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

[brg444]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

[1715483429]

1715483429

[1715483429]

1715483429

[hdbuck]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

[knight22]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

My analogy still stand.

[hdbuck]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

My analogy still stand.

no.

[brg444]

Of course I understand, you've been very clear.  I just happen not to agree.  Therein lies the dilemma.  As far as it goes for the "mess" you mention, I still can't help but see the timeline like this:

Early adopters buy in,
Satoshi then introduces the 1mb cap (without testing) and there's little-to-no drama whatsoever,
Early adopters realise this could benefit them immensely if they can keep it capped for as long as possible,
Someone proposes a change to the cap as they realise not doing so could be detrimental to late adopters,
Drama ensues.

While I recognise there are implications for decentralisation if the blocksize is too large, I still have a feeling this is being overplayed.  I'm prepared to support smaller increases if that's what it takes to break the deadlock (as are others, so work with us, not against us), but I won't accept something that only results in creating a safe haven for some one-percenters if everything else in the global economy goes tits up.  There's a balance to be struck.  Either we find that balance, or things get messy and we find out how much the asset class is really worth when the people who want a global currency are on another chain.  I guarantee you won't attract the same level of hashpower if it plays out like that, so think this through very carefully.

 

I really want to work with you but I can't do that until you see things a bit more clearly.

First, you have the dilemma wrong. I cannot say why you pretend the small block size benefits early adopters (other than they're rich?) but realise you could find yourself in their seat sooner than later. To be clear, what I mean by that is lifting the block size cap effectively works as a subsidy for transaction fees. What we are now experiencing is a crowd of newcomers that were sold on the idea that Bitcoin was this fantastic payment payment network that would somehow replace all other methods of online payment FOR FREE. In effect we have created a considerable mass of people who feel they are entitled to a certain RIGHT to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain at zero or very low costs.

The dilemma is this: if we lift the cap now and continue subsidizing fees where does this stop? Understand that the "Free-Shit-Army" only grows in number as Bitcoin adoption increases. At some point YOU might be the person to try and tell them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the supposed adoption explosion big block supporters are trying to sell to everyone really occurs, NONE of the existing proposition will satisfy their demand. "Drama ensues."

As for your comments on people wanting a global currency forking to another chain, by all means go ahead. Unfortunately they should soon realize this is not how an economy is built. Getting 1% to adopt Bitcoin is quity simply the best case scenario around. That would mean that effectively most of the fiat wealth has transferred over to Bitcoin. That's the whole point about our little project. If you really propose that this chain goes head-to-head with the remaining 99% and their "global currency" let me break it to you now that it would be a blood bath.

Money gains value by people trusting capital to it ie. "hodling", not by trying to exchange it for a bunch of things (transactions). Therefore, I guarantee that you are wrong and miners will follow the money because they are certain rich people can afford the prices they have to pay to cover the miners' cost of supporting the network

Ultimately, larger blocks will provide greater financial benefits to miners than small ones.  Ergo, miners are going to choose larger blocks given the opportunity.  I can't see how you're going to prevent that from happening.  There is no reality or alternate universe where this doesn't hold true.

That part is particularely disappointing. You seemingly understand the dynamics at stake but can't put them together. Bitcoin is not about having miners do whatever they'd like so as to maximize profit. If it was it would be broken already. What you are describing is precisely the tragedy of the commons that would unfold if miners get to pick the size of the blocks: they would eventually be incentivized to create ever-bigger blocks while externalizing costs to nodes who aren't paid for their work.

In short, the incentives of two major players in the network are no longer aligned and all hell breaks lose as the only way to continue running the network is to centralize.

[knight22]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

My analogy still stand.

no.

Yes. What doesn't stand is your bold statement.

[hdbuck]

There are also a small number of people expressing more militant views that Bitcoin should become more of an asset for a privileged few than a global currency and argue for a permanent 1MB blocksize

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

My analogy still stand.

no.

Yes. What doesn't stand is your bold statement.

annnnd you back on ignore.

[tvbcof]

There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

Join us at bitco.in!

