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

[VeritasSapere]

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!   

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

[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!  

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process.

Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented.

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

We have already given you the proper counter arguments (Pareto, etc).  You are not convinced because you are incapable of understanding them.

You are lucky to have such excellent teachers here, but our efforts to cure your stupendous ignorance are to no avail.

Oh well...you really should be out enjoying your sophomore year (with parties/girls/drugs/music) instead of displaying your delusional naivete to a forum that knows better.   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

Says about 70% of miners. Says the vast majority of nodes.

No point in trying to mitigate your butthurt by trying to say "we were only against 8mb - other block sizes are ok!!" because we know the truth.

You have been outmaneuvered.  While you were screaming about "XT" and gavincoins, the whole debate changed focus and has been pretty much decided behind your back.

If you are feeling cheated and irrelevant right now - Dont worry - its because you are.    Its a classic trick naive people always fall for - throw them a big red flag that they can go after, screaming and shouting and threatening, while all the time the real debate gets resolved by those who can play the game effectively.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

We have already given you the proper counter arguments (Pareto, etc). 

LMAO!! you are some clown. Seriously. Thats the funniest statement in the whole debate. Well done.

[VeritasSapere]

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!  

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process.

Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented.

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

If the network did become "overloaded" or "congested" as you say. Transactions might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need in order to even get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin, and this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception.

[brg444]

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.

Says about 70% of miners. Says the vast majority of nodes.

No point in trying to mitigate your butthurt by trying to say "we were only against 8mb - other block sizes are ok!!" because we know the truth.

You have been outmaneuvered.  While you were screaming about "XT" and gavincoins, the whole debate changed focus and has been pretty much decided behind your back.

If you are feeling cheated and irrelevant right now - Dont worry - its because you are.    Its a classic trick naive people always fall for - throw them a big red flag that they can go after, screaming and shouting and threatening, while all the time the real debate gets resolved by those who can play the game effectively.

Fortunately we don't take decisions based on what miners want. What a stupid thing that would be  

I'm guessing you pulled the "vast majority of nodes" out of your ass?

You used to be a better troll Lambchop  

[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!  

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process.

Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented.

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

If the network did become "overloaded" or "congested" as you say. Transactions might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need in order to even get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin, and this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception.

Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

[VeritasSapere]

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!  

I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before.

There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process.

Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented.

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

If the network did become "overloaded" or "congested" as you say. Transactions might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need in order to even get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin, and this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception.

Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?

You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.

You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

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? 

XT's "great victory" only resulted in the functional ascendency of BIP000.   

The blocksize debate is just as, if not more, deadlocked than before the XT fiasco.  That stalemate is EXACTLY the outcome Team 1MB wanted (TYVM!).

We Core defenders stuck XT's ludicrous plans in the deep freeze, just like Israel did with Dubya's Roadmap to Peace.  There, there.  Try not to be such a poor sport about it.   

This XT move created a lot of division. So if XT was secretly designed to cause so much division that the block size could never be changed (i.e. nothing resembling consensus could ever be formed), then XT might be a success.

The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value.

You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat.

Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers.

And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?

ROFL!!  Aw, dude, you're killing me. Just when I thought you couldnt get more retarded you spring this one on me!!  You still think this whole system is just a big pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere, don't you?  That magical wealth has been created by .... Math? 

[VeritasSapere]

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

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?  

XT's "great victory" only resulted in the functional ascendency of BIP000.  

The blocksize debate is just as, if not more, deadlocked than before the XT fiasco.  That stalemate is EXACTLY the outcome Team 1MB wanted (TYVM!).

We Core defenders stuck XT's ludicrous plans in the deep freeze, just like Israel did with Dubya's Roadmap to Peace.  There, there.  Try not to be such a poor sport about it.  

This XT move created a lot of division. So if XT was secretly designed to cause so much division that the block size could never be changed (i.e. nothing resembling consensus could ever be formed), then XT might be a success.

The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value.

You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat.

Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers.

And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.  

Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a governance coup, unless a governance coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

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?  

XT's "great victory" only resulted in the functional ascendency of BIP000.  

