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

[marky89]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. 
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

[knight22]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. 
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

[jonald_fyookball]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. 
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

The current consensus of the protocol has a certain entrenchment by virtue of the core repository.  That is why there is a status quo bias of the protocol rules.

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

[knight22]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

[jonald_fyookball]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

the one that is truly decentralized?  Or the one that relies on lightning network 'trusted super nodes' ?

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

[brg444]

Both you noobs need to read this and educate yourself

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

[knight22]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.

[knight22]

Both you noobs need to read this and educate yourself

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

This article doesn't address scaling at all nor propose anything in that way so I couldn't care less.

[jonald_fyookball]

A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that.
I don't think it will come to that.

[RGBKey]

A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that.
I don't think it will come to that.

I agree with you here, if we see a hard fork, or really any drastic change, I think that the market will almost certainly reflect that negatively.

[knight22]

A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that.
I don't think it will come to that.

I agree with you here, if we see a hard fork, or really any drastic change, I think that the market will almost certainly reflect that negatively.

That would be a bump in the road in the grand scheme of things.

[iCEBREAKER]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. 
At least in my opinion.

Your opinion is completely wrong.  Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible.

And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening?  101 is the 'red uniform' BIP.  It's dead, Jim.  

[knight22]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

the one that is truly decentralized?  Or the one that relies on lightning network 'trusted super nodes' ?

Good enough decentralization will be good enough. With or without lightning network that doesn't yet exist.

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.

 

you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon

[knight22]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.

 

you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon

Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale.

[brg444]

so core devs control all the nodes and miners now  

Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run.  This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.  
 

Right.  So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.  
At least in my opinion.

This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.

If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.

Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.

I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?

Please advice.

If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.

You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?

Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.

 

you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon

Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale.

Your vision for Bitcoin is, quite honestly, pathetic.

Step outside for a minute and realise there are things more important to disrupt then "commerce". I guess that's the consumer in you speaking...Don't worry, we'll have a sidechain for you to buy your lattes.

[jonald_fyookball]

Your opinion is completely wrong.  Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible.

And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening?  101 is the 'red uniform' BIP.  It's dead, Jim.  

Its not nodes.  Its mined blocks.  derp.

[knight22]

-snip-
Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale.

Your vision for Bitcoin is, quite honestly, pathetic.

Step outside for a minute and realise there are things more important to disrupt then "commerce". I guess that's the consumer in you speaking...Don't worry, we'll have a sidechain for you to buy your lattes.

And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.