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

[knight22]

I think he is referring to the inability to fork the code even if the market wants it. Now what?

How do we know if "the market" wants it?

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants? But considering all the drama a simple "choice" have created I think we can simply conclude bitcoin is indeed centralized.

[Holliday]

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?

How does the market choose?

[knight22]

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?

How does the market choose?

The way Mike and Gavin did it? They just drop a choice and people went all over the top...

[danielW]

Mike Hearn

If the community collectively decides that this whole decentralisation thing is too dangerous and unstable to be worth it, well, I guess that means lots of people will lose interest and drift away. There's no point in replacing central bankers with central developers.

Interesting thing to say from someone who thinks Gavin should have taken over the reins at core and just made the decisions, in his favour presumably.

So he now has genuine  concern about decentralisation? The person who pushes for blacklists, passports for nodes, envisions a future where nodes are only run by larger companies. Defends gov prosecution of Shrem and their non-punishment of HSBC?

Not that I see a future where XT is the reference client, run by Hearn, as more decentralised then the situation now.


It really looks to me like Mikes main concern is about 'winning' and getting 'his way', and he will just use whatever reasoning to try and get that.

I think he is referring to the inability to fork the code even if the market wants it. Now what?

I don't think he is . Inability to fork to XT rules != mean centralisation.

You can fork the code btw and its trivially easy. Forking the chain with new protocol rules is not easy and should not  be easy. Thats tangential to what Hearn said.

Also its not true that the market wants a fork, a significant percentage does maybe.

[knight22]

Mike Hearn

If the community collectively decides that this whole decentralisation thing is too dangerous and unstable to be worth it, well, I guess that means lots of people will lose interest and drift away. There's no point in replacing central bankers with central developers.

Interesting thing to say from someone who thinks Gavin should have taken over the reins at core and just made the decisions, in his favour presumably.

So he now has genuine  concern about decentralisation? The person who pushes for blacklists, passports for nodes, envisions a future where nodes are only run by larger companies. Defends gov prosecution of Shrem and their non-punishment of HSBC?

Not that I see a future where XT is the reference client, run by Hearn, as more decentralised then the situation now.


It really looks to me like Mikes main concern is about 'winning' and getting 'his way', and he will just use whatever reasoning to try and get that.

I think he is referring to the inability to fork the code even if the market wants it. Now what?

I don't think he is . Inability to fork to XT rules != mean centralisation.

You can fork the code btw and its trivially easy. Forking the chain with new protocol rules is not easy and should not  be easy. Thats tangential to what Hearn said.

Also its not true that the market wants a fork, a significant percentage does maybe.

I am not referring to XT specifically but considering all the drama that happened on a simple choice, I don't think it would ever be possible to fork the code no matter what the God like devs decide to include in the protocol.

[Holliday]

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?

How does the market choose?

The way Mike and Gavin did it? They just drop a choice and people went all over the top...

Individuals pointing out poor choices is part of the process of "the market", is it not?

[knight22]

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants?

How does the market choose?

The way Mike and Gavin did it? They just drop a choice and people went all over the top...

Individuals pointing out poor choices is part of the process of "the market", is it not?

Maybe you're right. Maybe people went nuts simply because that was the first time it ever happened...

[danielW]

I think he is referring to the inability to fork the code even if the market wants it. Now what?

How do we know if "the market" wants it?

By letting the market simply choose the implementation it wants? But considering all the drama a simple "choice" have created I think we can simply conclude bitcoin is indeed centralized.

I think part of the drama is that XT forks at only 75% with the presumed intention of strong-arming a minority onto its fork. It tries to fork onto new protocol rules without consensus.

You can run code like that.

I can also criticise such clients and urge people not to run them.

Thats decentralisation.

I am not referring to XT specifically but considering all the drama that happened on a simple choice, I don't think it would ever be possible to fork the code no matter what the God like devs decide to include in the protocol.

It is easy to fork the code and that has occurred. People have a choice to run forked code and Devs are completely powerless to stop it.

Where is the centralisation?

You can download XT now, nobody will stop you, you have choice, that is a fork of the code.

You should not tho because its damaging to Bitcoin (I believe). I cant force you either way. Thats decentralisation.

I think the problem is actually that Mike and some XT supporters want to force XT rules on a large segment of people who do not want their rules. Thats why they talk about 'leadership' and benevolent dictatorship.

Just like you have a choice I and many others have choice. We do not want XT or rules created by Mike.

Respect our choice and the fact you do not have consensus. Consensus means that often people will not get their way.

At some point I might not get my way also, but you might get protection from a change you did not sign up for. Thats the way Bitcoin was designed to work and overall I think its a net positive.

code fork != protocol chain fork btw

[coinmaster222]

At some time in a coins history you have to give up some de centralization for the coin to work for the masses or the conformation times would be years

[knight22]

Just like you have a choice I and many others have choice. We do not want XT or rules created by Mike.

Respect our choice and the fact you do not have consensus. Consensus means that often people will not get their way.

