eg Monero) have adaptive block sizes.  Where have you been?

If XT is the first alternative to Bitcoin you've ever encountered, you really should get out more.  

When will the MPfags just give up and accept that bigger blocks are coming? Not if, it's when...

Its over for you due to fail and AIDS.

When will they stop dishonestly claiming XT is an altcoin?

[Carlton Banks]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

lol don't let the door hit you on your way out, Peter

[Trent Russell]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

If you're still wondering about this, my talk at the conference is in about a half hour. You can watch it on the livestream. Hope you enjoy it!

Edit: Oops. I was rushing to post this during the break and logged into the wrong account!

lol don't let the door hit you on your way out, Peter

Again, for anyone coming into this thread late, I'm not actually Peter. I posted that as a joke since hdbuck accused me of being one of Peter's alts in this thread last week. Now it's starting to seem more confusing than funny, sorry about that.

[brg444]

 

[yayayo]

 

First rule for a failed dictator: Never admit defeat.

If you ask me it's wonderful news, because during the time of their vacation we might see less FUD-drama regarding the extreme danger of not raising the blocksize immediately and enforcing a "benevolent dictatorship" in the development decision process... maybe they will reconsider and take a few years off - that would be even better.

ya.ya.yo!

[mallard]

 

inb4 Malaysian Airlines flight carrying Mike and Gavin goes missing.

[iCEBREAKER]

 

inb4 Malaysian Airlines flight carrying Mike and Gavin goes missing.

XT's Bus Factor = 2

It's not like Peter R, Frap.doc, Zarass, and solex are going to take over XT's github if Mike and Gavin went missing or quit.

[VeritasSapere]

First rule for a failed dictator: Never admit defeat.

If you ask me it's wonderful news, because during the time of their vacation we might see less FUD-drama regarding the extreme danger of not raising the blocksize immediately and enforcing a "benevolent dictatorship" in the development decision process... maybe they will reconsider and take a few years off - that would be even better.

ya.ya.yo!

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

[hdbuck]

First rule for a failed dictator: Never admit defeat.

If you ask me it's wonderful news, because during the time of their vacation we might see less FUD-drama regarding the extreme danger of not raising the blocksize immediately and enforcing a "benevolent dictatorship" in the development decision process... maybe they will reconsider and take a few years off - that would be even better.

ya.ya.yo!

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

lol seriously? such a sneaky way of choosing your words to imply something which is subjective and false.

Hello: "your own implementation of bitcoin" = "your own altcoin"

plz cut the crap.

[DooMAD]

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

Agreed.  One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment.  Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything.  If anything, the gap appears to be widening.  We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split.  I honestly don't see this ending amicably.  


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

Oxymorons to avoid:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"

[hund]

Great to see Gavincoin doing the dive.

Now what about Gavin Hearn? I think if the community could make a point about the insignificance of Gavin Hearn and how these people will not have an audience in the future that'd help bitcoins' price probably.

The community needs to officially emancipate from Gavinhearn to help bring back investors confidence. As it is now the damage is still there in the PR departement.

Gavin already left bitcointalk (not writing here anymore since months). We need to find a way to make it clear he's a nobody same as Hearn so people can come back in with their dollars.

[iCEBREAKER]

Great to see Gavincoin doing the dive.

Now what about Gavin Hearn?

Mike and Gavin are on vacation.  They are looking forward to spending more time with their families.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Great to see Gavincoin doing the dive.

Now what about Gavin Hearn? I think if the community could make a point about the insignificance of Gavin Hearn and how these people will not have an audience in the future that'd help bitcoins' price probably.

The community needs to officially emancipate from Gavinhearn to help bring back investors confidence. As it is now the damage is still there in the PR departement.

Gavin already left bitcointalk (not writing here anymore since months). We need to find a way to make it clear he's a nobody same as Hearn so people can come back in with their dollars.

MPfags are breeding like rabbits....

Stop It!!  Its All Over!!  Bigger blocks by next year is GUARANTEED.   

Give up and go back to your circle jerk forum, where you solve the worlds economic problems using big words like rekt and n00b.

Your continued participation in this thread will just prolong your agony as MAHHOOSIVE blocks streak across the network. 

[jonald_fyookball]

[iCEBREAKER]

[Gavinista butthurt]

If you are XT, the trend is not your friend.   



Looks like most of the free VPS trials expired.  Too bad XT has no support beyond Reddit's mob of easily agitated ADHD basement dwellers.

[Carlton Banks]

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

Agreed.  One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment.  Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything.  If anything, the gap appears to be widening.  We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split.  I honestly don't see this ending amicably.  


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

Oxymorons to avoid:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"

No.

The dev team will be just as centralised under anyone else, you can't crowdsource engineering decisions (except if you're trying to hijack an open source p2p network of course...), except on github (which already happens for Bitcoin anyway)

XT was rejected. Get over it, we'll be scaling up without BIP101 or XT. Go away.

[VeritasSapere]

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

Agreed.  One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment.  Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything.  If anything, the gap appears to be widening.  We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split.  I honestly don't see this ending amicably.  


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

Oxymorons to avoid:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"

No.

The dev team will be just as centralised under anyone else, you can't crowdsource engineering decisions (except if you're trying to hijack an open source p2p network of course...), except on github (which already happens for Bitcoin anyway)

XT was rejected. Get over it, we'll be scaling up without BIP101 or XT. Go away.

You misunderstand, it should not be centralized under any development team. There should be many developer teams with many competing implementations of Bitcoin this is where the decentralization of development should lie.

It is interesting that you say we can not crowd source engineering decisions. If that is the case then it would make sense that different implementations of Bitcoin have their own internal decision making processes, and some like XT would decide on having a "benevolent dictator" so to speak. I believe this is rather common throughout open source projects. The consensus and the choice lies with the miners, the economic majority and the users in terms of the code they choose to run. This is how Bitcoin can remain free and decentralized.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

Agreed.  One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment.  Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything.  If anything, the gap appears to be widening.  We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split.  I honestly don't see this ending amicably.  


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

Oxymorons to avoid:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"

nice summary - concise, rational, accurate

[jonald_fyookball]

we'll be scaling up without with or without BIP101 or XT.

FTFY. that's actually what I thought you said when I first read it but that would be too sensible for you to say apparently.