[DooMAD]

Of course I understand, you've been very clear.  I just happen not to agree.  Therein lies the dilemma.  As far as it goes for the "mess" you mention, I still can't help but see the timeline like this:

Early adopters buy in,
Satoshi then introduces the 1mb cap (without testing) and there's little-to-no drama whatsoever,
Early adopters realise this could benefit them immensely if they can keep it capped for as long as possible,
Someone proposes a change to the cap as they realise not doing so could be detrimental to late adopters,
Drama ensues.

While I recognise there are implications for decentralisation if the blocksize is too large, I still have a feeling this is being overplayed.  I'm prepared to support smaller increases if that's what it takes to break the deadlock (as are others, so work with us, not against us), but I won't accept something that only results in creating a safe haven for some one-percenters if everything else in the global economy goes tits up.  There's a balance to be struck.  Either we find that balance, or things get messy and we find out how much the asset class is really worth when the people who want a global currency are on another chain.  I guarantee you won't attract the same level of hashpower if it plays out like that, so think this through very carefully.

 

I really want to work with you but I can't do that until you see things a bit more clearly.

First, you have the dilemma wrong. I cannot say why you pretend the small block size benefits early adopters (other than they're rich?) but realise you could find yourself in their seat sooner than later. To be clear, what I mean by that is lifting the block size cap effectively works as a subsidy for transaction fees. What we are now experiencing is a crowd of newcomers that were sold on the idea that Bitcoin was this fantastic payment payment network that would somehow replace all other methods of online payment FOR FREE. In effect we have created a considerable mass of people who feel they are entitled to a certain RIGHT to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain at zero or very low costs.

The dilemma is this: if we lift the cap now and continue subsidizing fees where does this stop? Understand that the "Free-Shit-Army" only grows in number as Bitcoin adoption increases. At some point YOU might be the person to try and tell them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the supposed adoption explosion big block supporters are trying to sell to everyone really occurs, NONE of the existing proposition will satisfy their demand. "Drama ensues."

Hence why I've been trying to find some common ground with dynamic proposals.  I'm not saying it has to be raised right now.  Please stop asserting this.  I'm not saying let's support free shit for everyone.  Please stop asserting this.  A dynamic proposal would encourage a fee market in a more natural and gradual way than a blunt-force cap and provides some flexibility for the network if we do see a sudden surge in traffic.  It doesn't mean free shit for everyone forever.

As for your comments on people wanting a global currency forking to another chain, by all means go ahead. Unfortunately they should soon realize this is not how an economy is built. Getting 1% to adopt Bitcoin is quity simply the best case scenario around. That would mean that effectively most of the fiat wealth has transferred over to Bitcoin. That's the whole point about our little project. If you really propose that this chain goes head-to-head with the remaining 99% and their "global currency" let me break it to you now that it would be a blood bath.

Money gains value by people trusting capital to it ie. "hodling", not by trying to exchange it for a bunch of things (transactions). Therefore, I guarantee that you are wrong and miners will follow the money because they are certain rich people can afford the prices they have to pay to cover the miners' cost of supporting the network

That's a big gamble for you to take.  I'm highly dubious that most one-percenters are going to repeat the mistake some people here are making.  They're going to invest in something they can control.  They're not going to invest in an open source coin where they can't enforce rules that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.  If you want one-percenter-coin, I suggest you get coding on a closed source project.  Bitcoin clearly wasn't designed to entrench the status quo, it was designed to disrupt it.

Ultimately, larger blocks will provide greater financial benefits to miners than small ones.  Ergo, miners are going to choose larger blocks given the opportunity.  I can't see how you're going to prevent that from happening.  There is no reality or alternate universe where this doesn't hold true.

That part is particularely disappointing. You seemingly understand the dynamics at stake but can't put them together. Bitcoin is not about having miners do whatever they'd like so as to maximize profit. If it was it would be broken already. What you are describing is precisely the tragedy of the commons that would unfold if miners get to pick the size of the blocks: they would eventually be incentivized to create ever-bigger blocks while externalizing costs to nodes who aren't paid for their work.

