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

[brg444]

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? 

Yes. Mathematically enforced scarcity. Surely you didn't think people are holding onto Bitcoin because of its 7tps 10 min confirmation time payment system....?

[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.

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.

Sure, it works great for a couple of my own niche use cases as well (overseas transfer, etc).

But no amount of "I disagree" is going to change the fact that this remains a marginal use case.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

1.  Bitcoin is not moving forward with bigger blocks anytime soon.

blah blah blah....  

2.  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.  

1. Wrong. This is going to happen, whether you are happy about it or not.

2. They dont go around openly advocating dDos attacks, the MPfag tactic du jour.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

I asked you to not be such a poor sport about winding up on the losing side of the Great (albeit abortive) Schism.

But there you are, projecting your epic butthurt onto us triumphant defenders of Core.

I guess hoping you could be a good sport was expecting too much from you.

Do you know what the word 'propensity' means?

Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

Now that XT is properly rekt, there is zero propensity for larger blocks in the short or medium term future.

[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? 

Yes. Mathematically enforced scarcity. Surely you didn't think people are holding onto Bitcoin because of its 7tps 10 min confirmation time payment system....?

the scarcity is enforced by maths???  Jesus, you have no idea how it works, do you? The scarcity is a line of code which could be changed in a heartbeat. Only the security is enforced by "math".

[VeritasSapere]

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?  

Yes. Mathematically enforced scarcity. Surely you didn't think people are holding onto Bitcoin because of its 7tps 10 min confirmation time payment system....?

That is why I think it should be increased. Mathematically enforced scarcity of the supply is important, this does not refer to the block size however. Not increasing the block size should be considered as the "change".

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

I asked you to not be such a poor sport about winding up on the losing side of the Great (albeit abortive) Schism.

But there you are, projecting your epic butthurt onto us triumphant defenders of Core.

I guess hoping you could be a good sport was expecting too much from you.

Do you know what the word 'propensity' means?

Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

[ Classic MPfag Malapropism here...]

I feel terrible - you sound genuinely hurt and sad.  Are we finally getting to you? Is the appalling vista of upcoming larger blocks finally dawning upon you?

Your arguments are getting more flaky and desperate by the day. I think you will have to extend you criminal dDos attacks to the whole bitcoin network soon as you start to deal with your sadness through anger.  

ps. I was joking about feeling terrible. So you feel sad? Good.

[iCEBREAKER]

Do you know what the word 'propensity' means?

Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

Now that XT is properly rekt, there is zero propensity for larger blocks in the short or medium term future.

I feel terrible - you sound genuinely hurt and sad.  Are we finally getting to you? Is the appalling vista of upcoming larger blocks finally dawning upon you?

Your arguments are getting more flaky and desperate by the day. I think you will have to extend you criminal dDos attacks to the whole bitcoin network soon as you start to deal with your sadness through anger.  

ps. I was joking about feeling terrible. So you feel sad? Good.

Your social engineering attacks may (for ADHD-limited times) be effective against Redditards, but they have no power here.

But please keep up the ugly displays of poor sportsmanship, because hearing such distraught lamentations wafting over the XT's rekt corpse is what's best in life.   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Do you know what the word 'propensity' means?

Here, I'll use it in a sentence:

Im Hurtin', Momma.

I feel terrible - you sound genuinely hurt and sad.  Are we finally getting to you? Is the appalling vista of upcoming larger blocks finally dawning upon you?

Your arguments are getting more flaky and desperate by the day. I think you will have to extend you criminal dDos attacks to the whole bitcoin network soon as you start to deal with your sadness through anger.  

ps. I was joking about feeling terrible. So you feel sad? Good.

Your social engineering attacks may (for ADHD-limited times) be effective against Redditards, but they have no power here.

But please keep up the ugly displays of poor sportsmanship, because hearing such distraught lamentations wafting over the XT's rekt corpse is what's best in life.  

Please continue to share your pain through the medium of your posts. Its wonderful to witness it.

[mallard]

I feel like I've caught a terrible disease after reading through some of this argument.

[iCEBREAKER]

Now that XT is properly rekt, there is zero propensity for larger blocks in the short or medium term future.

I don't understand what the word "malapropism" means, but it sounds very intimidating (wow such syllables) so I'll throw it around regardless.

Sorry your dreams of bloated Gavinblocks never amounted to anything except the destroyed reputations of Galvin, Heam, Frap.doc, Peter R, solex, and yourself.

Oh wait, you never had a reputation in the first place.  Carry on.   

I feel like I've caught a terrible disease after reading through some of this argument.

Yes, this forum is legendary for causing cancer.  Only we trolls have herd immunity!   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

iCEBREAKER Requote fail.

Lost your sense of humour, and now you have lost your imagination... It was funnier when I did it.  #MPfagFail

 

[cbeast]

This user is currently ignored.

This is what I see.

[iCEBREAKER]

This is what I see.

Yes, and this one is good too.




I'll buy your account for 5 XMR, if you'll fork off to forum.bitcoin.com or /v/bitcoinxt (and thus by being among the first to defect from Core's socioeconomic majority demonstrate, instead of merely blustering about, your Gavinista bona fides).

[jonald_fyookball]

fuck off with your monero alt coin.

this has got to be the mpfaggiest thread in the known universe.

[brg444]

fuck off with your monero alt coin.

this has got to be the mpfaggiest thread in the known universe.

There goes LambChop's cheerleader again... he doesn't need you buddy.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

fuck off with your monero alt coin.

this has got to be the mpfaggiest thread in the known universe.

There goes LambChop's cheerleader again... he doesn't need you buddy.

The voices....  The voices!

That persecution complex of yours is starting to become acute. Maybe you should see a doctor.

I'm sure there is a horse suppository he could prescribe...  

“Many [of the core devs are] interested or at least willing to accept a ‘short term bump,’ a hard fork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via ‘net-utxo’ rather than a simple static hard limit.  2-4-8 and 17%/year were debated and seemed ‘in range’ with what might work as a short term bump – net after applying the new cost metric.”

[RoadTrain]

This thread has gone full retard. Constructive discussion has grinded to a halt. You guys are all like one another, Special Olympics.

[erik777]

The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.

There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.

Agreed.  One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment.  Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything.  If anything, the gap appears to be widening.  We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split.  I honestly don't see this ending amicably.  


Points to remember:

• If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
• Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
• Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
• Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
• Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.

Oxymorons to avoid:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"

!Hearn

[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

Its a typo, seriously?

two identical typos in the same sentence, seriously?