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

[VeritasSapere]

That's nice and all , however I suppose that BitcoinXT was the only project planning to increase the Blocksize of bitcoin (altcoin) .. now without what are we supposed to do with bigger blocks ? are Bitcoin Core developpers planning to do anything , if not there is no reason to continue using Bitcoin I suppose .. no mainstream = no future .  

Where did you get the idea that Bitcoin needed to be adopted by mainstream to be successful in the first place?

Increased adoption would help Bitcoins survival into the future, the history of file sharing can be considered as a precedent for this. I would also like to see more people benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain directly, because I think this would do much good in the world.

Bitcoin is a money protocol. The internet of VALUE. It is not Facebook and therefore the number of users is not representative of its adoption.

Increased adoption by capital is what we should be concerned about. It is not correlated with the number of users.

In that regard I shall remind you of iCEBREAKER's mention of Pareto's law of distribution. In the context of Bitcoin it means that if 20% of the world's population controlling 80% of the wealth is to adopt Bitcoin then it would bring about more success & change than if the other 80% adopted it. (The actual wealth disparity is by all account much worse)

I disagree, since it depends on how you define success. If you are measuring success based on price then you are correct in this scenario. However if we measure success in how it effects peoples lives and how many life’s it has saved and positively changed by using the Bitcoin blockchain then having the poorer 80% adopt it first would be better. If the poorer 80% adopts it before the richer 20% then this would also bring about a redistribution of wealth, which would bring about the positive effect of decreasing global inequality.

If this poorer 80% of the population adopts Bitcoin first then I am sure that the other 20% will also follow eventually.

[brg444]

That's nice and all , however I suppose that BitcoinXT was the only project planning to increase the Blocksize of bitcoin (altcoin) .. now without what are we supposed to do with bigger blocks ? are Bitcoin Core developpers planning to do anything , if not there is no reason to continue using Bitcoin I suppose .. no mainstream = no future . 

Where did you get the idea that Bitcoin needed to be adopted by mainstream to be successful in the first place?

I got it from being logic honestly , if Bitcoin was used by couple of people how in the world it will gain any value and become successful ? , it won't . we need more demand and  with the "less supply of block halving price is supposed to go UP and that's it , there is other factors but I think the value is the most important thing on this situation and without a value it will simply die .

Your logic is wrong.

Read my post above.

Bitcoin is not a social network. As strange as it may sound its value does not come from more users.

[yayayo]

To quote adamstgBit because I could have said it better myself:

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.

It's not just socialist "diversion". In fact it is socialist authoritarianism. Enforcing contracts upon others without their consent is good old-style dictatorship.

This is exactly the kind of mind set Gavin and Hearn embrace for their hostile fork-attempt as well. It is 100% contradictory to the idea of Bitcoin.

I'm sure that with the help of its competent developers, Bitcoin will ultimately scale in a smarter way than FUD-pushed extremist BIP101.

ya.ya.yo!

[brg444]

That's nice and all , however I suppose that BitcoinXT was the only project planning to increase the Blocksize of bitcoin (altcoin) .. now without what are we supposed to do with bigger blocks ? are Bitcoin Core developpers planning to do anything , if not there is no reason to continue using Bitcoin I suppose .. no mainstream = no future .  

Where did you get the idea that Bitcoin needed to be adopted by mainstream to be successful in the first place?

Increased adoption would help Bitcoins survival into the future, the history of file sharing can be considered as a precedent for this. I would also like to see more people benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain directly, because I think this would do much good in the world.

Bitcoin is a money protocol. The internet of VALUE. It is not Facebook and therefore the number of users is not representative of its adoption.

Increased adoption by capital is what we should be concerned about. It is not correlated with the number of users.

In that regard I shall remind you of iCEBREAKER's mention of Pareto's law of distribution. In the context of Bitcoin it means that if 20% of the world's population controlling 80% of the wealth is to adopt Bitcoin then it would bring about more success & change than if the other 80% adopted it. (The actual wealth disparity is by all account much worse)

I disagree, since it depends on how you define success. If you are measuring success based on price then you are correct in this scenario. However if we measure success in how it effects peoples lives and how many life’s it has saved and positively changed by using the Bitcoin blockchain then having the poorer 80% adopt it first would be better. If the poorer 80% adopts it before the richer 20% then this would also bring about a redistribution of wealth, which would bring about the positive effect of decreasing global inequality.

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

[VeritasSapere]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

[brg444]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it, it won't stick.

Have you had a look recently at the wealth distribution in Bitcoin? It is arguably worse than in the fiat economy. The suggestion that Bitcoin brings about wealth redistribution is laughable really.

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

[VeritasSapere]

To quote adamstgBit because I could have said it better myself:

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.

It's not just socialist "diversion". In fact it is socialist authoritarianism. Enforcing contracts upon others without their consent is good old-style dictatorship.

This is exactly the kind of mind set Gavin and Hearn embrace for their hostile fork-attempt as well. It is 100% contradictory to the idea of Bitcoin.

I'm sure that with the help of its competent developers, Bitcoin will ultimately scale in a smarter way than FUD-pushed extremist BIP101.

Having another option for the voluntary choice of running an alternative implementation of Bitcoin is not a dictatorship by any stretch of the meaning of that word. Voluntarism is 100% consistent with the idea of Bitcoin.

[VeritasSapere]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick.

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

Wealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#/media/File:Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg

[brg444]

To quote adamstgBit because I could have said it better myself:

i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in and of itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.

Even though it is factually incorrect that a protocol fork of Bitcoin is an altcoin. If you where to use such faulty logic then it would actually be the other way around. Since not increasing the blocksize could essentially be considered as equivalent to breaking the social contract of Bitcoin.

There is no such thing as a social contract. This is a typical socialist diversion. It won't work.

A protocol fork of Bitcoin, unless it obtains support from the economic majority, is absolutely and without doubt an altcoin.

It's not just socialist "diversion". In fact it is socialist authoritarianism. Enforcing contracts upon others without their consent is good old-style dictatorship.

This is exactly the kind of mind set Gavin and Hearn embrace for their hostile fork-attempt as well. It is 100% contradictory to the idea of Bitcoin.

I'm sure that with the help of its competent developers, Bitcoin will ultimately scale in a smarter way than FUD-pushed extremist BIP101.

Having another option for the voluntary choice of running an alternative implementation of Bitcoin is not a dictatorship by any stretch of the meaning of that word. Voluntarism is 100% consistent with the idea of Bitcoin.

Would you miss us with your mischaracterization of reality?

Bitcoin XT does not propose an alternative implementation it proposes a different protocol.  

[RoadTrain]

The danger of centralisation of power and tyrrany of development would be to great of a cost to pay for not diverting resources. Since decentralisation implies the diversion of resources. Having multiple implementations would make the protocol more robust over the long term.

You are implying that multiple implementations will somehow make the protocol more robust, I say otherwise. What makes protocol more robust is extensive peer-review, not some buzz like development decentralization.

Bitcoin is consensus-critical, so you can't apply the same principles to it as you would to other open-source projects

We can apply some of the same principles to it since Bitcoin is also a open-source project.

Exactly. Some, not all.

You should not and can not enforce network consensus in the case of a split.

I certainly can't. It will resolve naturally, either one of forks dies, or it becomes an altcoin. Only one true Bitcoin can exist at a time. And this true Bitcoin will continue enforcing network consensus within itself.

Bitcoin is not about the tyranny of the majority. It's about tyranny of the protocol. Rules have to be enforced for the network to function.

You are advocating tyranny of the protocol, I disagree. Bitcoin is and should be voluntary.

I'm not advocating, I'm explaining to you how Bitcoin network consensus works. And Bitcoin is voluntary.

If you think that we should all rely on the internal decision making process of Core. Then we will run into some of the same problems that large corporations and states run into, since if we wanted the Core development to reflect the will of the economic majority or possible another measure of consensus. Then we would need to attempt to construct a type of centralized governance structure on top of Bitcoin in the form of Core development, this in my opinion would be in conflict to the principles of freedom and decentralization that Bitcoin was founded upon.

That's not what I think. I have alrealy explained to you that Bitcoin development is decentralized by nature. Anyone can create different implementations, and the economic majority is free to choose. And it chooses Core, that's reality. If Core fails, then a different implementation can win. But that's not the case now.

[brg444]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick.

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

Wealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory.

Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken.

[VeritasSapere]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick.

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

Wealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory.

Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken.

I am not saying this, redistribution of wealth has already happened. Early adopters for instance already had an influx of wealth. If the price of Bitcoin goes up then our wealth increases as well, this is in effect a redistribution of wealth, its quite simple really.

[brg444]

Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality.

If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it.

I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work.

Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing.

How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance?

Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick.

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

Wealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory.

Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken.

I am not saying this, redistribution of wealth has already happened. Early adopters for instance already had an influx of wealth. If the price of Bitcoin goes up then our wealth increases as well, this is in effect a redistribution of wealth, its quite simple really.