At some point I might not get my way also, but you might get protection from a change you did not sign up for. Thats the way Bitcoin was designed to work and overall I think its a net positive.

code fork != protocol chain fork btw

But Core supporters does't have the consensus neither for the status quo and they are forcing it on the other side...

Now what?

[danielW]

Just like you have a choice I and many others have choice. We do not want XT or rules created by Mike.

Respect our choice and the fact you do not have consensus. Consensus means that often people will not get their way.

At some point I might not get my way also, but you might get protection from a change you did not sign up for. Thats the way Bitcoin was designed to work and overall I think its a net positive.

code fork != protocol chain fork btw

But Core supporters does't have the consensus neither for the status quo and they are forcing it on the other side...

Now what?

We stay with the default. The protocol only changes with consensus. Thats how bitcoin was meant to work. For better or worse.

The other alternative, if a segment of economy absolutely can not stay with default, and no compromise is found, is to split into 2 separate coins.

Such splits will eventually occur. If not now then somewhere down the line about some other issue. Both coins might survive or eventually one will die.

Its not necessarily bad. Its like evolution and survival of the strongest.

[knight22]

Just like you have a choice I and many others have choice. We do not want XT or rules created by Mike.

Respect our choice and the fact you do not have consensus. Consensus means that often people will not get their way.

At some point I might not get my way also, but you might get protection from a change you did not sign up for. Thats the way Bitcoin was designed to work and overall I think its a net positive.

code fork != protocol chain fork btw

But Core supporters does't have the consensus neither for the status quo and they are forcing it on the other side...

Now what?

We stay with the default. The protocol only changes with consensus. Thats how bitcoin was meant to work. For better or worse.

The other alternative, if a segment of economy absolutely can not stay with default, and no compromise is found, is to split into 2 separate coins.

Such splits will eventually occur. If not now then somewhere down the line about some other issue. Both coins might survive or eventually one will die.

Its not necessarily bad. Its like evolution and survival of the strongest.

Another output could be that the blockchain finally come to the point of full bloat making shit hits the fan until 75% of miners switch to XT to release the valve.

[iCEBREAKER]

You can download XT now, nobody will stop you, you have choice, that is a fork of the code.

You should not tho because its damaging to Bitcoin (I believe). I cant force you either way.

If you run XT (and thus signal commitment to aiding in a "75%" attack on Core) you risk DDoS counterattacks.

Some of them are >25Gb, capable of knocking out an entire neighborhood/ISP/region.

Your ISP might decide it's a good time to start enforcing the 'no servers' part of their TOS, or just cut you off completely.   

[Zarathustra]

  Time for Schadenfreude Theater,

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop talking about you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Poor little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

[tvbcof]

  Time for Schadenfreude Theater,

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop talking about you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Poor little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

Ya, you tell that little puss to get his ass over here if he needs to get it kicked some more.

[Zarathustra]

  Time for Schadenfreude Theater,

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop talking about you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Poor little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

Ya, you tell that little puss to get his ass over here if he needs to get it kicked some more.

How does it feel to 'live' a stalker's life and cheerleading censorship?

[tvbcof]

  Time for Schadenfreude Theater,

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop talking about you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Poor little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

Ya, you tell that little puss to get his ass over here if he needs to get it kicked some more.

How does it feel to 'live' a stalker's life and cheerleading censorship?

You tell me.

[iCEBREAKER]

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop laughing at you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Happy little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

^Fixed it; no charge.   

The great thing about having so many BIPs is they collectively slow the process down to a deep freeze of eternal consideration.

Those of us who like the 1MB cap get exactly what we wanted all along.  You Gavininstas and Redditurds get to keep pounding sand.

As a HUUUUGE bonus, Team Core gained the benefit of many greedy impatient illiterate malcontents rage quitting to other forums, as pro-XT advocacy forced many clueless/useless posters (both young and old) to self-identify and encounter ridicule.



I see there is exactly 1 Member online at Bitco.in.  Is that you Zartard?  Are you lonley over there, while we keep on partying at thermos' crazy nerd disco?   

[tvbcof]

...
I see there is exactly 1 Member online at Bitco.in.  Is that you Zartard?  Are you lonley over there, while we keep on partying at thermos' crazy nerd disco?   

They are actually making screen-caps of this board so they have something to do over there.  I guess them milked each other dry in their little circle-jerk already.  Could anything possibly be more pathetic?

[Zarathustra]

"Cypher, the "little dogs nipping at your heels" from Bitcointalk can't stop laughing at you"

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-15#post-456

Happy little 1MB'ers. XT triggered so many BIPs about limit increase now.

^Fixed it; no charge.   

The great thing about having so many BIPs is they collectively slow the process down to a deep freeze of eternal consideration.

Those of us who like the 1MB cap get exactly what we wanted all along. 

Yes. We know that you trojans are happy about the current stalemate. But it won't last.

Why Monero matters
Adaptive limits. Doesn't suffer from the 1MB block limits.

https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters