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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

For the record, I also wasn't accusing you of being someone who would've hid Jews from the Nazis during the war.

ROFLMAO

Im still smiling at that one too. It would be funnier still if hdfuck actually understood it.

[1714840148]

1714840148

[1714840148]

1714840148

[1714840148]

1714840148

[1714840148]

1714840148

[1714840148]

1714840148

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

[brg444]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

Quite correct.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions here and there in bitcoin-wizards channel and forum.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

Because it actually never did.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

Well this article seems to say otherwise.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

[brg444]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

Because it actually never did.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

Well this article seems to say otherwise.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

 

Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself?

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

[brg444]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin.

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won

Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.

 

[Lauda]

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.

Democracy:

A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.

I'm not sure if you're being serious about this or not.

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

I do not think that the debate was ever continuous. However, the block size debate started a few years back (I'm not sure when exactly). If you have watched some podcasts, I'm sure that someone mentions this exact thing.

[hdbuck]

Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?

This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

Even more, choices does not imply you indeed have the choice.. especially in these faked democracies we live in.

Bitcoin is governance. Bitcoin is tyranny

Sure, altho he is the one that keeps on shilling his pseudoscience over the bitcoin's dev mailing list, wasting people's time that are fully public.
They got nothing to hide.. Does peter?
Hell even dat troll stolfi has came out at some point to somehow try at back his stuff up!

You dont throw your 'enlightening' opinion or whatever WPs, pretending it to somehow be valid without backing your 'research' by a full curriculum vitae.
And even more regarding the academics.

SO PETER, WHO ARE YOU?

Are you bothered by Satoshi remaining anonymous?

ROFLMAO Are you comparing satoshi to peter??? LOL actually i was waiting for that fallacy to be brought up by one of you noobs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

Because it actually never did.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

Well this article seems to say otherwise.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

 

Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself?

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

You're just like icebreaker.  When one point is refuted, you just go onto another one.

Yawn....

[brg444]

Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.

<sarcasm mode on>

You're right.  Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs
that are contributors to the core repo.

There was no discussions on the dev mailing list.

that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.

gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that.

</sarcasm>

Because it actually never did.

Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions.

The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position.

And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015)

Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it.

Well this article seems to say otherwise.
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/

 

Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself?

Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of?

You're just like icebreaker.  When one point is refuted, you just go onto another one.

Yawn....

Point is refuted? Again, where is the continuous 3 years debate?

If we're being honest the debate was actually engaged in May and lasted no more than 2 months before Mike & Gavin went rogue. If you pretend otherwise you're just a shameless liar.. what can I say 

[jonald_fyookball]

Point is refuted? Again, where is the continuous 3 years debate?

If we're being honest the debate was actually engaged in May and lasted no more than 2 months before Mike & Gavin went rogue. If you pretend otherwise you're just a shameless liar.. what can I say 

Yeah the point that Gavin "never told anyone" is refuted.

Now you're onto the next point, about how "continuous" the discussion was,
which is really starting to split hairs.  If you want to believe Gavin just stopped
communicating and "went rouge", what can I say?  Believe it. lol.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

I dont really understand the anti blockstream guys. Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee. On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.

[jonald_fyookball]

I dont really understand the anti blockstream guys. Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee. On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.

LN is fine.  Stonewalling bigger blocks isn't.

We still want Bitcoin to scale, even if it ultimately falls short of "surpassing VISA" on the main chain.

[Peter R]

Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee.

I might be that delusional.  Personally, I don't know how much Bitcoin could scale on chain.  Will it be useful for sour-candies from 7-11, XBoxes from BestBuy, or something else?  What I do know, however, is that people tend to underestimate how quickly technology and the free market can solve problems.

On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

[hdbuck]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?

[brg444]

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

Obligatory response:

Your paper is fundamentally flawed because it addresses nothing resembling the current dynamics at stake in Bitcoin. More precisely it ignores the incentives for miners to centralize (as they have shown to have) to mitigate propagation times. In effect your paper clearly demonstrates it is more profitable to do so under free-floating blocks and you essentially rely on their altruism to maintain the validity of your model to make decisions going forward. In short, your work might be sound from a technical standpoint but can not be used to construct security models that depend on worst-behaviours assumptions.

Relevant material:
http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-08-30/?msg=48477664&page=1
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010737.html

Everyone is free to read and make their own judgment but considerable holes have been poken into Peter's work and he has often been urged to revise his conclusions. He is now parading his charts, illustration all over the forum in an attempt to obtuse the debate, confusing more impressionable users who do not have time, ability or care for validating his propositions.

[jonald_fyookball]

...and Peter responded to that already 9 pages ago.

He who yells loudest and last ain't right.

[brg444]

...and Peter responded to that already 9 pages ago.

He who yells loudest and last ain't right.

There is no "responses" or "arguments" to "that". These are facts.

Peter is free to revise his paper by including these assumptions but I don't see how that would be productive.

[QuestionAuthority]

You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.

[brg444]

You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.

thank god