Oh sure if you're willing to stretch the definition to such extent why not? Then I guess lottery is a tool for redistribution of wealth and so are penny stocks 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

The denial is strong in this one. The only thing that has been OVERWHELMINGLY rejected is the "no increase in blocksize' mantra trotted out by core devs for the last 12 months. That hope and dream is lying in tatters on the ground as they scramble to reformulate their stand to include "Hey, bigger blocks are ok!!"  That is the great victory that XT has brought about.

Revisionist much? 

[VeritasSapere]

Bitcoin is consensus-critical, so you can't apply the same principles to it as you would to other open-source projects

We can apply some of the same principles to it since Bitcoin is also a open-source project.

Exactly. Some, not all.

Agreed.

You should not and can not enforce network consensus in the case of a split.

I certainly can't. It will resolve naturally, either one of forks dies, or it becomes an altcoin. Only one true Bitcoin can exist at a time. And this true Bitcoin will continue enforcing network consensus within itself.

True, however in the case of a theoritical 50/50 split they could both say that they are the true Bitcoin. Which would be the altcoin and which would be the true Bitcoin? A minority could even claim that they are the true Bitcoin and the other side of the fork is the altcoin or vice versa. The point is, which side is the "altcoin" and which side is the "true Bitcoin" is a matter of perspective in the case of a protocol fork.

Bitcoin is not about the tyranny of the majority. It's about tyranny of the protocol. Rules have to be enforced for the network to function.

You are advocating tyranny of the protocol, I disagree. Bitcoin is and should be voluntary.

I'm not advocating, I'm explaining to you how Bitcoin network consensus works. And Bitcoin is voluntary.

How can the protocol be a tyrany while Bitcoin remains completly voluntary, this is a contradiction. Bitcoin is complently voluntary in its use and 51% of the mining power can fork Bitcoin at any time, this is not consistant with a tyranny.

If you think that we should all rely on the internal decision making process of Core. Then we will run into some of the same problems that large corporations and states run into, since if we wanted the Core development to reflect the will of the economic majority or possible another measure of consensus. Then we would need to attempt to construct a type of centralized governance structure on top of Bitcoin in the form of Core development, this in my opinion would be in conflict to the principles of freedom and decentralization that Bitcoin was founded upon.

That's not what I think. I have alrealy explained to you that Bitcoin development is decentralized by nature. Anyone can create different implementations, and the economic majority is free to choose. And it chooses Core, that's reality. If Core fails, then a different implementation can win. But that's not the case now.

Agreed, however if Core does not increase the block size before the network becomes significantly overloaded then I will consider Core to have failed, then a different implementation will win, I hope that you can agree with that as well. There do need to be alternative implementations already in place if people do choose to change however, so I do not understand why you disagree with the idea of decentralization of development through multiple implementations and possibly competing development teams. Even if the majority of the work is done by the "reference implementation".

[iCEBREAKER]

Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.

"IF?"  "IF?"  "IF?"

From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear?

All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup.

Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge?

Get your story straight, chump!   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.

"IF?"  "IF?"  "IF?"

From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear?

All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup.

Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge?

Get your story straight, chump!   

There is no conditional hedge.  Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.

Enjoy your pain. 

[brg444]

Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.

"IF?"  "IF?"  "IF?"

From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear?

All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup.

Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge?

Get your story straight, chump!  

There is no conditional hedge.  Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.

Enjoy your pain.  

Says who?

Either way a 1 MB incremental raise over 2 years or some 15% YOY sounds like core devs throwing redditards a bone to keep you distracted while they work on proper scaling solutions.

The 8 MB increase on an exponential schedule which all the noobs were clamoring for got properly rekt and this all that matters really.

[iCEBREAKER]

That's nice and all , however I suppose that BitcoinXT was the only project planning to increase the Blocksize of bitcoin (altcoin) .. now without what are we supposed to do with bigger blocks ? are Bitcoin Core developpers planning to do anything , if not there is no reason to continue using Bitcoin I suppose .. no mainstream = no future . 

Where did you get the idea that Bitcoin needed to be adopted by mainstream to be successful in the first place?

Maybe he shares Frap.doc's African boy fetish?

[iCEBREAKER]

if bitcoin doesn't scale soon there will be a huge demand for an alternative solution

"Will be?"  "Will be?"  "Will be?"

From where did this wild "will be" appear?

All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core already took too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup.

Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal from the present to the future tense?

Get your story straight, chump!