The blocksize debate is just as, if not more, deadlocked than before the XT fiasco.  That stalemate is EXACTLY the outcome Team 1MB wanted (TYVM!).

We Core defenders stuck XT's ludicrous plans in the deep freeze, just like Israel did with Dubya's Roadmap to Peace.  There, there.  Try not to be such a poor sport about it.  

Ha HA!!  MPfaggery such as this might wash at whatever right wing circle jerk you hang out in, but most observers will see your original position being eroded away, not by a rejection of larger blocks, but with a range of large block alternatives being put on the table.

Its not about large versus small blocks, but simply HOW LARGE DO WE GO???  See what we did there?  Your rectum must be positively glowing red now...  

This BIP000 nonsense is just the bottom of your very empty barrel of ideas.

[brg444]

You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.

I don't "think" it is, I'm certain given the facts observed.

80% of the existing coins are sitting in cold storage and haven't moved for years.

Bitcoin users willing to use its rather cumbersome payment system are a minority. Sure it works great for niche use cases but it quite honestly cannot compete with other alternatives for traditional mainstream retail usage.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a government coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.

Dont worry about it. Its a basic tactic of the intellectually and ideologically bankrupt MPfags when they are against the wall - "Repeat a lie often enough and it might start appearing to be true"

[Carlton Banks]

The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value.

You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat.

Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers.

And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.   

Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a government coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.

"Government" and "governance" do look really similar written down, but it's funny how the meaning changes so much when you substitute one for the other  

Troll harder VertiasSapere, you're too consistently getting information wrong that construes the argument in dismissal of an invisible enemy: people who don't want scaling up. It's so openly transparent now that it's totally pathetic

[VeritasSapere]

The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value.

You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat.

Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers.

And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.  

Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a governance coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.

"Government" and "governance" do look really similar written down, but it's funny how the meaning changes so much when you substitute one for the other  

Troll harder VertiasSapere, you're too consistently getting information wrong that construes the argument in dismissal of an invisible enemy: people who don't want scaling up. It's so openly transparent now that it's totally pathetic

Its a typo, seriously?

[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?

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

Bitcoin is not moving forward with bigger blocks anytime soon.  You failed to specify when your assertion will be true and what form it will take.  It is the action of a coward to retreat from such refutable specifics into the non-falsifiable warm fuzzy generalities of "eventually."

"If Core takes too long" is most certainly a conditional hedge.  "If" is the hedge, "Core takes too long" is the condition.

That is a shift in advocacy, because previously the Gavinista narrative was 'Core has already taken way too long, so it's time for the nuclear option of a Great Schism.'

Maybe you don't understand why changing from a present-tense declaration to a future-tense conditional hedge is a shift in advocacy.  But the rest of us do.

Perhaps you don't appreciate why shifts in advocacy, as performative contradictions, destroy your credibility.  But the rest of us do.

You are either too stupid to know you are shifting advocacy, too stupid to understand why that's bad, or are trying to be sneaky with a subtle but dishonest retreat from your original position.

None of those options reflect well on you, and all are in line with our expectation that Hearn's fanboys will seek to mislead the public.  

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value.

You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat.

Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers.

And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.   

Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a government coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.

"Government" and "governance" do look really similar written down, but it's funny how the meaning changes so much when you substitute one for the other  

Troll harder VertiasSapere, you're too consistently getting information wrong that construes the argument in dismissal of an invisible enemy: people who don't want scaling up. It's so openly transparent now that it's totally pathetic

Governance is what a Government does. Trying to argue that they are unrelated concepts is just being stupidly pedantic.

[VeritasSapere]

You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.

I don't "think" it is, I'm certain given the facts observed.

80% of the existing coins are sitting in cold storage and haven't moved for years.

Bitcoin users willing to use its rather cumbersome payment system are a minority. Sure it works great for niche use cases but it quite honestly cannot compete with other alternatives for traditional mainstream retail usage.

I disagree, the ability to transact using Bitcoin directly is even personally important to me, you can use a mainstream retail payment solution if you want, I prefer Bitcoin.