In short, the incentives of two major players in the network are no longer aligned and all hell breaks lose as the only way to continue running the network is to centralize.

Again, there's no way you can prevent centralisation altogether.  You can either work with us and find a compromise that keeps centralisation to a minimum, or you can take the risk that the majority won't continue supporting a network that doesn't support them and lose some hashpower to the network that does.  Again, it's an open source coin, so it's inevitable that miners will have the choice eventually.  There is literally nothing you can do to prevent that happening, so by your definition, it's already broken and you should have chosen a closed source coin to invest in.

[brg444]

Hence why I've been trying to find some common ground with dynamic proposals.  I'm not saying it has to be raised right now.  Please stop asserting this.  I'm not saying let's support free shit for everyone.  Please stop asserting this.  A dynamic proposal would encourage a fee market in a more natural and gradual way than a blunt-force cap and provides some flexibility for the network if we do see a sudden surge in traffic.  It doesn't mean free shit for everyone forever.

I am increasingly doubtful of dynamic proposals for two reasons: they can be gamed by miners and they don't address the actual problem of cost externalization to nodes. My hope is that we can eventually set the blocksize in stone forever when we have built the proper infrastructures of payment channels, sidechains and quality off-chain services. If these prove to be more efficient, faster and generally more easy to use then I, for one, wouldn't care using them for 95% of my transactions.

That's a big gamble for you to take.  I'm highly dubious that most one-percenters are going to repeat the mistake some people here are making.  They're going to invest in something they can control.  They're not going to invest in an open source coin where they can't enforce rules that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.  If you want one-percenter-coin, I suggest you get coding on a closed source project.

It's not a gamble, it's economics. You might not agree but you're wrong. The one-percenters are not the governement, they could careless about "control". What they care about is privacy and security for their wealth from governement taxes, inflation, confiscation, censorship etc. Bitcoin is the one and only coin which currently boast these attributes.

So no, again, it is not a matter of interpretation: you are absolutely wrong about this aspect. I don't want a "one-percenter exclusive" coin, I want the coin that the 1% will adopt, because that is where the value resides.

Again, there's no way you can prevent centralisation altogether.  You can either work with us and find a compromise that keeps centralisation to a minimum, or you can take the risk that the majority won't continue supporting a network that doesn't support them and lose some hashpower to the network that does.  Again, it's an open source coin, so it's inevitable that miners will have the choice eventually.  There is literally nothing you can do to prevent that happening, so by your definition, it's already broken and you should have chosen a closed source coin to invest in.

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

I'm sorry for the strong words but as one wise man by the name of  hdbuck once said : fuck compromises, fuck the majority.  If you wanna argue there is nothing we can do to stop centralization then fuck you too, you're definitely not working with us (those that actually care about Bitcoin and what it stands for).

[tvbcof]

...
A dynamic proposal would encourage a fee market in a more natural and gradual way than a blunt-force cap and provides some flexibility for the network if we do see a sudden surge in traffic.  It doesn't mean free shit for everyone forever.
...

Firstly, it isn't 'blunt force'.  The cap has been around for many years and everyone has known about it and talked about it for nearly that amount of time.  Yes, the marketing cheerleaders tried to bury it, but people who count have been keenly aware of it.  I personally didn't know about it from the moment I read the whitepaper or even from the moment I bought my first Bitcoin, but it was not terribly long afterwards.  Indeed, concern about the relatively obvious problem of unmitigated growth actually worked as a negative in my initial accumulation phase because I could see the danger.  When I learned that that problem had been thought of by Satoshi and the 1MB patch was in place it was a big load off my mind.

Secondly, blocks are to this point full of a large percentage of crap that does not need to be there.  It serves as a giant and resilient buffer to absorb any 'blunt force' impact we are likely to see.  When this buffer comes within anywhere near it's design strength then we'll have a basis for forming something which remotely resembles a 'consensus' on block size.  By that time we'll know quite a lot more about the resilience of the global internet itself as well and that is an utterly critical element in the security of something like Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  It's your only option.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.  

[brg444]

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.  

You really don't get it do you?

It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin. It's blatantly obvious from past experiences that a good majority of miners don't have a clue what that is.

Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones. Moreover chances are they are likely voting AGAINST XT/BIP101 more than anything else.

Remember also that there are no such things as "the miners" as a collective. Some couldn't bother about bigger blocks since they can barely handle actual load, other larger miners see in bigger blocks an opportunity to consolidate their share of the network by eventually putting smaller ones out of business.

The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.

[DooMAD]

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.  

OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.

You really don't get it do you?

It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.

Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.

The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.

I get it just fine, thanks.  Bitcoin needs the miners to function.  You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want.  You were literally just now talking about aligned incentives, so I can't see why you're suddenly struggling with the concept.  If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust.  I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.  

[brg444]

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.  

OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.

You really don't get it do you?

It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.

Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.

The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.

I get it just fine, thanks.  Bitcoin needs the miners to function.  You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want.  If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust.  I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.   

Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.

Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?

"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us  "

[DooMAD]

Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.

Nah, I made a small alteration, but I feel the message is pretty clear.  I definitely don't see why I'd leave out the part where you admitted miners want larger blocks.  That's pretty devastating to your case, heh.  And if I'm wrong, I'll still have coins on both chains.  The only one with something to lose here is you.

Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?

"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us  "

I don't think they are going to lobby for that because we've already established that larger blocks will give them greater income.


This is what happens when you dig your heels in and refuse to discuss compromises.  There might still time to change your tone and find some common ground.  Better make it quick, though.  Again, if you can get behind a smaller increase that would limit future centralisation, I'll support it with you.  I'm prepared to stop this belligerence if you are.  Otherwise, we'll see where the fork takes us.

[hdbuck]

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust.  

OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.

You really don't get it do you?

It's not about what the miners want. It's about what's best for Bitcoin.

Obviously if you ask the miners to vote for a proposal that gives them more control and more opportunity for profit they will vote for it, especially the bigger ones.

The compromise is not on Bitcoin. It's on you to adopt it as it exists of fork off.

I get it just fine, thanks.  Bitcoin needs the miners to function.  You're going to lose them because you don't want what they want.  If you want to stay on a chain without the miners, have fun hodling your worthless asset dust.  I'm honestly starting to wonder if you really get it.  

Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.

Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?

"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us  "

lol these people seems not to even grasp how a simple consensus works..

never wonder why miners didnt left for sum cheap ready to be mint altcoin yet?! not even XT?

how about you give us a break you retards. fork aint gonna happen. Bitcoin is set in stone.

you either abide or leave, and im sure miners, like all the rest of you forkers know the way out. but would you? lol no.

[brg444]

Maybe you wan't to review my corrected post and re-consider yours.

Nah, I made a small alteration, but I feel the message is pretty clear.  And if I'm wrong, I'll still have coins on both chains.  The only one with something to lose here is you.

Are you going to use the same logic when miners insist the fees can't cover their maintenance cost and they lobby to increase the block subsidy?

"We should comply with what they're asking for else they'll leave us  "

I don't think they are going to lobby for that because we've already established that larger blocks will give them greater income.


This is what happens when you dig your heels in and refuse to discuss compromises.  There might still time to change your tone and find some common ground.  Better make it quick, though.  Again, if you can get behind a smaller increase that would limit future centralisation, I'll support it with you.  I'm prepared to stop this belligerence if you are.  Otherwise, we'll see where the fork takes us.

As it stands my vote is with BIP000

https://t.co/zElC8D9dPV

[iCEBREAKER]

We are fucked with XT and we are fucked with 1MB blocks. Solution: A reasonable blocksize increase with blockstream. Unfortunately it seems you have to choose between decentralization of nodes or low fees for everyone (at the expense of centralizing the nodes).

 

Everything fine over here...

Let's start a Trolltalk drinking game, where we take a shot every time some moran expresses their false sense of urgency.

[hdbuck]

BTW..



XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!